MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $t_{k}$ be the number of elements of order $k$ in the group $G$. It known that if $|P|=p$ (where $P$ is Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G$), then $t_{2p}$ is a multiple of $t_{p}$. Now let $|P|=p^{2}$, the number of Sylow $p-$subgroups be $1$ and the number of cyclic subgroups of order $p$ be $p+1$. Also let the number of cyclic subgroups of order $2$ be $p(p+1)/2$. Is it true the number of cyclic subgroups of order $2p$ is a multiple of $p+1$? Or: Is it true $t_{2p}$ is a multiple of $t_{p}$? Thanks in advance.

share|cite|improve this question
You asked the same question on Math StackExchange, where I have given a counterexample. – Derek Holt Jul 23 '12 at 11:39
@Derek Holt: My question asked 7 hours ago and you have given a counterexample 2 hours ago on Math StackExchange. – Niki Jul 23 '12 at 11:44
It's usually better not to ask the same question in several places at the same time. This leads to duplication of effort, so it shows a lack of respect for the time of the people you are asking to help you. At the very least, you should post a link to the other question when you cross-post. – Douglas Zare Jul 23 '12 at 20:40

Not sure that this is a research level question: however.... . Under these hypotheses, $p$ is odd. An involution is an element of order $2$. If $t$ is an involution of $G,$ then $t$ must normalize an element of order $p$ (in fact, must centralize an element of order $p$). For otherwise $[G:C_{G}(t)]$ is divisible by $p^{2}.$ But $G$ is assumed only to contain $\frac{p(p+1)}{2}$ elements of order $2.$ But $G$ has a normal Sylow $p$-subgroup. Hence $C_{G}(t)$ contains $1$ or $p+1$ subgroups of order $p$ ( $1$ if $t$ does not centralize $P$, $p+1$ if $t$ centralizes $p$). The number of cyclic subgroups of order $2p$ maybe expressed as $\sum_{t} [G:C_{G}(t)] n_{p}(t)$, where $t$ runs over involutions of $G$ up to conjugacy, and $n_{p}(t)$ denotes the number of cyclic subgroups of $C_{G}(t)$ of order $p$. By assumption, $\sum_{t} [G:C_{G}(t)]$ is $\frac{p(p+1)}{2}$. This leaves uncounted $\sum_{u}p[G:C_{G}(u)]$ subgroups of order $2p,$ where $u$ runs over involutions of $C_{G}(P)$ up to $G$ conjugacy. I see no a priori reason why this last number should be divisible by $\frac{p+1}{2},$ which it would need to be for your question to have a positive answer.

share|cite|improve this answer
Since Derek Holt has given a counterexample, this partial answer is redundant. – Geoff Robinson Jul 23 '12 at 12:11

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.