I had asked that if $G$ is a direct product of a $2$-group and a simple group, then is it possible that $G$ be a solvable group. That the answer is no! But by a Remark on T.M. Gagen, Topics in Finite Groups, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., vol. 16, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1976. I am confused! I will write the Remark below:

Definition 11.3. A group $G$ with an abelian Sylow $2$-subgroup is said to be an $A^*$-group, if $G$ has a normal series $1\subseteq N \subseteq M \subseteq G$ where $N$ and $G/M$ are of odd order and $M/N$ is a direct product of a $2$-group and simple groups of type $L_2(q)$ or $JR$.

Theorem A. Let $G$ be a finite group with an abelian Sylow $2$-subgroup. Then $G$ is an $A^*$-group.

Remark. If a group $G$ has an abelian Sylow $2$-subgroup $T$ of rank $1$, then $G$ is solvable and $2$-nilpotent and clearly an $A^*$-group. If $T$ has rank $2$, then $G$ is $2$-nilpotent unless $T$ is of type $( 2^\alpha , 2^\alpha )$ . But then if $\alpha > 1$, $G$ is solvable by [7] and clearly an $A^*$-group since it has $2$-length $1$. Thus we may assume that $|T | = 4$ and then we can apply the results of [13]. Again $G$ is an $A^*$-group.

By the Remark, it is possible that $G$ (with abelian sylow $2$-group) be a solvable group. In this case $M$ and then $M/N$ must be solvable, and can not be have a simple group as its direct factor. a contradiction with Definition!

Am I right?!

  • $\begingroup$ I think you are. Either some confusion exists there with some definition (do you have a direct link to that paper?) or else that could be a rather major blunder...Unless the remark should have remarked the rank 1 thing, which perhaps is what makes $\,G\,$ solvable! $\endgroup$ – DonAntonio Jun 25 '13 at 18:57
  • $\begingroup$ Please see here for how to use Markdown formatting (italics is not the same thing as math mode). $\endgroup$ – Zev Chonoles Jun 25 '13 at 18:58
  • $\begingroup$ Hmmm...yet there still is a problem, me believes... $\endgroup$ – DonAntonio Jun 25 '13 at 19:03

This is a matter of convention. When $G$ is solvable, $M/N$ is an (abelian) 2-group. It is still the case that $M/N$ is the direct product of a 2-group and a set of simple groups, each isomorphic to $L_2(q)$ or $J_1$ or $^2G_2(q)$. In case $G$ is solvable, that set of simple groups is empty.

The remark is trying to clarify what happens in the low rank cases, where typically the result is a solvable group. In the $2^a$ case, Cayley showed you can take $G/M=1$, $M/N$ the cyclic Sylow 2-subgroup. In the $2^a \times 2^a$ ($a>1$) case Brauer's result shows $G/M$ can be taken to have order 1 or 3, and $M/N$ to be the homocyclic Sylow 2-subgroup. In the non-homocyclic case, Burnside or Frobenius shows you can take $G/M=1$ and $M/N$ to be the Sylow 2-subgroup. Only in the case $C_2 \times C_2$ (amongst rank 1 or 2) do you get to the case supporting a non-solvable $M/N$.

Rank 3 is interesting because of $J_1$ and $^2G_2(q)$.

I'll mention that Gagen, Bender, and Gorenstein all use the same phrasing, and all intend to allow the groups to be solvable as well as non-solvable.

Another small point: Gagen and Bender use the name “$A^*$-group” rather than “$A$-group” used by Gorenstein. The definitions are actually nearly identical; I believe they are trying to avoid confusion with a similar (weaker) result classifying A-groups in the sense of Hall: groups in which all Sylow subgroups are abelian.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot. Is there any thing(book, paper, ...) about solvable groups. I need some property of solvable groups for my thesis, but I can't find what I need!!! I have read Rose and Gorenstein. Thanks again. $\endgroup$ – Adeleh Jun 25 '13 at 20:02
  • $\begingroup$ Doerk–Hawk Finite Solvable Groups and Huppert Endliche Gruppen are pretty thorough for solvable groups. What sort of (already known) results are you looking for? $\endgroup$ – Jack Schmidt Jun 25 '13 at 20:27
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your suggestion. I need some things about property of sylow subgroups of a solvable group and some thing else that may be very simple or may not be true!! For example is it always true that $Z(G)\leq \Phi(G)$ where $G$ is solvable? and other things like this. I hope that the first book be helpful. The second is germany, and I can't use it however I think that is very useful book. $\endgroup$ – Adeleh Jun 26 '13 at 7:34
  • $\begingroup$ Generally “central” and “Frattini” have a similar feel, but they are independent. For instance the center of the cyclic group of order 2 is large, while the frattini is small, but the dihedral group of order 18 has a large frattini subgroup and a small center. The central chief factors are covered by the system normalizers, and the frattini chief factors are covered by the pre-frattini subgroups. The largest normal subgroup contained in a system normalizer is the hypercenter (formed by the longest chain of centrals); in a prefrattini is the frattini (formed by the longest chain of frattinis). $\endgroup$ – Jack Schmidt Jun 26 '13 at 14:16

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.