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.

Question: Determine all the finite groups that have exactly one nontrivial proper subgroup.

MY attempt is that the order of group G has to be a positive nonprime integer n which has only one divisor since any divisor a of n will form a proper subgroup of order a. Since 4 is the only nonprime number that has only 1 divisor which is 2, All groups of order 4 has only 1 nontrivial proper subgroups (Z4 and D4)

share|improve this question
1  
$D_4$ is the Klein $4$-group, which has three non-trivial proper subgroups. –  Brian M. Scott Sep 18 '12 at 21:34
    
What about $9$? –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Sep 18 '12 at 21:36
    
Or 25? $ $ $ $ $ $ –  Did Sep 18 '12 at 21:38
1  
Your claim that any divisor of $n$ gives you a subgroup of that order is false: for example, $A_4$ has order $12$ but no subgroup of order $6$. –  Chris Eagle Sep 18 '12 at 21:40
1  
Hint: Pick an element outside your unique proper subgroup, and check the subgroup it generates... –  user641 Sep 19 '12 at 4:29

3 Answers 3

You began reasonably, but then you went off the track. First, $D_4$ won’t work: it’s the Klein $4$-group, $(\Bbb Z/2\Bbb Z)\times(\Bbb Z/2\Bbb Z)$, which has three non-trivial proper subgroups, one generated by each of the non-identity elements.

Secondly, the fact that some integer $n$ divides the order of $G$ does not ensure that $G$ has a subgroup of order $d$, as noted in the comments. You do, however, have the first Sylow theorem available. (Note: This replaces the nonsense that I wrote originally.)

Finally, $4$ isn’t the only non-prime with only one non-trivial divisor: for each prime $p$, $p^2$ is such a number. You want at least the groups $\Bbb Z/p^2\Bbb Z$, or in your notation $\Bbb Z_{p^2}$, for all primes $p$. Can you identify exactly what the non-trivial proper subgroup is in each of these groups?

share|improve this answer
    
@anon: Yes, I realized almost immediately that I’d written an idiocy. You apparently caught it just about when I did. –  Brian M. Scott Sep 18 '12 at 21:53

Let $H$ be the only non-trivial proper subgroup of the finite group $G$. Since $H$ is proper, there must exist an $x \notin H$. Now consider the subgroup $\langle x\rangle$ of $G$. This subgroup cannot be equal to $H$, nor is it trivial, hence $\langle x\rangle = G$, that is $G$ is cyclic, say of order $n$. The number of subgroups of a cyclic group of order $n$ equals the number of divisors of $n$. So $n$ must have three divisors. This can only be the case if $n$ is the square of a prime number. So, $G \cong C_{p^2}$.

share|improve this answer

Hints/questions to consider: Have you done Sylow's theorem? How many Sylow subgroups can your group have? Show that your group must be cyclic- (hint for this: if not, all its element are in the unique proper subgroup). How many subgroups does a cyclic group of order $p^{n}$ have, when $p$ is prime and $n$ is a positive integer?

share|improve this answer
2  
Why do we need Sylow's to think about cyclic groups? –  anon Sep 18 '12 at 22:07
    
We don't, but a priori such a finite group could be anything. We use Sylow's theorem to exclude the non-cyclic groups from consideration. –  kahen Sep 18 '12 at 22:11
    
@anon: it's a question of in what sequence you do things: you could indeed first prove the group cyclic, then conclude it must have prime power order without explicitly making use of Sylow's theorem. –  Geoff Robinson Sep 18 '12 at 22:14
1  
@kahen As Geoff hints at, a very simple argument shows the group must be cyclic - by only considering cyclic subgroups. I feel Sylow is too high-powered for this exercise; in fact I suspect this is an exercise from Contemporary Abstract Algebra's chapter on cyclic groups, which is way before Sylow tech is even touchable. [Edit: Yes, it is exercise 34 in ch 1-4 supplementary exercises.] –  anon Sep 18 '12 at 22:17
    
@anon: I think it is probably the case that almost anyone who HAD done Sylow would think of using it. I asked Johnny whether he had done Sylow's theorem, because the problem might be easier with Sylow than without, but it certainly can be done without. –  Geoff Robinson Sep 18 '12 at 22:40

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.