I just need someone to check this argument.

Let $G$ be a nonabelian group of order $2009$. The prime factorization of $2009$ is $7^2 \cdot 41$. Let $n$ be the number of Sylow 7-subgroups.

Then $n \equiv 1$ mod $7$ and $n$ divides $41$. Since $41$ is prime, we must have $n =1$ or $n=41$, but $41 \equiv 6$ mod $7$. Thus $n=1$ and we have a unique Sylow 7-subgroup $H$.

Since $H$ is the unique Sylow 7-subgroup, we have that $H$ is a normal subgroup of $G$. Taking the quotient we have that $|G/H|=41$, so $G/H$ is cyclic of order 41.

Since $G/H$ is cyclic, $G$ is abelian. Thus there is no nonabelian group of order $2009$.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In $G = S_3$, you have $H = A_3$ normal and cyclic, and $G/H$ is also cyclic, but $G$ is not abelian. $\endgroup$ May 18, 2014 at 16:29
  • $\begingroup$ Metacyclic (a cyclic extension of a cyclic group) need not imply cyclic. There is a correct version of this idea, which states that if $G/Z(G)$ is cyclic then it is trivial. $\endgroup$
    – blue
    May 18, 2014 at 16:48

2 Answers 2


If $G/H$ is cyclic then you can not say $G$ is abelian as Mikko pointed out.

You should go on like that;

Let $q=41$ then $n_q$ must divides $49$ and $n_q\equiv 1 \ mod \ (41) \implies n_q=1 $.

Thus all sylow subgroup is normal, $G\cong H\times K$ where $|H|=49$ and $|K|=41$ since any group of order $p^2$ is abelian, $H$ is abelian then clearly $G$ is abelian.

  • $\begingroup$ Alright thanks. Indeed I confused the result which states if $G/Z(G)$ is cyclic, then $G$ is abelian. I suppose that's what I get for chaining theorems and not thinking. What's the best way to see that if all sylow subgroups are normal then $G$ is the product of its sylow subgroups? $\endgroup$
    – Frost Boss
    May 18, 2014 at 17:02
  • $\begingroup$ You are welcome. $\endgroup$
    – mesel
    May 18, 2014 at 17:03
  • $\begingroup$ Let $P_1,P_2,...,P_n$ be all sylow subgroups of $G$ and all of them is normal. Since $P_i\cap P_j=e$ then $P_1.P_2...P_n \cong P_1\times P_2\times...\times P_n$ and when you compute the order of product you can see that it must be whole group. $\endgroup$
    – mesel
    May 18, 2014 at 17:11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Just to be finnicky, if you have normal subgroups $K_{i}$ of a group $G = K_{1} K_{2} \dots K_{n}$, and $K_{i} \cap K_{j} = \{ e \}$ for $i \ne j$, you cannot deduce that $G$ is isomorphic to the direct product of the $K_{i}$ - think the Klein four-group, with the $K_{i}$ being the three subgroups of order $2$. You need that each $K_{i}$ intersects trivially the product of the $K_{j}$ with $j \ne i$. $\endgroup$ May 18, 2014 at 18:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AndreasCaranti: I know, I wrote it to be clear, your comment was useful. $\endgroup$
    – mesel
    May 19, 2014 at 15:59

I posted an erroneous remark in a (in the meantime deleted) answer - (thanks Mikko for pointing it out). Nevertheless, the arguments given by Mesel and Frost Boss nicely generalize to groups $G$ of order $p^2q$, with $p$, and $q$ primes, such that $p \lt q$, $p \nmid q-1$ and $q \nmid p^2-1$. Such a group has to be abelian.
(Note the conditions $p \lt q$, $p \nmid q-1$ imply $q \nmid p^2-1$, so $p \lt q$, $p \nmid q-1$ is sufficient to guarantee the abelianess).


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.