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.

Consider a normal subgroup $N$ of a finite group $G$.

How are the conjugacy classes of $G$ related to $G/N$ and $N$?

share|improve this question
1  
In order to be normal $N$ must be a union of conjugacy classes -- so some of them are completely contained in $N$ and the rest are disjoint from it. I don't think there is any nice relations between the conjugacy classes in general and $G/N$ -- something more or less interesting might be said if you look at the conjugacy classes of $G/N$ too. –  Henning Makholm Jan 15 '12 at 14:55

3 Answers 3

up vote 6 down vote accepted

Let $k(G)$ denote the number of conjugacy classes of $G.$ It is known that the inequality $k(G) \leq k(N)k(G/N)$ holds. This was proved ( I assume independently) by P. X. Gallagher and H.Nagao. Equality can hold under some circumstances, even when $N$ is not a direct factor of $G,$ but the precise conditions for equality are somewhat elaborate.

share|improve this answer
    
Do you know if Nagao published his result? Gallagher's paper is ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=276318 –  Jack Schmidt Jan 15 '12 at 21:51
    
@Jack Schmidt : H. Nagao's result appeared in 1962, in the paper reviewed in Mathscinet as MR0152569. –  Geoff Robinson Jan 16 '12 at 0:50
    
May I ask you? Is more strong thing holds : preimage of conj class in G/N is not more than k(N) conj. classes ? Then inequality follows obviously, if we have G = N x G/N then it is of course so, for preimage "id" it is also of course so –  Alexander Chervov Sep 11 '12 at 7:05
    
@Alexander:I am not sure at the moment. MY instinct would be no, but that is not a proof. –  Geoff Robinson Sep 15 '12 at 15:18
    
Thank you !... . –  Alexander Chervov Sep 15 '12 at 18:16

Geoff Robinson gave the great upper bound, so I thought I'd mention a few obvious things on lower bounds that happen to be sharp.

Proposition: If G is a finite group with normal subgroup N, then $k(G) \geq k(G/N)$ with equality iff $N=1$. In other words, a finite group has more conjugacy classes than its proper quotient groups.

Proof: If x and y are conjugate in G, say by g, then xN and yN are conjugate in $G/N$, for instance by gN. Hence the map taking $x^G$ to $xN^{G/N}$ is well-defined and obviously surjective from the conjugacy classes of G to the conjugacy classes of $G/N$. If $x \in N \setminus 1$, then $x^G \mapsto 1N^{G/N}$ but $x^G \neq 1^G$, so we get strict inequality if N is nontrivial.

Proposition: There is a family of finite groups $G_n$ with normal subgroups $N_n$ such that $k(G_n) = o(k(N_n))$. In other words, a finite group can have radically fewer conjugacy classes than one of its normal subgroups.

Proof: The idea of course is to take $N$ to be elementary abelian, and $G/N$ to be a fairly swirly group of automorphisms with few conjugacy classes. One can take $G_n$ to be the hyperoctahedral group (the group of invertible $n\times n$ matrices with only one nonzero entry in each row and column, and that nonzero entry must be $\pm1$). The normal subgroup is the group $N_n$ of diagonal matrices. $k(G_n)$ is OEIS:A000712 and $$k(G_n) \sim \tfrac{\sqrt[4]{3}}{12}n^{(-5/4)} \exp\left(\tfrac{2 \pi}{\sqrt{3}} \sqrt{n}\right) \quad \ll\quad k(N_n) = 2^n$$ For what it is worth, another such sequence is $G_n=\operatorname{A\Gamma L}(1,2^n)$ with $k(G_n)$ given by OEIS:A178752.

The first proposition is sharp: Consider the Sylow p-normalizer G in the symmetric group on p points, and N its Sylow p-subgroup. Then $k(G) = p$, $k(G/N)=p-1$, $k(N) = p$, so G only has about the square root as many conjugacy classes as the product $G/N \times N$, and in fact $k(G) = k(G/N) + 1$ is the least integer strictly greater than $k(G/N)$.

Obviously there is no upper bound for $k(G)$ in terms of just $k(G/N)$ or just $k(N)$ as the case of $G = G/N \times N$ shows (where $k(G) = k(G/N) \times k(N)$ as indicated in Geoff's answer).

share|improve this answer

I'm not sure if this is what you are after, but if $x$ and $y$ are conjugate in $G$, then $xN$ and $yN$ are conjugate in $G/N$. This implies that under the canonical map from $G$ to $G/N$, the preimage of a conjugacy class in $G/N$ is a union of conjugacy classes in $G$. And this in turn comes in handy when you are trying to find the character table of $G$; you may be able to find characters of $G/N$ more easily (since, if we're dealing with finite groups, $G/N$ is smaller than $G$), and this relation between conjugacy classes allows you to "induce" an irreducible character on $G$ from each irreducible character on $G/N$.

share|improve this answer

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.