MHB Why Can't a Proper Normal Subgroup Contain a Sylow Normalizer in a Group?

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

Let $P$ be a $p$-Sylow subgroup in $G$ and $N=N_G(P)$.

I want to show that there is no proper normal subgroup $H$ of $G$ that contains $N$.
We suppose that there is a proper normal subgroup $H$ of $G$ that contains $N$, $$N\leq H<G$$

Then $[G:N]=[G:H][H:N]$, with $[G:H]>1$.

How can we find a contradicion? (Wondering)

Do we use the definition of a normal subgroup? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do we maybe use Frattini Argument? (Wondering)

By Frattini Argument we have that $G=HN_G(P)$.

Since $H$ is a normal subgroup of $H$ and since $N_G(P)\leq H$, we have that $HN_G(P)\subseteq H \Rightarrow G\subseteq H$.

We have that $H\subseteq G$.

So, it holds that $G=H$. This is a contradiction, since $H$ is a proper subgroup of $G$. Is this correct? (Wondering)
 
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
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
377
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K