2
$\begingroup$

Let $G$ be a finite group.

Let $n$ be an integer such that $G$ has the following property:

"$n$-Free property": $G$ can be generated by $n$ elements, and for any two generating $n$-tuples $(g_1,\ldots,g_n)$, $(g_1',\ldots,g_n')$ there is an automorphism $\sigma$ of $G$ such that $\sigma(g_i) = g_i'$.

Under this assumption, if $A,B$ are two quotients of $G$, then is every subgroup of $A\times B$ which projects onto $A$ and $B$ which is also generated by $n$ elements also a quotient of $G$?

Essentially, the idea behind my question is: Is the "Free property" sufficient to say that $G$ is a free pro-$C$ group of rank $n$ (in the sense of Ribes-Zalesski's characterization of free profinite groups in their book "Profinite Groups"), where here $C$ is the class of all finite subdirect products of quotients of $G$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @EricWofsey You're right of course. Apologies for the hasty formulation of the problem. $\endgroup$ – oxeimon Apr 10 '17 at 22:13
  • $\begingroup$ I think you need $n$ to be the minimal number of generators, otherwise, no nontrivial finite group has the free property. $\endgroup$ – verret Apr 10 '17 at 22:22
  • $\begingroup$ @verret Thanks, that is indeed the case I'm interested in. $\endgroup$ – oxeimon Apr 10 '17 at 22:24
  • $\begingroup$ Do you really mean minimally generated by $n$ elements, or that $n$ is the minimum number of generators. For example, does the cyclic group of order $6$ have the free property? With your current definition, it does not, because it admits a minimal $2$-generating set, but not all $2$-generating sets are conjugate under the automorphism group. $\endgroup$ – verret Apr 10 '17 at 22:49
  • $\begingroup$ @verret I think it should make more sense now. I would consider the cyclic group of order 6 to have the 1-free property, but not the 2-free property. $\endgroup$ – oxeimon Apr 10 '17 at 23:02
2
$\begingroup$

Okay, so I believe the answer is yes - here's a sketch:

Let $H$ be a subdirect product of $A$ and $B$, then by Goursat's lemma, there is a common quotient $C$ of $A,B$ such that $H$ can be written as the fiber product $H = A\times_C B$.

By assumption, $H$ is generated by $n$ elements, say $(h_1,\ldots,h_n)$, where $h_i = (a_i,b_i)$.

By assumption, there are surjections $f_A : G\rightarrow A$, and $f_B : G\rightarrow B$. Since $(a_1,\ldots,a_n)$ generate $A$, and $(b_1,\ldots,b_n)$ generate $B$, by Gaschutz's lemma, we may lift $(a_i),(b_i)$ (through $f_A,f_B$) to generating tuples $$(\tilde{a}_1,\ldots,\tilde{a}_n),\qquad\text{and}\qquad(\tilde{b}_1,\ldots,\tilde{b}_n)$$ of $G$. By the "free property", these two generating tuples are mapped to each other by some automorphism $\sigma\in\text{Aut}(G)$. Suppose $\sigma(\tilde{a}_i) = \tilde{b}_i$.

But then, consider the surjections $f_A : G\rightarrow A$ and $f_B\circ\sigma : G\rightarrow B$. Their product defines a map $$(f_A\times (f_B\circ\sigma)) : G\rightarrow H = A\times_C B$$ By construction, the image of $(\tilde{a}_1,\ldots,\tilde{a}_n)$ is precisely $(h_1,\ldots,h_n)$, which generate $H$, which proves that $H$ is a quotient of $G$.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

As stated, no -- Take $A = B = G$ to be the trivial quotient of $G$ by $\{e\}$. Then $A \times B = G \times G$ is not a quotient of $G$ for most reasonable groups $G$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, sorry, good point. I forgot a condition. I hope you don't mind me editing my question accordingly. $\endgroup$ – oxeimon Apr 10 '17 at 21:49
  • $\begingroup$ The same answer is still a counterexample in many cases. For example, $A_5$ is $2$-generated, and so is $A_5\times A_5$, so just take $G=A=B=A_5$, and the subgroup $A_5\times A_5$ of itself. $\endgroup$ – verret Apr 10 '17 at 21:50
  • $\begingroup$ @verret Thanks, you're right! Hopefully this will be my last edit. $\endgroup$ – oxeimon Apr 10 '17 at 21:58
  • $\begingroup$ @verret But $A_5$ is not $2$-free. $\endgroup$ – Derek Holt Apr 11 '17 at 7:43
  • $\begingroup$ @DerekHolt My answer and these comments were posted before the question was updated to include the $n$-free condition. $\endgroup$ – user263190 Apr 11 '17 at 16:20

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.