MHB Show that the group is not simple

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Group
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

I want to show that:

If $G$ contains a subgroup with index at most $4$ and $G$ has not a prime order, then $G$ is not a simple group. In my notes I found the following proposition:

$$H\leq G, \ [G:H]=m \text{ and } |G|\not\mid m! \text{ then } G \text{ is not simple. }$$

We have that $H\leq G$ and $[G:H]=m, \ 1\leq m\leq 4$.

Suppose that $|G|\mid m!$.
  • If $m=1$, then $G=H$, or not? Can that be? (Wondering)
  • If $m=2$, the possible values for $|G|$ are $1$ and $2$. It cannot be that $|G|=2$, since $G$ has not a prime order.
  • If $m=3$, then $|G|\mid 3!=6$, then the possible values for $|G|$ are $1,2,3,6$.
    The cases $2,3$ are rejected, since $G$ has not a prime order.
    Can the order of $G$ be $6$ ? (Wondering)
  • If $m=4$, then $|G|\mid 4!=24$, then the possible values for $|G|$ are $1,2,3,4,6,8,12,24$.
    The cases $2,3$ are rejected, $G$ has not a prime order.
    Are the other cases possible? (Wondering)
Or do we not use this proposition? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The action of $G$ by left-mulitplication on the left coset space of $G/N$ is given by:

$g\cdot xN = (gx)N$.

This gives a homomorphism $\phi: G \to S_{[G:N]}$.

I will do the case $[G:N] = 4$, which should tell you how to proceed for $n = 3$ (we don't typically allow the case $n = 1$, since the trivial group is usually not counted as simple, much like 1 is not considered prime, and if $[G:N] = 2$, then $N \lhd G$).

If we assume (in order to find a contradiction) $G$ is of non-prime order, but simple, then $\text{ker }\phi = \{e_G\}$

(We know that $\text{ker }\phi \neq G$ because if $xN \neq N$, then $x$ sends $N \to xN$, so $x \not\in \text{ker }\phi$).

Therefore, $G$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $S_4$. So, in order to show a contradiction, we need to show no subgroup of $S_4$ of non-prime order is simple.

The possible subgroups we need to investigate have orders: $4,6,8,12,24$.

There is only one subgroup of order 24, $S_4$ itself, which is not simple since $A_4 \lhd S_4$. So $|G| \neq 24$.

The only subgroup of order 12 of $S_4$ is $A_4$, which is not simple since its Sylow 2-subgroup $V$ is normal.

There are 3 subgroups of $S_4$ of order 8, each is isomorphic to $D_4$, the dihedral group of order 8, and $D_4$ is not simple (the subgroup of an isomorph of $D_4$ in $S_4$ generated by a $4$-cycle, is of index 2, thus normal).

This rules out $|G| = 8,12$.

$S_4$ has no elements of order 6, and so no subgroup isomorphic to $\Bbb Z_6$. It does have subgroups of order 6 isomorphic to $S_3$ (the subgroups which fix a particular letter), but $S_3$ is not simple, since it has a subgroup of index 2.

So $|G| \neq 6$.

That only leaves $|G| = 4$, but any group of order 4 is abelian, and being of non-prime order, any non-trivial subgroup of prime order (in this case of order 2) is normal.

So $G$ cannot be simple, QED.
 
Deveno said:
The action of $G$ by left-mulitplication on the left coset space of $G/N$ is given by:

$g\cdot xN = (gx)N$.

This gives a homomorphism $\phi: G \to S_{[G:N]}$.

Why do we look at the action of $G$ on the left coset space of $G/N$ ? (Wondering)
 
To form a group homomorphism from $G \to \text{Sym}(G/N)$, when there are $4$ cosets, then:

$\text{Sym}(G/N) \cong S_4$.
 
Deveno said:
To form a group homomorphism from $G \to \text{Sym}(G/N)$, when there are $4$ cosets, then:

$\text{Sym}(G/N) \cong S_4$.

So, do we look at the left cosets, because we have an information for $[G:N]=|G/N|$, where $G/N$ is defined as $\{gN\mid g\in G\}$, which is the set of left cosets? (Wondering)
 
mathmari said:
So, do we look at the left cosets, because we have an information for $[G:N]=|G/N|$, where $G/N$ is defined as $\{gN\mid g\in G\}$, which is the set of left cosets? (Wondering)

Yes, because that gives us a possible left action.

We could look at the right cosets, if we wanted to, but we'd have to use a right action:

$Nx\cdot g = N(xg)$ (the index is the same, either way).
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
678
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
728
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K