Prove that no group of order $56$ can be simple using steps

●finding sylows number 2-subgroups and sylow 7-subgroups
●explain why any of sylow 7-subgroups must intersect trivially, but this is not the case for sylow 2-subgroup
● use counting argument to show that if there is more than one sylow 7 subgroup, then there can be only one sylow 2 subgroup
● Show that GROUP of order $56$ is not simple.

my question is why does this argument fails to show that no group of order 112 can be simple

  • $\begingroup$ Why do you expect the argument to fail? $\endgroup$ – Tobias Kildetoft Dec 12 '14 at 12:22
  • $\begingroup$ I think because the intersection.but I'm not sure $\endgroup$ – M Alrantisi Dec 12 '14 at 12:25
  • $\begingroup$ I mean, did you try to work through the same method and something failed? $\endgroup$ – Tobias Kildetoft Dec 12 '14 at 12:25
  • $\begingroup$ There exists a group of order $112$ with $|{\rm Syl}_7(G)|=8$ and $|{\rm Syl}_2(G)|>1$, so that part of the argument must fail! $\endgroup$ – Derek Holt Dec 12 '14 at 12:27
  • $\begingroup$ Yes ..sylow group number is not same $\endgroup$ – M Alrantisi Dec 12 '14 at 12:27

If in a group of order $56 = 2^3 \cdot 7$ we have $8$ Sylow $7$-subgroups, then we get $8 \cdot (7-1) = 48$ elements of order $7$ (as the intersections of Sylow $7$'s are trivial). Thus we have $56 - 48 = 8$ elements left for the Sylow $2$-subgroups, which have order $8$. Thus there must be just one.

In a group of order $112 = 2^4 \cdot 7$ we cannot obtain the same by counting elements. It's possible that $N(7) = 8$ and $N(2^4) = 7$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks it seems they different by counting theorem $\endgroup$ – M Alrantisi Dec 15 '14 at 19:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.