MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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 $k$ be a positive integer. Is it true that any finite group $H$ of cardinal $4k+2$ whose center contains an element $h$ of order $2$ is isomorphic to the direct product $H=(\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})\times G$, where $G=H/\{1,h\}$?

An equivalent statement would be: Let $G$ be a finite group of odd cardinal. Is it true that the second cohomology group $H^2(G,\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})$ with respect to the trivial action of $G$ on $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$, vanishes?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 11 down vote accepted

There is a reasonably simple argument that any group $H$ of twice odd order has a normal subgroup $N$ of index 2. Given that, if you know also that $H$ has a central subgroup $Z$ of order 2, then it is straightforward to show that $H \cong N \times Z$.

The argument goes like this. By Cayley's Theorem, there is an isomorphism $\phi$ that maps $G$ to a permutation group of degree $|G|$ in which all non-identity elements of $G$ act without fixed points. So the elements of order 2 in $G$ are mapped by $\phi$ onto odd permutations, and hence the inverse image $N$ in $G$ of the intersection of the image of $\phi$ with the alternating group has index 2 in $G$.

share|cite|improve this answer
This is exactly the kind of argument I was looking for, thank you Derek! – Andrei Moroianu Nov 14 '10 at 17:57

Yes, because $G$ and $Z/2Z$ have coprime order, every extension of one by the other splits by the Schur-Zassenhaus theorem ( If you prefer, $H^2(G,M)$ is killed both by $|G|$ and by $|M|$, so it must be trivial in your case.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks, Tim; I have found some more references about the S-Z theorem here: I wonder, however, if there is some simple argument in this particular case, since I have the impression that one burns the house to fright the mouse away (this is the english equivalent I have found for the french expression 'tuer une mouche avec un canon'). – Andrei Moroianu Nov 14 '10 at 17:21
Actually, Tim's second argument about the vanishing of $H^2$ is independent of Schur-Zassenhaus and I don't think you can hope for anything simpler: the hypothesis that the order of your subgroup is co-prime to its index is crucial, because otherwise the result would be false in general. Since you asked whether $H^2$ vanished, it doesn't really get much simpler than just saying "yes, because it is killed by restriction-corestriction, which is multiplication by $2k+1$, and by 2". – Alex B. Nov 14 '10 at 18:04
Well, Derek's argument appears simpler to me, though. – Andrei Moroianu Nov 14 '10 at 18:08

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.