Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Suppose that $G$ is a finite group such that $(|G|, 15)=1$. Why $G$ is solvable group?

share|improve this question
1  
Is there any reason to think that this question will have an answer simpler than the proof of the odd order theorem, which is the same claim with $2$ in place of $15$? –  David Speyer Sep 11 '12 at 14:46
1  
@David Speyer: I have studied in a paper " it is not hard to prove by the classification that if $(|G|,15)=1$, then $G$ is solvable". So I thought that it has an answer simpler. –  A E Sep 11 '12 at 15:04
    
If you allow the classification, the odd order theorem is proved the same way: Look at the table of finite noncyclic simple groups; notice they all have even order. –  David Speyer Sep 11 '12 at 18:00
1  
I think the odd order theorem is an explicit step in the Classification, while the "$(G,15)$ is not. –  YCor Sep 11 '12 at 22:47
1  
show 1 more comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

We note that the Suzuki groups are only non-Abelian simple groups of order prime to $3$ and $5$ is a prime divisor of the Suzuki groups. Let $G$ be unsolvable group, then $G$ has the following normal series: $1\unlhd K\lhd M\unlhd G$ such that $M/K$ is a non-Abelian simple group (and or $M/K\cong S\times $ $ S\cdot \cdot \cdot \times S$ where $S$ is non-Abelian simple group). As $ 3\nmid |G|$, then $M/K$ is a Suzuki group ( and or $M/K\cong S\times $ $ S\cdot \cdot \cdot \times S$ where $S$ is a Suzuki group). On the other hand $5\nmid |G|$, then $M/K$ is not isomorphic to a Suzuki group (and or $ M/K\ncong S\times $ $S\cdot \cdot \cdot \times S$ where $S$ is a Suzuki group), a contradiction.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Because as you go through the list of finite simple noncyclic groups, you can observe that their orders are divisible by either 3 or 5. In fact, only a few of them, for instance, $\,^2B_2(8)$, will have orders not divisible by 3...

Off course, this argument depends on the classification... Maybe, there is a trick to show it directly...

share|improve this answer
2  
Certainly, one should be able to get away with Thompson's classification of minimal non-solvable groups, which predates the classification. –  Benjamin Steinberg Sep 11 '12 at 13:52
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.