0
$\begingroup$

Given a finite group G, we denote by Aut(G) the group automorphisms of G . Which finite groups G can be characterized by the group Aut(G), i.e. Aut(H)≅Aut(G) implies H≅G?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ You need to be more precise about what you mean by $Aut(H)=Aut(G)$. Do you mean that $Aut(H)$ is isomorphic (as an abstract group) to $Aut(G)$? $\endgroup$
    – verret
    Dec 23, 2015 at 9:07
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Carmichael's conjecture states that the equation $\varphi(x)=n$ (where $n$ is given) never has a unique solution. This amounts to saying that the finite cyclic group $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$ is never characterized by the order of its automorphism group. $\endgroup$ Dec 23, 2015 at 9:08
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, Aut(H)≅Aut(G) implies H≅G? $\endgroup$
    – R. Shhaied
    Dec 23, 2015 at 10:09

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

It is probably best to concentrate on groups $G$ with $Z(G) =1$. For example, a finite group $G$ which is a direct product of non-Abelian simple groups is determined by its automorphism group. For $G \cong {\rm Inn}(G)$ is isomorphic to a normal subgroup of $A = {\rm Aut}(G)$. I claim that $G \cong E(A)$ (which is the central product of all components-that is, quasisimple subnormal subgroups- of $A$). Since $G \cong {\rm Inn}(G)$ in a natural manner we may regard $G$ as a (normal) subgroup of $A$, and then we certainly have $G \leq E(A)$. Now suppose that $A$ has a component $L$ which is not contained in $G$. Then $[L,G] = 1$ by standard properties of components (just the three subgroups Lemma is needed). But $L$ is a subgroup of ${\rm Aut}(G)$, a contradiction. Hence $G$ is isomorphic to $E(A)$, which is a uniquely determined characteristic subgroup of $A$.

Later edit: To be strict, I realise that this does not answer the question as asked. If $G$ is as in my answer, and two or more of the simple direct factors of $G$ are isomorphic, or if the simple direct factors of $G$ are pairwise non-isomorphic but at least one direct factor has non-trivial outer automorphisms, the above argument shows that ${\rm Aut}(A) \cong A = {\rm Aut}(G)$, while $G \not \cong A$, as $G$ has non-trivial outer automorphisms in those cases.

Hence to answer the question as asked, we need to take $G$ to be a direct product of pairwise non-isomorphic non-Abelian simple groups, each of which has trivial outer automorphism group.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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