Understanding a Sylow theory proof

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mr Davis 97
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Theory
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding a proof related to Sylow theory, specifically the action of a group ##G## on its 2-Sylow subgroups ##\operatorname{Syl}_2(G)## by conjugation. Participants explore the implications of normality in this context and the nature of the action being well-defined.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question how the action of ##G## on ##\operatorname{Syl}_2(G)## by conjugation can be well-defined if ##\operatorname{Syl}_2(G)## is not normal, suggesting that conjugation typically applies to normal subgroups.
  • Others clarify that ##\operatorname{Syl}_2(G)## is not a subgroup of ##G## but rather a collection of 2-Sylow subgroups, and that conjugation of a subgroup results in another subgroup within the same collection.
  • A participant notes that while the action is transitive, it does not imply that the subgroups involved are normal, leading to further questions about the implications of transitivity for the action being nontrivial.
  • Another participant points out that if two distinct 2-Sylow subgroups can be related by conjugation, this indicates that the permutation associated with this action is nontrivial.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of normality for the action of ##G## on ##\operatorname{Syl}_2(G)##, with some agreeing on the nature of the action while others raise concerns about the definitions and implications involved. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the broader implications of these points.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the lack of normality affects the group structure of the cosets formed, which may complicate the analysis of homomorphisms and the definition of the action.

Mr Davis 97
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
44
https://imgur.com/a/oSioYel

I am trying to understand this proof, but am tripped up on the part that says "Consider the action of ##G## on ##\operatorname{Syl}_2(G)## by conjugation." My question is, how is this a well-defined action if ##\operatorname{Syl}_2(G)## is not normal? Isn't this action by conjugation defined only on subgroups that are normal?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mr Davis 97 said:
https://imgur.com/a/oSioYel

I am trying to understand this proof, but am tripped up on the part that says "Consider the action of ##G## on ##\operatorname{Syl}_2(G)## by conjugation." My question is, how is this a well-defined action if ##\operatorname{Syl}_2(G)## is not normal? Isn't this action by conjugation defined only on subgroups that are normal?
Given any operation ##\varphi \, : \, U\times G \longrightarrow G## with a subgroup ##U\leqslant G## we can define cosets ##g.U=\varphi(g,U)=\{\,g.u\,|\,u\in U\,\}## which in our case are the sets ##gUg^{-1}##. This partitions ##G## into subsets of equal size.

Now the point is, that those sets are just that: sets. Since ##U## isn't normal, we simply cannot define a group structure on this set ##G/U## of sets. So as long as we are only counting elements, everything will be fine. If we want to consider homomorphisms ##U \rightarrowtail G \twoheadrightarrow G/U## we will have a problem if ##U## isn't normal. So normality directly corresponds to the fact, that ##G/U## is again a group or not.
 
[itex]Syl_2(G)[/itex] is not a subgroup of [itex]G[/itex]; rather, it is the set of all of the 2-Sylow subgroups of [itex]G[/itex]. If [itex]H\in Syl_2(G)[/itex], then [itex]gHg^{-1}\in Syl_2(G)[/itex] too (and can be a different element if [itex]H[/itex] is not normal).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Mr Davis 97
Infrared said:
[itex]Syl_2(G)[/itex] is not a subgroup of [itex]G[/itex]; rather, it is the set of all of the 2-Sylow subgroups of [itex]G[/itex]. If [itex]H\in Syl_2(G)[/itex], then [itex]gHg^{-1}\in Syl_2(G)[/itex] too (and can be a different element if [itex]H[/itex] is not normal).
Got it. One more question. Why does that fact that ##\rho## is transitive imply that it is nontrivial?
 
Let [itex]H_1,H_2\in Syl_2(G)[/itex]. Since the action is transitive, there is an element [itex]g\in G[/itex] such that [itex]gH_1g^{-1}=H_2[/itex]. We can pick [itex]H_1,H_2[/itex] to be different, and then this means that [itex]\rho(g)[/itex] is not the trivial permutation.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Mr Davis 97

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K