Let $G$ be a doubly transitive subgroup of $S_n$ which contains an $n$-cycle, and let $G_{12}$ be the subgroup of $G$ consisting of all elements $g\in G$ for which $g(1)=1$ and $g(2)=2$. Then $G_{12}$ has an orbit on $\{3,4,...,n\}$ which is preserved by $N_{12}$, where $N$ is the normalizer of $G$ in $S_n$.

I can prove this by using the classification of doubly transitive groups with an $n$-cycle, which depends on the classification of finite simple groups. But I think there should be a 5-line proof which uses nothing more than the definition of double transitivity. Can anyone find such a proof?

The reason I believe that such a proof should exist is as follows. The main result of a 1954 paper by Uchiyama asserts that if $f(x)$ is a degree-$n$ polynomial in $\mathbf{F}_q[x]$ for which $\displaystyle\frac{f(x)-f(y)}{x-y}$ is absolutely irreducible, and if in addition the characteristic of $\mathbf{F}_q$ is sufficiently large compared to $n$, then the image set $f(\mathbf{F}_q)$ contains at least $q/2$ elements. In fact Uchiyama gives only part of the proof, and says he will give the full proof elsewhere; but his published papers do not contain the full proof. I can deduce Uchiyama's result from the group-theoretic assertion in a few lines, using tools Uchiyama knew. So I think this might be the proof he had in mind. Since he did not indicate that he used any nontrivial group theory, I suspect that if he had a proof of the group-theoretic result then it must have been very simple. The group-theoretic result is stronger than what Uchiyama needed, but still it seems like the most natural statement he might have tried to prove. I note that nowadays one can prove much more precise results than Uchiyama's by using tools developed in the past 60 years; but still it would be interesting to know whether there is indeed a simple proof along the lines I suggested, in case such a proof might provide further insights.

  • $\begingroup$ Start aiming for a (to give room) 15 line proof that begins "By double transitivity of G, the orbit / action of G12 on orbit is ...", and see where you get stuck. Then ask about that point on MO. $\endgroup$ – The Masked Avenger May 5 '14 at 15:39

This is not an answer, rather a comment about this appealing question: I believe that an elementary argument would be surprising, because the presence of an $n$-cycle is a condition which is hard to use, and the assertion doesn't hold anymore without this assumption.

Here is one potential approach: If $G=\text{AGL}_1(\mathbb F_p)=C_p\rtimes C_{p-1} $ for a prime $p$, then $G=N$ and there is nothing to prove. Also, the case that $G$ is triply transitive is trivial. So assume that neither holds. Then, again by the classification of the simple groups, $G_{12}$ has just $2$ orbits on $\{3,4,\dots,n\}$. So it would be interesting to have an easy proof for that independent of the finite simple groups classification! Anyway, to finish things, one would have to show that $N_{12}$ can't switch these two orbits. This is easy if $G_{1}$ is imprimitive on $\{2,3,4,\dots,n\}$. If $G_{1}$ is primitive though, maybe Higman's theory helps.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How can $G_{12}$ be primitive on $\{3,4,\ldots,n\}$? It is not even transitive. $\endgroup$ – Derek Holt May 5 '14 at 16:25
  • $\begingroup$ Perhaps representation theory can be used? The number of orbits of $G_{12}$ on $\{3,4,\ldots,n\}$ is the number of non-trivial irreducible constituents of the permutation module for $G_1$ acting on $\{2,\ldots, n\}$. On the other hand, 2-transitivity means that the permutation module for $G$ has only one non-trivial irreducible constituent. $N_1$ must permute the non-trivial irreducible constituents of the permutation module for $G_1$ on $\{2,\ldots, n\}$ and this is tied to the action of $N_{12}$ on the irreducible constituents by the connections between orbitals, suborbits & centralizers. $\endgroup$ – Benjamin Steinberg May 5 '14 at 19:13
  • $\begingroup$ @Ben: one difficulty is that the conclusion is not true for arbitrary 2-transtive groups; somehow the $n$-cycle hypothesis must be used, but it isn't clear how to make use of it. $\endgroup$ – Michael Zieve May 6 '14 at 1:39
  • $\begingroup$ Agreed. That is the tricky business. $\endgroup$ – Benjamin Steinberg May 6 '14 at 1:49

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.