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.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Prove or disprove?

I'm leaning towards it being true but not sure. Any hint would be greatly appreciated.

In case of it being false, i.e a non-cyclic p-group can have all cyclic proper subgroups, is there any way to count them?

share|cite|improve this question

If you take the smallest non-cyclic $p$-group, then its proper subgroups are smaller $p$-groups and thus have to be cyclic. So, it can happen.

share|cite|improve this answer
And if it is not the smallest non-cyclic p-group, i.e if I have already proven there is one of smaller order? – ikk Nov 4 '12 at 10:09
@ikk Do you understand that a single counterexample disproves the statement in you title? As far as your new question goes, I suggest that you identify the smallest non-cyclic $p$-group and check whether it is a subgroup of all other non-cyclic $p$-groups. – Phira Nov 4 '12 at 10:17

Take $V_4$, the Klein group of order 4 or the quaternion group $Q$ of order 8, or the dihedral group $D_4$ of order 8. Those are the smallest examples of non-cyclic groups with only proper cyclic subgroups.

share|cite|improve this answer
Erm - isn't the Klein 4-group the smallest non-cyclic group with all of its proper subgroups cyclic? – Old John Nov 4 '12 at 15:25
Yes, edited. My computer started to reboot just before I wanted to edit this. Thanks. Back online again. – Nicky Hekster Nov 4 '12 at 15:37

Your Answer


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.