4
$\begingroup$

Is it the case that for odd primes $p\geq5$, all finite groups with self-normalizing Sylow $p$-subgroups are solvable? The simple group of order 168 shows that this conjecture does not hold for $p=2$. Verrit's answer provides a counterexample when $p=3$.

Does this conjecture hold for any odd primes $p\geq5$? If so, is there a proof that does not rely on the CFSG?


Edit: Initially, I thought that I had proved that a minimal counterexample to this conjecture was necessarily simple. Verrit's answer shows that this is not the case.

Fix a prime $p$ and let $G$ be a minimal counterexample to the conjecture. Suppose that $G$ is not simple.

1) Let $H$ be a nontrivial normal subgroup of $G$ and let $P$ be a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G$. Then $PH$ is a subgroup of $G$ that contains $N_G(P)$ so $N_G(PH)=PH$. Also, $PH/H$ is a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G/H$ with $$N_{G/H}(PH/H)=N_G(PH)/H=PH/H.$$ Then $G/H$ is solvable by the minimality of $G$. However, $G$ is not solvable so $H$ is not solvable.

2) Let $H$ be a proper normal subgroup of $G$ with $G/H$ simple. Then $G/H$ is cyclic of prime order. If $G/H$ is not cyclic of order $p$ then $H$ contains a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G$ and thus Sylow $p$-subgroups of $H$ are self-normalizing. The minimality of $G$ provides a contradiction. This shows that $G/H$ is cyclic of order $p$. If $p$ does not divide the order of $H$ then $G\cong H\rtimes_\varphi C_p$ for some homomorphism $C_p\to Aut(H)$. However, Sylow $p$-subgroups of $G$ are self-normalizing so this homomorphism must be fixed-point-free. Then $H$ admits a fixed-point-free automorphism of prime order which contradicts the non-solvability of $H$. In summary, $p$ divides the order of $H$ and $G/H$ is cyclic of order $p$.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I did a quick google search and, in the introduction of ac.els-cdn.com/S0021869302001205/…, it is claimed that $\mathrm{P\Sigma L}(2,27)$ is an example. $\endgroup$ – verret Aug 29 '18 at 19:39
  • $\begingroup$ I checked and $\mathrm{PSL}(2,27)$ doesn't have the property. Doesn't that contradict some of the arguments above? $\endgroup$ – verret Aug 29 '18 at 19:44
  • $\begingroup$ @verret Are you saying that the Sylow 3-subgroup of $PSL(2,27)$ is self-normalizing? $\endgroup$ – Thomas Browning Aug 29 '18 at 19:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think the problem is in part 2). Why does $N_G(P)$ contain every Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G$? $\endgroup$ – verret Aug 29 '18 at 20:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think you might be right. If $Q$ is a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G$ containing $P$ then $P=Q\cap H$ and so $N_G(P)$ contains $Q$. Then $N_G(P)$ contains the subgroup of $G$ generated by the Sylow $p$-subgroups of $G$ that contain $P$. However, $N_G(P)$ might not contain Sylow $p$-subgroups of $G$ that do not contain $P$. $\endgroup$ – Thomas Browning Aug 29 '18 at 20:27
3
$\begingroup$

$\mathrm{P\Sigma L}(2,27)$ has a self-normalising Sylow $3$-subgroup.

(On the other hand, $\mathrm{PSL}(2,27)$ does not. There is a mistake in the proof that a minimal example must be simple, in part 2): there is no reason for $N_G(P)$ to contain every Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G$.)

According to http://www.ams.org/journals/proc/2004-132-04/S0002-9939-03-07161-2/S0002-9939-03-07161-2.pdf the only counterexamples for odd $p$ occur for $p=3$ and involve $\mathrm{PSL}(2,3^f)$ as a composition factor.

(See also https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.08907.pdf)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The paper you link to concerns Carter subgroups. It might be better to refer to the Guralnick-Malle-Navarro paper instead. $\endgroup$ – Mikko Korhonen Aug 30 '18 at 15:38

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.