Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

Let $G$ be a finite abelian $p$-group with a unique subgroup $H$ of index $p$. It is a fact that $G$ is cyclic. This can be deduced from the classification theorem for finite abelian groups by writing $G$ as a product of cyclic groups and noting that $G$ does not have a unique subgroup of index $p$ unless there is only one such group. I am wondering if there is a nice proof of this result which does not use the classification theorem. Does anyone know of one?

share|cite|improve this question
Take an element outside $H$, and consider the subgroup it generates... Note this does not need $G$ to be abelian. – user641 Feb 7 '13 at 7:09
up vote 12 down vote accepted

If $G$ is finite then every proper subgroup is contained in a maximal subgroup, so every proper subgroup is contained in $H$. I claim therefore that $\langle x \rangle = G$ for any $x\in G\setminus H$ - why?

If $\langle x \rangle$ were proper in $G$, then we would have $\langle x \rangle \leqslant H$, a contradiction. So $\langle x \rangle=G$.

Note that this argument does not require that $G$ is abelian. In fact, we could even extend your hypothesis to "$G$ is a finite group with a unique maximal subgroup."

share|cite|improve this answer
@user15464: Besides to the conclusion, we have $p\big||G/G'|$ as well. Maybe this fact be usefuul for the next. – Babak S. Feb 7 '13 at 7:17
It seems that this argument does not immediately extend to the non-abelian case. It is true that every maximal subgroup of a $p$-group has index $p$, but this requires proof. – Slade Sep 14 '14 at 1:49
Why every proper subgroup is contained in $H$?, $H$ is maximal, but is not obvious that $H$ is the unique maximal. For example, a group of index $p^2$ could be also a maximal subgroup. – Gastón Burrull Jun 12 '15 at 6:55

Hint: It suffices to show that $G$ has precisely one subgroup of order $m$ for each $m$ dividing $|G|$. Show by induction that if we get more than one subgroup of order $p^k$ with $p^k\mid |G|$ then we can lift this to two distinct index $p$ subgroups. Thus, $G$ will have precisely one subgroup of order $p^k$ for each $p^k\mid|G|$ and thus $G$ will be cyclic.

share|cite|improve this answer

In fact the assumptions can be weakened and the conclusion will remain (almost) the same:

Let $G$ be a group of order $p^n$ for some prime $p$ and assume that $G$ contains a unique subgroup of order $p^k$ for some $1\leq k \leq n-1$.

Then either $G$ is cyclic or $p = 2$, $k = 1$ and $G$ is generalized quaternion (so $n\geq 3$).

For a proof of this, one can see Berkovich's Groups of Prime Power Order (it is Proposition 1.3).

share|cite|improve this answer

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.