3
$\begingroup$

I want to prove or find a counterexample to the following statement.

Let $G$ be a finite group. If for every minimal subgroup $L$ (= cyclic subgroup of prime order), there exists a minimal subgroup $H$ such that $\langle L,H\rangle=G$. Then one of the following cases occurs:

a) $G$ is a Frobenius group whose kernel is an elementary abelian p-group and the complement is a prime order group.

b) $G=Z_{p}\times Z_q$

c) $G$ is a simple group.

Thank you in advance.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I suppose you mean $nontrivial$ minimal subgroup? So that must be a cyclic group of prime order. $\endgroup$ – user1688 Aug 14 '16 at 5:25
  • $\begingroup$ (I think you should also allow the case when $G$ has prime order.) Suppose that $G$ has a minimal normal subgroup $N$ which is abelian. Let $L$ be a minimal normal subgroup of $G$ contained in $N$. Let $H$ be as in the hypothesis. If $H\leq N$, then $G$ is abelian and it is easy to see that we have $H=L=G$. Thus, $H\cap N=1$ hence $G=N\rtimes H$ and it is easy to see that we are either in your case a) or b). Hence we may assume that $G$ has no nontrivial normal abelian subgroup. In other words, it has trivial soluble radical. $\endgroup$ – verret Aug 14 '16 at 5:43
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure where to go from here. It's not obvious to me why some almost simple group, say, could not have the required property. $\endgroup$ – verret Aug 14 '16 at 5:43
  • $\begingroup$ Dear verret. why did you say " Suppose that $G$ has a minimal normal subgroup $N$ which is "abelian"? what will be wrong if we suppose that $G$ has a nonabelian minimal normal subgroup? $\endgroup$ – H.Shahsavari Aug 14 '16 at 13:27
  • $\begingroup$ Well, that was simply the case I could deal with. After thinking a bit more, I think I can now reduce to the almost simple case. By the previous comment, we may assume that $G$ has trivial soluble radical. Let $N$ be a minimal normal subgroup of $G$. We have $N=T_1\times \cdots \times T_k$ where the $T_i$ are isomorphic nonabelian simple groups. Moreover, they are the only minimal normal subgroups of $N$. Now, pick $L$ in $T_1$ and let $H$ be as in the hypothesis. Say $|H|=p$. $\endgroup$ – verret Aug 14 '16 at 22:56
5
$\begingroup$

$\mathrm{P\Sigma L}(2,8)$ is a counter-example.


A corrected version of the statement is that, under the hypothesis, either

a) $G\cong Z_p$ for some prime $p$,

b) $G\cong Z_p\times Z_q$ for some primes $p$ and $q$,

c) $G$ is a Frobenius group with kernel an elementary abelian $p$-group and the complement has prime order, or

d) $G$ is an almost simple group.

Proof:

Let $N$ be a minimal normal subgroup of $G$. We have $N=T_1\times\cdots \times T_k$, where the $T_i$'s are isomorphic simple groups. Take $L\leq T_1$ and let $H$ be as given by the hypothesis.

Case 1) $H\leq N$. In this case, we have $G=N$. If $T$ is abelian, then $G$ is abelian hence $k=1$ and we are in case a). If $T$ is nonabelian then, since $N$ is generated by $T_1$ and $H$ a group of prime order, we find that $k=1$ and $G$ is simple.

Case 2) $H\not\leq N$. Since $H$ has prime order, we have $N\cap H=1$ and thus $G=N\rtimes H$. If $T$ is abelian, then either $H$ is malnormal and $G$ is Frobenius and we have c), or $G$ is abelian and we have b). If $T$ is nonabelian, then the $T_i$'s are the only minimal normal subgroups of $N$ and $H$ must act transitively on $\{T_1,\ldots,T_k\}$. As $H$ has prime order, either $k=1$ (and we are in case d)), or $k=|H|$. In the latter case, $L$ has exactly $k$ conjugates, each of them contained in some $T_i$. On the other hand, these conjugates must generate $N$, which is a contradiction.


Note that this not exactly a characterisation. For example, not all almost simple groups have this property and neither do all groups in c).

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I found this too but you posted first. More generally $L_n(q^f):f$ (i.e. ${\rm PSL}_n({\bf F}_{q^f})$ extended by the Galois automorphism $x \mapsto x^f$ should work for any prime power $q$ and any odd prime $f$. Note that $f=2$ cannot work because if $L$ is a two-element subgroup of $G' := {\rm PSL}_n({\bf F}_{q^f})$ then $H$ would have to be another $2$-element group (else $\langle H,L \rangle \subseteq G'$), but two involutions can only generate a dihedral group. Thus $(n,q,f) = (2,2,3)$ is the first candidate of this kind. $\endgroup$ – Noam D. Elkies Aug 15 '16 at 4:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For your example ${\rm P}\Gamma {\rm L}(2,8)$ (a.k.a. $\Sigma {\rm L}(2,8)$) one can always generate $L$ by a conjugate of the Frobenius map. This may be true in general for ${\rm PSL}_n({\bf F}_{q^f})$. $\endgroup$ – Noam D. Elkies Aug 15 '16 at 4:16
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think your comment would be worth be included in your answer (which would not only provide a counterexample but would also provide a correct characterization) $\endgroup$ – YCor Aug 15 '16 at 11:45
  • $\begingroup$ (correction to my first comment: the Galois automorphism of course takes $x$ to $x^q$, not $x^f$.) $\endgroup$ – Noam D. Elkies Aug 15 '16 at 15:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @YCor Ok, I've done that! $\endgroup$ – verret Aug 15 '16 at 23:22
-1
$\begingroup$

For a prime number $p$ the symmetric group $S_p$ is generated by a $p$-cycle and a transposition. These two elements generate individually minimal cyclic subgroups. I think this is case d) of Verret's answer.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Note that the problem requires that for every minimal subgroup $L$ there exist a minimal subgroup $H$ such that $G=\langle L,H\rangle$. The fact that $S_p$ is generated by a $p$-cycle and a transposition only shows that there exists a minimal subgroup $L$ for which a minimal subgroup $H$ exists with the desired property. For instance, in $S_5$, if $H=\langle (1,2,3)\rangle$, then no $L$ exists: a $3$-cycle and a $3$- or $5$-cycle generate a subgroup of $A_5$; and a $3$-cycle and an element of order $2$ will not give you all of $S_5$. So $S_5$ does not satisfy the hypothesis. $\endgroup$ – Arturo Magidin Aug 16 '16 at 2:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks Arturo Magidin. I did not read the question carefully. I was wondering how a simple one seem to have been missed by many. This explains it! I am the one who missed reading the hypothesis! $\endgroup$ – P Vanchinathan Aug 16 '16 at 2:12

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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