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.

In the tradition of this question,

why is $\operatorname{PGL}(2,4)\cong A_5$?

share|improve this question
1  
(As Jyrki correctly points out) that's an easy question because there is a natural action of $PSL_2(\mathbb F_q)$ on a (q+1)-point set. Less trivial one is why $PSL_2(\mathbb F_5)$ is also $A_5$. –  Grigory M Aug 17 '11 at 7:34
3  
That's also easy, since ${\rm PSL}(2,5)$ has $5$ Sylow $2$-subgroups (it can't have $3$, otherwise there would be a normal subgroup of index at most $6$, and then would have only one Sylow $5$-subgroup, which is not the case). –  Geoff Robinson Aug 17 '11 at 8:15
    
Can we interpret $PGL(2,4)$ geometrically as the full group of rotational symmetries of the Icosahedron/Dodecahedron? –  AnonymousCoward Aug 17 '11 at 8:45
    
@Geoff Sure, sure. But that's a proof that proves everything but explains nothing, in my opinion. (The real question is, more or less, what are 5 geometric objects PSL(2,5) acts upon?) –  Grigory M Aug 17 '11 at 9:13
3  
@Grigory:opinion is opinion. Not sure why a geometric proof "explains" and an algebraic proof does not. Things are as they are:we can try to understand them, but we can't always explain "why" they are as they are. –  Geoff Robinson Aug 17 '11 at 11:10
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 2 down vote accepted

A minor comment: questions such as these maybe should be phrased slightly differently, in my view. In this case, the question is perhaps "what is a good explanation of this isomorphism, or an easy way to see it?"

An algebraic way to see the isomorphism is something like this. Note that ${\rm GL}(2,4)$ has a center of order $3$, consisting of scalar matrices. The group of scalar matrices of order dividing $3$ is a normal subgroup $N$ which intersects ${\rm SL}(2,4)$ in the identity, because no non-identity element of $N$ has determinant $1$. Hence we see that ${\rm PGL}(2,4)$ is isomorphic to ${\rm SL}(2,4)$. Also, it has order $60$. A Sylow $5$ subgroup $S$ of ${\rm SL}(2,4)$ permutes the Sylow $2$-subgroups of ${\rm SL}(2,4)$ by conjugation. None of these Sylow $2$-subgroups is stabilised by $S$, since they each have order $4$, and admit no automorphism of order $5$. Hence there are at least $5$ Sylow $2$-subgroups of ${\rm SL}(2,4).$ By Sylow's theorem, there are no more than that. ${\rm SL}(2,4)$ has no subgroup $M$ of index $2$, for such a subgroup would be normal, and would either have one or six Sylow $5$-subgroups. If there were one, it would be normal in ${\rm SL}(2,4)$, which is impossible (for example, an element of order $5$ in ${\rm SL}(2,4)$ has centralizer of order $5$, so the normalizer of a Sylow $5$-subgroup has order at most $20$). If there were $6$ subgroups of order $5$ in $M$, then there would only be $6$ elements in $M$ not of order $5$, and then $M$ would have a normal Sylow $3$-subgroup. But that would be normal in ${\rm SL}(2,4)$, while an element of order $3$ in ${\rm SL}(2,4)$ has centralizer of order $3$, so the normalizer of a Sylow $3$-subgroup in ${\rm SL}(2,4)$ has order at most $6$.

The permutation action of ${\rm SL}(2,4)$ on its Sylow $2$-subgroup yields a homomorphism from ${\rm SL}(2,4)$ into $A_5$ (since ${\rm SL}(2,4)$ has no subgroup of index $2$). We have already noted that no Sylow $2$-subgroup of ${\rm SL}(2,4)$ is normalized by an element of order $5$. ${\rm SL}(2,4)$ has no non-trivial normal $2$-subgroup (such a subgroup could not be a Sylow $2$-subgroup, as we have seen. On the other hand, if it had order $2$, it would be a central subgroup, and ${\rm SL}(2,4)$ has trivial center). We have also seen that a Sylow $3$-subgroup of ${\rm SL}(2,4)$ is not normal. Thus no non-identity element of ${\rm SL}(2,4)$ normalizes every Sylow $2$-subgroup. Hence ${\rm SL}(2,4)$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $A_5$ and must be all of $A_5$ by order considerations.

share|improve this answer
add comment

A starting point is that a 2-dimensional vector space over the field of 4 elements has 5 1-dimensional subspaces (=the projective line over $F_4$). The group $PGL(2,4)$ then acts on the set of those lines (well, $GL(2,4)$ acts naturally, but the scalar matrices keep the lines fixed setwise). Thus we have a homomorphism $f:PGL(2,4)\rightarrow S_5$. Moreover, if a linear mapping keeps all those 1-dimensional subspaces fixed (setwise), then that linear mapping has to be a scalar multiplication. So $f$ is injective. Thus the image of $f$ is of order 60, and hence must be equal to $A_5$.

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.