Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Another unsolved question from my studying for quals -

Show that if $G$ is a group of order $2002=2\cdot 7 \cdot 11 \cdot 13$, then $G$ has an abelian subgroup of index 2.

I know it has to do with the direct product of the normal subgroups of G, but I'm not sure how to relate that to what I need.

share|improve this question
    
@Serkan: With full details your approach should be shorter (and easier) than the one given by DonAntonio. –  j.p. Aug 16 '12 at 7:47

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

If $\,n_p=\,$ number of Sylow p-subgroups of $\,G\,$ , then $\,n_{13}=1=n_{11}\,$, thus letting $\,Q_p\,$ be a Sylow p-sbgp., we have that $$Q_{11}\,,\,Q_{13}\triangleleft G\Longrightarrow Q_{11}Q_{13}\triangleleft G\Longrightarrow P:=Q_{11}Q_{13}Q_7\triangleleft G$$ the last one being a subgroup of order $\,7\cdot 11\cdot 13\,=1001$ in $\,G\,$.

Abelianity follows from the fact that the only group of order $\,1001\,$ is the cyclic one, as $\,P\cong C_{11}\times C_{13}\times C_7\,\,,\,\,C_m:=\,$ the cyclic group of order $\,m\,$

Added: Please note the comment by Jack Schmidt below for an alternative approach: by the Schur-Zassenhaus theorem, if we have $\,N\triangleleft G\,$ s.t. $\,\left(|N|,\left|G/N\right|\right)=1\,$ then $\,G\cong\,N\rtimes G/N\,$ .

In our case, take $\,N:=Q_{11}\,$ and apply the above, then take $\,G/N\,\,,\,\left|G/N\right|=2\cdot 7\cdot 13=182\,$ , which has a unique Sylow 7-subgroup, which we know is $\,\,\,\overline Q_7=Q_7N/N\,$ , and again apply the S-Z theorem to obtain $$G/N\cong \overline Q_7\rtimes \left(G/N\right)/\overline Q_7$$ with $\,\,\left(G/N\right)/\overline Q_7\cong G/Q_7Q_{11}\,\,$ , and so on.

Note that we can directly apply Sylow theorems to deduce that $\,\,G/Q_7Q_{11}\,$ has a unique Sylow 13-sbgp. which we cannot do, at least directly or easily, with the original group using only Sylow theorems, which is what Jack writes there.

share|improve this answer
2  
why is $n_{13} = 14$ not possible? –  user33321 Aug 15 '12 at 18:56
1  
@Serkan: Hehe, Hall's theorem or Zassenhaus's theorem (both easy). But yes, it is a hassle to show that $n_{13} \neq 14$ just from Sylow counting. –  Jack Schmidt Aug 15 '12 at 19:16
1  
DonAntonio: You can fix it by considering $G/Q_{11}$ then $G/Q_7Q_{11}$, then $Q_{13}(Q_7 Q_{11})$ is the needed subgroup. –  Jack Schmidt Aug 15 '12 at 19:19
    
Indeed @JackSchmidt, that seems simpler and I'll add an observation to my answer. –  DonAntonio Aug 15 '12 at 23:20

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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