What can be said about the set of primes $p$ for which it is proven that an infinite group with all non-trivial proper subgroups cyclic of order $p$ doesn't exist? Specifically, what is the largest such $p$ (say $p_0$)? All I could find in the literature is $p_0\le 10^{75}$, but I admit I didn't look very far...

  • $\begingroup$ Aren't there small primes p > 700 for which the finitely generated infinite Burnside groups exist? Or are you looking for p even and nonprime? Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2012.10.17 $\endgroup$ – Gerhard Paseman Oct 18 '12 at 5:35
  • $\begingroup$ Huh? p must be prime, as we are looking for "every subgroup" $\endgroup$ – Feldmann Denis Oct 18 '12 at 7:29
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I suspect that the largest prime for which this it is known that no Tarski Monster exists is 3 (but I might be wrong)! $\endgroup$ – Derek Holt Oct 18 '12 at 9:12

The largest known prime for which existence of Tarski monster is not known is $997$, see Adyan, S. I.; Lysënok, I. G. Groups, all of whose proper subgroups are finite cyclic. Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 55 (1991), no. 5, 933--990; translation in Math. USSR-Izv. 39 (1992), no. 2, 905–957. There are currently no methods of proving that for a given prime $p$ a Tarski monster does not exist except for showing that all finitely generated groups of exponent $p$ are finite. This gives hope that the bound $997$ can be lowered to $665$ (or below $300$ assuming the recent Adian's announcement is correct).

  • $\begingroup$ Probably I should say that 1 $\endgroup$ – Mark Sapir Mar 10 '19 at 19:32

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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