Timeline for Sylow p-subgroups of locally finite groups
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 28, 2013 at 18:17 | comment | added | YCor | For some reason I didn't notice the comments earlier. You're right, I misread $S_i$ normal in $G$ instead of normal in $S_{i+1}$. Anyway as noticed by user35603, subnormal is enough and I edited accordingly. | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 18:15 | history | edited | YCor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
little correction to fit with the hypotheses
|
| Jun 26, 2013 at 11:24 | vote | accept | user35603 | ||
| Jun 26, 2013 at 11:24 | comment | added | user35603 | Thanks to all. I think you are right. | |
| Jun 26, 2013 at 6:29 | comment | added | j.p. | @user35603: As there are only finitely many possibilities for $M_n$ ($\le S_i$), at least one of them shows up infinitely times often. | |
| Jun 25, 2013 at 22:57 | comment | added | user35603 | But why $M$ does not depend on $n$? | |
| Jun 25, 2013 at 22:40 | comment | added | user35603 | @Neil Strickland. Yes, $S_i$ is normal olny in $S_{i+1}$. In other words, $S_i$ is subnormal in $S_j$ for $j>i$. But it's O.K., the Lemma is valid in that case too. And I proved something similar too. But... | |
| Jun 25, 2013 at 21:49 | comment | added | Neil Strickland | You seem to be assuming that $S_i\triangleleft S_j$ for all $j>i$, which does not automatically follow from the case $j=i+1$ as in the question. However, I suspect that the OP meant to assume the stronger version. | |
| Jun 25, 2013 at 18:37 | history | answered | YCor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |