This is a continuation from the previous post. Let G act on set X, but now we assume that both G and X are finite. Since X is a disjoint union of transitive G-sets, and each transitive G-set is isomorphic to G/H for some subgroup H ≤ G, it follows that we have:
.
Let’s consider the case where Hi = G. The corresponding G-sets are merely singleton sets since |G/Hi| = 1. These are the elements x of X for which gx = x for all g in G. We call such elements fixed points of X and denote them XG.
Now we can modify our equation to obtain:
,
where each Hi is a proper subgroup of G. Let’s specialise even further.
Definition. Let p be prime. A finite group G≠{e} is called a p-group if its order is a power of p. A subgroup which is a p-group is also called a p-subgroup.
Plugging this into the above equation, if G is a p-group, then each |G|/|Hi| is a positive power of p and so is divisible by p. We thus obtain:
.
This will be of great use to us.
Sylow’s First Theorem
The three Sylow theorems are extremely powerful results regarding the structure of finite groups. Let’s start with the preliminary result.
Cauchy’s Theorem. If |G| is divisible by prime p, then G has a subgroup of order p.
Proof. Use the following steps.
- Let
.
- Let Z/p act on it by left-rotation:
, where m = 0, 1, …, p-1. [ Check that
even if G is not abelian. ]
- Easy to count X : the first p-1 elements determine the final one uniquely, so
.
- The set of fixed points XZ/p is precisely the set of (x, …, x) (x in G) such that xp = e.
- XZ/p is not empty since it contains (e, …, e).
- Apply the above congruence: since Z/p is a p-group, |XZ/p| ≡ |X| ≡ 0 (mod p) so there’s a non-trivial element x of G such that xp = e. ♦
The first Sylow theorem is a more general version of Cauchy’s theorem, but its proof requires Cauchy’s theorem to kickstart it.
First Sylow Theorem. If |G| has order divisible by
and H<G is a subgroup of order
then H is contained in a subgroup K≤G of order
.
In short, by Cauchy’s theorem G has a subgroup H1 of order p. First Sylow theorem says this subgroup must be contained in another subgroup H1 < G of order p2. Applying this theorem repeatedly gives a sequence where each
.
Proof.
Case 1. If H is a normal subgroup of G, then G/H is a group of order divisible by p. Apply Cauchy’s theorem to obtain a subgroup G/H of order p, which corresponds to a group H < K ≤ G of order p × |H|. Done.
Case 2. If not, let’s try to “make it normal”. Hence, let . This is called the normaliser of H since it is the largest subgroup of G for which H is normal in. Thus,
and it remains to show [N(H):H] is a multiple of p, after which we can replace G by N(H) and apply case 1. To show this,
- consider the action of H on the set of left-cosets X = G/H by left multiplication
;
- |G/H| is divisible by p by assumption, so |XH| is also divisible by p;
- but XH is the set of gH for which hgH = gH for all h in H; i.e. the set of gH for which gHg-1 = H; in short, XH = N(H)/H. ♦
Second and Third Sylow Theorems
Let G be of order prm, where m is not divisible by prime p. Thanks to the first Sylow theorem, we know that there’s at least one subgroup of order pr. We shall call this a Sylow p-subgroup.
Second Sylow Theorem. Any two Sylow p-subgroups of G are conjugates, i.e. if
, then there is
such that
.
More generally, if P is a Sylow p-subgroup of G, and H is a p-subgroup of G, then we can find
,
.
Proof.
Let H act on the set X = G/P of left-cosets via left multiplication. Since P is Sylow p-subgroup, |X| is not a multiple of p. Thus, neither is |XH|. In particular, XH is not empty so contains some gP. Since this is fixed under action by H, we have hgP = gP for all h in H, and so in particular. ♦
Third Sylow Theorem. Let
be the number of Sylow p-subgroups of G. Then:
divides |G| and
.
Proof.
First assertion: let P be any Sylow p-subgroup of G. Then all Sylow p-subgroups are of the form ,
. Repetition occurs iff
.
So the distinct Sylow p-subgroups correspond to the left cosets G/N(P), i.e. , so it divides |G|.
Second assertion: let P act on the set X = G/P of left cosets (by left multiplication again). By the above congruence, we have:
.
- Clearly LHS = [G: P].
- On the other hand, the set XP comprises of all gP such that xgP = gP for all x in P. This holds iff
. But this precisely means that
. Hence
so RHS = [N(P): P].
- Since LHS is not divisible by p, dividing by RHS gives
which completes the proof. ♦