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.

The prime subgroup $\wp(G)$ of an abelian group (maybe infinite) $G$ is defined as $\wp(G)=\bigcap_{p \in \Pi}pG$ where $\Pi$ is the set of all primes. Is it true that $\wp(G) = \Phi(G)$. Where $\Phi(G)$ is the Frattini subgroup of $G$?

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 7 down vote accepted

Let $G$ be an abelian group. We assume nothing about cardinality, rank, torsion etc.

Lemma: For any prime $p$, the quotient $G/pG$ is elementary abelian.

Proof. Suppose $x+pG\in G/pG$. Then $px\in pG$ so $p(x+pG)=pG$ hence $G/pG$ has exponent $p$; it is a direct sum of cyclic groups $Z_p$ (by Prüfer, Baer IIRC).

Lemma. A direct sum $\bigoplus\limits_{i\in I}C_i$ of prime-order cyclic groups has trivial Frattini subgroup.

Proof. For each coordinate $i$, let $D_i$ be the subgroup of all elements with $0$ in the $i$th coordinate; this subgroup has prime index and so is maximal; the intersection of all these maximal subgroups would have $0$ in every coordinate then, in which case it is the trivial subgroup.

Corollary. $\Phi(G)\le \wp(G)$.

Proof. By the previous two lemmas, we know that for every prime $p$, $\Phi(G/pG)=0$, hence by the lattice theorem we may lift the maximal subgroups of $G/pG$ up to maximal subgroups $M$ of $G$ such that $\bigcap M=pG$. Since the intersection of maximal subgroups is contained in $pG$ for every $p$, the corollary follows by intersecting these containments.

Lemma. $\wp(G)\le \Phi(G)$.

Proof. Suppose contrariwise $g\in\bigcap_ppG$ but $g\not\in M$ for some maximal subgroup $M<G$. Now, if the quotient $G/M$ didn't have prime order, then it would have a nontrivial proper subgroup which would lift (by lattice isomorphism theorem) to a proper subgroup of $G$ strictly containing $M$, an impossibility, so $G/M\cong Z_q$ is cyclic for some prime $q$, and $qg\in M$. Furthermore, $\langle M,g\rangle=G$.

Since $g\in\bigcap_ppG$, there is an $h\in G$ such that $g=qh$. Since $\langle M,g\rangle=G$, we have $h=m+kg$ for some $m\in M$ and $0<k<q$. But then $g=qh=q(m+kg)=qm+k(qg)\in M$ since $qg\in M$, a contradiction. Hence every element of the intersection is in every maximal subgroup.

Theorem. $\Phi(G)=\wp(G)$.

Proof. Combine the two previous propositions.

Remark. This argument is adapted from The Frattini subgroup of abelian groups.

share|improve this answer
    
@azimut: Your rather zelous editing is starting to flood the front page of the group theory tag. Could you perhaps stop and continue another day? I count $7$ of the top $15$ are your edits... –  user1729 Mar 27 '13 at 21:46
    
@user1729: ok, sorry. –  azimut Mar 27 '13 at 22:00
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.