Definition: A group $G$ is indecomposable if: $G = G_1 \times G_2 \Rightarrow \exists i \ G_i = 1$.

We can generalize the notion of indecomposable from groups to inclusion of groups as follows:

Definition: Two inclusions of finite groups are equivalent, $(A \subset B) \sim (C \subset D)$, if: $(A/A_B \subset B/A_B) \simeq (C/C_D \subset D/C_D)$ with $A_B$ the normal core of $A$ in $B$.
Remark: The equivalence class of $(A \subset B)$ is the same that the conjugacy class of a transitive permutation group $G$ (see this GAP Data Library) with $(A \subset B) \sim (G_1 \subset G)$.

Definition: An inclusion of groups $(H \subset G)$ is indecomposable if (for $H_i \le G_i)$: $(H \subset G) \sim (H_1 \times H_2 \subset G_1 \times G_2)$ $\Rightarrow$ $\exists i \ H_i = G_i$
Examples: The maximal inclusions are indecomposable.

In the maximal (finite index) case, $(H \subset G)$ is indecomposable and $G$ decomposable if and only if
$(H \subset G) \sim (D_S \subset S \times S)$ with $S$ a nonabelian finite simple group and $D_S$ the diagonal subgroup.
It's proved by the answer here. Are there others examples beyond the maximal case?

Question: What's the classification of indecomposable inclusions $(H \subset G)$ with $G$ decomposable?


1 Answer 1


If I have understood the definition of an indecomposable inclusion correctly, then any core-free subgroup $H$ of a direct product $G=G_1 \times G_2$ in which $H$ is indecomposable, and is not contained in any direct factor of $G$ isomorphic to $G_1$ and $G_2$ will be an example.

There are many such examples, such as $G=S_3 \times S_3$ with $H$ a diagonal subgroup of order $2$, $3$, or $6$.

  • $\begingroup$ It seems to be essentially a diagonal phenomenon. If $G_1$ and $G_2$ have no isomorphic (non-trivial) subgroup then an indecomposable subgroup $H$ of $G_1 \times G_2$ is contained in one direct factor. Then we could reduce the classification to the classification of $(H \subset K^n)$ with $H$ core-free and $H \le D_K$ with $D_K$ the whole diagonal subgroup of $K^n$, isn't it? $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 31, 2014 at 15:12
  • $\begingroup$ About the choice of this long definition, what is not clear to me is the existence of a core-free decomposable inclusion $(H \subset G)$ which is (then) $\sim (H_1 \times H_2 \subset G_1 \times G_2)$ but $\not = (H'_1 \times H'_2 \subset G'_1 \times G'_2)$ (with $H'_i < G'_i$). $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 31, 2014 at 15:30
  • $\begingroup$ About the first comment: "$G_1$ and $G_2$ have no isomorphic (non-trivial) subgroup" means that $1 \neq K_i \le G_i$ implies that $K_1 \not\simeq K_2$. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 31, 2014 at 15:34
  • $\begingroup$ The first sentence of your first comment is correct if $G_1$ and $G_2$ are both finite, because then they must have coprime order, but not in general. For example, the (additive) group ${\mathbb Z}_4 \oplus {\mathbb Z}$ has infinite cyclic subgroups that are not contained in either factor. $\endgroup$
    – Derek Holt
    Commented Aug 31, 2014 at 17:42
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for this information. In fact I'm mainly interested in the classification for finite groups. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 31, 2014 at 17:51

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.