1
$\begingroup$

Let $|G| = 2p$. The result is clear is $p$ is even.

The proof goes on to show that there is only one subgroup of order $p$ is p is an odd prime - my question is that, why do we need to show that there is only ONE subgroup of order $p$? By Sylow theorem, there exists a subgroup of order $p$, call this $H$ then $|H| = p$ so $H = C_p$ which is cyclic and hence abelian, and $|G / H| = 2$ so $G/H = C_2$ and is also cyclic and of index $2$ so is normal, so we have the chain $\{e\} \subset H \subset G$ where $H$ is normal in $G$ and $H$ and $G/H$ are cyclic, so abelian.

Now in the proof I am given, they first use sylow theorems to show there is only one subgroup of order $p$, then they use my argument - my question is why is one subgroup needed, what would go wrong if there were multiple subgroups of order $p$?

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

The Sylow $p$-subgroup is unique iff it is a normal subgroup. But I agree that the argument that index 2 implies normal is more appealing.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ So do we not need to show that there is only one subgroup of order $p$? Is it sufficient to say there is a subgroup of order $p$ (which is given by Sylow) and then use the argument I said above? $\endgroup$
    – james1395
    May 12, 2016 at 20:35
  • $\begingroup$ Instead of Sylow, I would even use "only" Cauchy $\endgroup$ May 12, 2016 at 20:38
  • $\begingroup$ Cauchy's theorem tell us there is an element of order $p$ of $G$ - does this necessarily mean that there is a subgroup of $G$ of order $p$? $\endgroup$
    – james1395
    May 12, 2016 at 20:42
  • $\begingroup$ The cyclic subgroup generated by that element is a subgroup of order $ p $. $\endgroup$
    – Ege Erdil
    May 12, 2016 at 20:56
1
$\begingroup$

You don't need the full strength of Sylow I to show that there is a subgroup of order $ p $, using Cauchy's theorem suffices. As an alternative way of proving uniqueness, let $ H $ be our cyclic subgroup of order $ p $ and let $ g $ be an element of order $ p $. Now, let $ \langle g \rangle $ act on $ G/H $ (the left coset space) by left multiplication. By fixed point congruence, $ \textrm{Fix}_{\langle g \rangle}(G/H) \equiv |G/H| = 2 \pmod{p} $, so that the entire set $ G/H $ is fixed by the action, and in particular we have $ gH = H $ or $ g \in H $.

On the other hand, as you've remarked, this is not necessary. It does, however, show that this is the only possible composition series of $ G $, which perhaps is the point of proving that the subgroup is unique.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ that helps, thanks for your answer $\endgroup$
    – james1395
    May 12, 2016 at 20:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @james1395 : For uniqueness, you can also make a simple cardinality argument as follows. If $H$ and $K$ are subgroups of order $p$, then $2p = |G| \geq |HK| = |H||K|/|H \cap K| = p^2/|H \cap K|$, so $|H \cap K| \geq p/2 > 1$ (the last inequality holds because $p > 2$). This forces $|H \cap K| = p$, so $H = K$. $\endgroup$
    – user169852
    May 12, 2016 at 22:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .