Sylow Theorems and Simple Groups: Proving Non-Simplicity for Groups of Order 96

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adorno
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Groups
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that no group of order 96 is simple, utilizing the Sylow theorems as a foundational tool. The participants explore the implications of the group order and the structure of its Sylow subgroups.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply the third Sylow theorem to determine the possible values of the number of Sylow subgroups, questioning how to demonstrate that either n_2 or n_3 must equal 1. Other participants discuss the existence of a homomorphism related to group actions and the implications of the kernel being normal.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants engaging in the exploration of group actions and their consequences. Some guidance has been provided regarding the definition of a homomorphism and the nature of the action, but there is no explicit consensus on the overall approach yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of the Sylow theorems and the specific group order of 96, which influences their reasoning and assumptions about subgroup structures.

Adorno
Messages
29
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Prove that no group of order 96 is simple.

Homework Equations


The sylow theorems

The Attempt at a Solution


96 = 2^5*3. Using the third Sylow theorem, I know that n_2 = 1 or 3 and n_3 = 1 or 16. I need to show that either n_2 = 1 or n_3 = 1, but I am unsure how to do this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let H be a 2-Sylow subgroup. Then the index of N_G(H) is 3 by the Sylow theorems.

Can you prove that there exists a homomorphism G\rightarrow S_3??

Hint: define an action by left multiplication on N_G(H).

What can you infer from the kernel being normal?
 
I'm not too good at group actions. What would the action be? And where would the homomorphism come from?

If the kernel is normal, then it must be trivial, otherwise there would be a non-trivial normal subgroup of G.
 
I gave you the action: left multiplication on N_G(H).
 
So does that action look like (g, n) |-> gn where n is in N_G(H)?

Ok, so how about the homomorphism? Do you map an element of g to the action of left multiplication by g on N_G(H)?
 
The action is

(g,aN_G(H))\rightarrow gaN_G(H)
 
So we define the map phi : G -> S_3 by phi(g) = (left multiplication by g).

I can see why this is a homomorphism. (Since left multiplication by g_1g_2 is the same as left multiplication by g_2, then left multiplication by g_1).

Is this right?
 
Yes, that is right.

The kernel of this map is a normal subgroup, so what do we get from G being simple?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K