2
$\begingroup$

I know two facts and I’ve managed to figure out how to prove one, but the other one is still a little confusing.

Let $G$ be a finite solvable group and $F(G)$ is the Fitting subgroup of $G$.

(1) $G/Z(F(G))$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of ${\rm Aut}(F(G))$;

(2) $G/F(G)$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of ${\rm Out}(F(G))$.

Proof of (1):

$F(G)$ is normal in $G$, so $G=N_G(F(G))$. Since $G$ is solvable, $Z(F(G))=C_G(F(G))$. $F(G)$ is a characteristic subgroup of $G$ and $Z(F(G))$ is a characteristic subgroup of $F(G)$, therefore $Z(F(G))$ is characteristic and normal in $G$, and $G/Z(F(G))$ is hence well-defined. By the $N/C$ theorem, $G/Z(F(G))=N_G(F(G))/C_G(F(G))$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of ${\rm Aut}(F(G))$.

About (2), I asked a question and have got some ideas.

I know that $F(G)/Z(F(G))\cong {\rm Inn}(F(G))$ and by (1) that $G/Z(F(G))$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of {\rm Aut}(F(G))$.

So by the third isomorphism theorem, we have $G/F(G) \cong G/Z(F(G)) \big/ F(G)/Z(F(G))$.

If it is true that, say, “if $A\cong M$ and $B\cong N$ where $B\trianglelefteq A$ and $N\trianglelefteq M$ then $A/B\cong M/N$”, then we’re done. However, it is not true in general. I believe that I ignored something important. So what should I do next? It really seems very close. It’s quite obvious to think in an intuitive way that $G/F(G)\cong G/Z(F(G)\big/ F(G)/Z(F(G))$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of ${\rm Aut}(G)/{\rm Inn}(G)$ since the $G/Z(F(G))$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of ${\rm Aut}(G)$ and $F(G)/Z(F(G))\cong {\rm Inn}(G)$. But it’s not sufficient in a proof. I think there’s still something missing.

Let me just make my question clear. I want to take an example. Assume that $A$ is a subgroup of $C$ and $B\trianglelefteq A$. Also, assume that $N\trianglelefteq M$. If $A\cong M$ and $B\cong N$, then it is Not true in general that $A/B\cong M/N$. So in the case that we were talking about, $C={\rm Aut}(F(G))$, $B={\rm Inn}(F(G))$, $M=G/Z(F(G))$, $N=F/Z(F(G))$, it’s just the same: $M$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $C$, namely $A$, and $N\cong B$. But we don’t have $A/B\cong M/N$ in general. I want to know how to prove it in this specific case.

Any help is welcome. Thanks!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Often "X is isomorphic a subgroup of Y" is poor way of starting "this natural map from X to Y is an isomorphism", which in case is not easy to state can better be stated as "there is a natural injective homomorphism from X to Y". By poor way, I mean that when one applies such a statement, one needs to refer to some given natural map, not the bare existence of such a map. $\endgroup$ – YCor May 2 at 14:18
  • $\begingroup$ @GeoffRobinson Thanks. I mentioned that in my post, this isomorphism theorem does play a key role in the proof. But I got stuck after using this theorem. $\endgroup$ – Hello May 2 at 14:22
  • $\begingroup$ @GeoffRobinson $F(G)/Z(F(G))\cong {\rm Inn}(F(G))$ and by (1) that $G/Z(F(G))\cong {\rm Aut}(F(G))$. If it is true that, say, “if $A\cong M$ and $B\cong N$ where $B\trianglelefteq A$ and $N\trianglelefteq M$ then $A/B\cong M/N$”, then we’re done. However, it is not true in general. It’s exactly where I got stuck. The isomorphism theorem does bring me very close to the conclusion. But there’s still something in my way. $\endgroup$ – Hello May 2 at 14:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It is not a question of "fault", but you do probably have to figure it out for yourself. $\endgroup$ – Geoff Robinson May 2 at 16:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That's what I explained (or tried to) in the comments before. These are now deleted. It's indeed true that the third isomorphism theorem isn't really necessary. $\endgroup$ – Geoff Robinson May 6 at 11:42
5
$\begingroup$

For (2), there is a general construction at work here. Given a short exact sequence of groups

$$1 \to K \to G \to Q \to 1$$

there is always a well-defined homomorphism $\varphi: Q\to \mathrm{Out}(K)$. The idea is to lift elements of $Q$ into $G$, and have them act on $K$ by conjugation. It would be instructive to work out the specifics yourself! Note that $\ker(\varphi)$ is the image of $C_G(K)$ into $Q$.


So, let’s think about the specific situation we’re in. We have a short exact sequence

$$1\to F(G) \to G \to G/F(G) \to 1$$

and a map $\varphi: G/F(G)\to\mathrm{Out}(F(G))$. We want to prove this map is injective. Fortunately, the kernel is the image of $C_G(F(G))$ into $G/F(G)$ ... which we know is trivial since $G$ is solvable! (You mentioned $C_G(F(G)) = Z(F(G)) \subseteq F(G)$ so it collapses in the quotient).

Thus, the kernel is trivial and so $G/F(G)$ naturally sits as a subgroup of $\mathrm{Out}(F(G))$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I should note that this general construction comes up often in very natural situations. At least, it does with groups I care about in geometry and topology. $\endgroup$ – Santana Afton May 3 at 4:29

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.