3
$\begingroup$

Let $G$ be a finite nilpotent group and $H, K$ be two proper non-maximal subgroups of $G$ such that $H\not\leq\Phi(G), K\not\leq\Phi(G)$ and $\langle H, K\rangle < G$.

Does there exist a maximal subgroup $M$ of $G$ such that $H\not\leq M$ and $K\not\leq M$? $\Phi(G)$ denotes the Frattini subgroup of $G$, which is the intersection of all maximal subgroups of $G$.

(If $H$ and $K$ are conjugate in $G$, then such $M$ exists. Because maximal subgroups of a nilpotent group are normal in it).

Thank's in advanced!

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Sorry, the answer is no. In my previous "solution", I said that we could assume that $G$ is a $p$-group, but that is wrong.

Let $G = \langle a \rangle \times \langle b \rangle \times \langle c \rangle$, with $|a|=|b|=2$ and $|c|=3$ and $H = \langle a \rangle$, $K = \langle c \rangle$. So $G$ is a direct product of elementary abelian $p$-groups and $\Phi(G)$ is trivial.

All maximal subgroups of $G$ contain $\langle a,b \rangle$ or $\langle c \rangle$, so they all contain $H$ or $K$.

The answer is yes if $G$ is a $p$-group.

Since $\Phi(G) \le M$ for any maximal subgroup $M$ of $G$, we have $H \le M \Leftrightarrow \Phi(G)H \le M$, and so we can assume that $\Phi(G) < H$, and similarly $\phi(G) < K$. So, by working modulo $\Phi(G)$, we can assume that $\Phi(G)=1$.

If $G$ is a $p$-group, then it is elementary abelian. Let $1 \ne x_1 \in H$. If $x_1 \in K$, then we can take $M$ to be a maximal subgroup of $G$ not containing $x_1$, so assume that $x_1 \not\in K$. Similarly we can assume that there is $x_2 \in K \setminus H$. Then extend $\{x_1,x_2\}$ to a minimal generating set $\{x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n\}$ of $G$ and take $M= \langle x_1x_2,x_3,\ldots,x_n\rangle$.

This does not use the assumption that $H$ and $K$ are non-maximal.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Dear professor Holt, thank's a lot for the time on the question. Please let me know why do you assume that $H$ and $K$ are both maximal? $\endgroup$ – sebastian Sep 4 '14 at 9:36
  • $\begingroup$ That ensures that $H \not\le M$ and $K \not\le M$. $\endgroup$ – Derek Holt Sep 4 '14 at 11:15
  • $\begingroup$ Again I do apologize professor Holt! My mean is that why do you use the maximality of $H$ and $K$, while according to our assumption they are non-maximal? (May be $G$ is an elementary abelian group of rank greater than 2). $\endgroup$ – sebastian Sep 4 '14 at 12:53
  • $\begingroup$ Dear professor Holt; thank you very much for your nice example! If it is possible, please explain a little about the validity of the property when "$G$ is a $p$-group". $\endgroup$ – sebastian Sep 4 '14 at 18:07
  • $\begingroup$ I have added some explanation for the $p$-group case, which is hopefully correct this time! $\endgroup$ – Derek Holt Sep 4 '14 at 19:05

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.