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.

We've been studying Sylow-$p$ subgroups, and I've come across this problem.

Let $H$ be a subgroup of $G$, and suppose $G$ is finite. Then, $n_p (H) \leq n_p (G)$, where $n_p$ denotes the number of Sylow-$p$ subgroups of a group.

I am having trouble figuring this one out, and I was wondering if anyone could help?

Thank you.

share|improve this question
    
Define $f:Syl_p(G)\to Syl_p(H)$ in a natural way. What is the desired property of f? Which Sylow theorem is most likely to be useful in verifying that property? –  peoplepower Oct 9 '12 at 23:35
    
What is that "natural way"? Hopefully not $\,P\to P\cap H\,$ since, in general, that intersection is not a Sylow $\,p-\,$subgroup of $\,H\,$ ... –  DonAntonio Oct 10 '12 at 3:50
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 3 down vote accepted

This is pretty obvious if $H$ contains a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G$, since then the Sylow $p$-subgroups of $H$ are just the Sylow $p$-subgroups of $G$ contained in $H$, so $n_p(H) \leq n_p(G)$ since $\operatorname{Syl}_p(H) \subseteq \operatorname{Syl}_p(G)$.

If $H$ is smaller though, then something strange seems possible: a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G$ can have a ton of smaller $p$-subgroups, perhaps $H$ could conspire to have all those smaller $p$-subgroups as Sylow subgroups. For instance, the alternating group of order 12 has only one Sylow 2-subgroup, but it has 3 subgroups of order 2. Why can't a subgroup have those 3 smaller subgroups as its Sylows?

The answer is Lagrange's theorem. If $Q_1, Q_2 \leq P$ are two $p$-subgroups of a Sylow $p$-subgroup $P$ and $Q_1, Q_2 \leq H$ are both contained in $H$, then of course the subgroup $Q=\langle Q_1 ,Q_2 \rangle$ generated by these two $p$-subgroups is contained in both $P$ and $H$. Since $Q \leq P$, it is a $p$-subgroup, and since $Q \leq H$, it is a $p$-subgroup contained in $H$. If $Q_1 \neq Q_2$, then $|Q| > \max(|Q_1|,|Q_2|)$, and so neither $Q_1$ nor $Q_2$ can be a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $H$. In particular, a Sylow $p$-subgroup $P$ of $G$ can only contribute at most one Sylow $p$-subgroup of $H$, namely $H \cap P$.

Not all $H\cap P$ are actually Sylow $p$-subgroups of $H$, but every Sylow $p$-subgroup of $H$ is contained in one of these by Sylow's containment/extension theorem: every $p$-subgroup of $G$ (such as a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $H$) is contained in a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G$.

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.