7
$\begingroup$

Suppose you have a group $G$ of order $ms$ and it is $m \leq p$ for every prime factor $p$ of $s$. We want to show that a subgroup $H$ with $(G:H)=m$ is a normal subgroup of $G$.

So let $H$ be a subgroup of $G$ with $\vert H\vert=s$ and $K$ be another subgroup of $G$ of order $s$. Then we have

$$ \vert HK\vert= \frac{\vert H \vert \vert K \vert}{\vert H \cap K \vert}=\frac{s^2}{\vert H \cap K \vert} \leq ms \Longleftrightarrow \frac{s}{\vert H \cap K\vert} \leq m.$$

Suppose now that $\frac{s}{\vert H \cap K\vert}>1$. Is it always true that in this case $m$ is the smallest prime divisor of the group order? I read this in another post, but I don't see an argument for this.

My attempt:

$\vert H \cap K \vert$ is a divisor of $s$ (how to show?). Then $m$ is the smallest prime divisor of $\frac{s^2}{\vert H \cap K\vert}$. But how do we get to the order of $G$ in this case?

Maybe there is an easier way to prove this statement...

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Yes if $|G:H|=p$ is the smallest prime dividing $|G|$, then $H$ is normal in $G$. $\endgroup$ – Alan Wang Aug 5 '18 at 14:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @AlanWang I know, but why is in the upper case $m$ the smallest prime divisor of $\vert G\vert=ms$? With the explanation of this the given statement follows immediately. $\endgroup$ – Jan Aug 5 '18 at 14:43
  • $\begingroup$ Are you sure you want to require $m \leq p$, not $m < p$ ? If $m < p$ is what you mean, then there is a nice proof: Consider the composition $H \to G \to S_{G/H}$, where the first arrow is the inclusion map and where the second arrow is the standard action of $G$ on the coset space $G/H$. This composition must be the trivial map (sending everything to $\operatorname{id}$), since the size $s$ of $H$ is coprime to the size $m!$ of $S_{G/H}$. Thus, $H$ acts trivially on $G/H$; but this is equivalent to $H$ being normal in $G$. $\endgroup$ – darij grinberg Aug 7 '18 at 16:05
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, I see. If some prime factor $p$ of $s$ satisfies $m \leq p$ but not $m < p$, then it must satisfy $m = p$, so that $m$ itself is prime. And then the result follows from the classical fact that @AlanWang quoted (see, e.g., math.stackexchange.com/questions/164244/… for its proof). $\endgroup$ – darij grinberg Aug 7 '18 at 16:09
  • $\begingroup$ @darijgrinberg There is an easier proof if $m<p$: when one reaches $$\frac{s}{\vert H \cap K\vert} \leq m$$ the LHS is a product of some primes found in $s$, so if it is less than or equal to $m$, then it is equal to $1$, meaning $H = K$. $\endgroup$ – Arnaud Mortier Aug 7 '18 at 17:09
1
+50
$\begingroup$

You were able to prove that $$\frac{s}{\vert H \cap K\vert} \leq m.$$

Note that by Lagrange's Theorem and since $H\cap K$ is a subgroup of $H$, $\frac{s}{\vert H \cap K\vert}$ is actually an integer (which was one of your questions). Therefore if you write down the prime factorization of $s$, $\vert H \cap K\vert$ is a product of some of these primes and $\frac{s}{\vert H \cap K\vert}$ is the complementary product of the remaining primes:

If $s=p_1^{\alpha_1}\ldots p_k^{\alpha_k}$ then $\frac{s}{\vert H \cap K\vert} =p_1^{\beta_1}\ldots p_k^{\beta_k}$ for some $0\leq\beta_i\leq \alpha_i$.

So you have $$\underbrace{p_1^{\beta_1}\ldots p_k^{\beta_k}}_{\text{Thereafter called LHS}}\leq m\leq \min_{i=1,\ldots , k}\{p_i\}$$ where the second inequality is from the fact that [being less than or equal to every element in a finite list] is equivalent to [being less than or equal to the minimum element from that list].

From there, it is clear that the LHS can either be equal to $1$ or to $\min_{i=1,\ldots , k}\{p_i\}$, otherwise it would violate transitivity of $\leq$.

If you assume $\frac{s}{\vert H \cap K\vert}>1$ then the LHS is not $1$ and it must be $m$. Therefore $m=\min_{i=1,\ldots , k}\{p_i\}$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.