I The cases in proving that group of order 90 is not simple

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mr Davis 97
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Group
Mr Davis 97
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
44
https://imgur.com/a/FuCPJLe

I am trying to attempt this problem, but I am wondering why exactly these are the two cases the problem is split into. I can understand the first case, since that let's us count elements and get a contradiction, but why is the second case there? In other words, why do these two cases exhaust all possibilities?

EDIT: Actually, I think that I see it now. Since the intersection of subgroups is a subgroup, by Lagrange we must have that the negation of two distinct Sylow 3-subgroups intersecting trivially is intersecting with 3 elements.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
see pages 65-66 of these class notes:

http://alpha.math.uga.edu/%7Eroy/843-1.pdf
 

Thread '##(A/\mathfrak{a})_{\mathfrak{p}/\mathfrak{a}}## and its isomorphism?'

I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
View full post »

Thread 'Questions about non existence of GCDs vs (coimages, cokernels)'

The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
View full post »

Thread 'Trouble understanding an online solution to an exercise in Dummit & Foote'

##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Is G simple?Is G simple? A different approach using Sylow theorems
Replies
5
Views
2K
I Differences between left vs right actions in some group theory questions
Replies
1
Views
50
I Determining the number of conjugacy classes in a p-group
Replies
6
Views
2K
I Question about "A Group Epimorphism is Surjective"
Replies
13
Views
567
Insights Groups, The Path from a Simple Concept to Mysterious Results
Replies
17
Views
8K
MHB Can You Prove These Properties of Normal Subgroups in Group Theory?
Replies
2
Views
2K
I Why only normal subgroup is used to obtain group quotient
Replies
5
Views
3K
I Dfns group action & group, written in terms of the other
Replies
26
Views
372
Proving the Simplicity of a Group of Order 36 Using Sylow Subgroups
Replies
9
Views
8K
I First Sylow Theorem: Group of Order ##p^k## & Cyclic Groups
Replies
1
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top