Mixing
No group of order 10000 is simple
$begingroup$
A proof of this fact was already given here: No group of order 10,000 is simple
However, I am wondering whether or not the following proof works as well:
By way of contradiction, suppose $G$ is simple and $|G| = 10000 = 5^42^4$. Sylow theory gives $|operatorname{Syl}_5(G)| = 1$ or $16$. If $|operatorname{Syl}_5(G)| = 1$, then there is a Sylow 5-subgroup that is normal, and so we would have a contradiction. So suppose that $|operatorname{Syl}_5(G)| = 16$. Consider the action of $G$ on $operatorname{Syl}_5(G)$ by conjugation and let $$phi : G to S_{16}$$ be the associated permutation representation. The map $phi$ is nontrivial since the action is transitive by the second part of Sylow theory, which says that all Sylow p-subgroups are conjugate of each other. This show that the kernel of $phi$ is not all of $G$. Also, note that $10^4 = 5^4times 2^4$ does not divide $16!$, since $16! = 2^{15} times 3^6times 5^3times 7^2times 11times 13$, and this prime factorization does not contain $5^4$. Hence $phi$ is not injective, and so the kernel is not trivial. Hence $ker(phi)$ is a proper nontrivial normal subgroup of $G$, which contradicts out assumption that $G$ is simple.
group-theory proof-verification sylow-theory simple-groups
edited Jan 18 at 16:22
Rei Henigman
717
asked Dec 8 '18 at 23:20
WesleyWesley
554313
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A proof of this fact was already given here: No group of order 10,000 is simple
However, I am wondering whether or not the following proof works as well:
By way of contradiction, suppose $G$ is simple and $|G| = 10000 = 5^42^4$. Sylow theory gives $|operatorname{Syl}_5(G)| = 1$ or $16$. If $|operatorname{Syl}_5(G)| = 1$, then there is a Sylow 5-subgroup that is normal, and so we would have a contradiction. So suppose that $|operatorname{Syl}_5(G)| = 16$. Consider the action of $G$ on $operatorname{Syl}_5(G)$ by conjugation and let $$phi : G to S_{16}$$ be the associated permutation representation. The map $phi$ is nontrivial since the action is transitive by the second part of Sylow theory, which says that all Sylow p-subgroups are conjugate of each other. This show that the kernel of $phi$ is not all of $G$. Also, note that $10^4 = 5^4times 2^4$ does not divide $16!$, since $16! = 2^{15} times 3^6times 5^3times 7^2times 11times 13$, and this prime factorization does not contain $5^4$. Hence $phi$ is not injective, and so the kernel is not trivial. Hence $ker(phi)$ is a proper nontrivial normal subgroup of $G$, which contradicts out assumption that $G$ is simple.
group-theory proof-verification sylow-theory simple-groups
edited Jan 18 at 16:22
Rei Henigman
717
asked Dec 8 '18 at 23:20
WesleyWesley
554313
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I might be missing something, but this is the argument given in brief by the accepted solution to the linked problem. e: Here the action on left cosets of the normalizer of a given sylow 2-subgroup is quite similar to the conjugation action on the set of sylow 2-subgroups
$endgroup$
– Rolf Hoyer
Dec 8 '18 at 23:23
1
$begingroup$
This is not a proof by contradiction: you have two possible cases, for which you find a non-trivial normal subgroup, hence in each case $G$ is not simple.
$endgroup$
– Bernard
Dec 8 '18 at 23:24
$begingroup$
@RolfHoyer So this a valid and complete proof, even though I am using a different action than the other proof?
$endgroup$
– Wesley
Dec 9 '18 at 20:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A proof of this fact was already given here: No group of order 10,000 is simple
However, I am wondering whether or not the following proof works as well:
By way of contradiction, suppose $G$ is simple and $|G| = 10000 = 5^42^4$. Sylow theory gives $|operatorname{Syl}_5(G)| = 1$ or $16$. If $|operatorname{Syl}_5(G)| = 1$, then there is a Sylow 5-subgroup that is normal, and so we would have a contradiction. So suppose that $|operatorname{Syl}_5(G)| = 16$. Consider the action of $G$ on $operatorname{Syl}_5(G)$ by conjugation and let $$phi : G to S_{16}$$ be the associated permutation representation. The map $phi$ is nontrivial since the action is transitive by the second part of Sylow theory, which says that all Sylow p-subgroups are conjugate of each other. This show that the kernel of $phi$ is not all of $G$. Also, note that $10^4 = 5^4times 2^4$ does not divide $16!$, since $16! = 2^{15} times 3^6times 5^3times 7^2times 11times 13$, and this prime factorization does not contain $5^4$. Hence $phi$ is not injective, and so the kernel is not trivial. Hence $ker(phi)$ is a proper nontrivial normal subgroup of $G$, which contradicts out assumption that $G$ is simple.
group-theory proof-verification sylow-theory simple-groups
edited Jan 18 at 16:22
Rei Henigman
717
asked Dec 8 '18 at 23:20
WesleyWesley
554313
$endgroup$
A proof of this fact was already given here: No group of order 10,000 is simple
However, I am wondering whether or not the following proof works as well:
By way of contradiction, suppose $G$ is simple and $|G| = 10000 = 5^42^4$. Sylow theory gives $|operatorname{Syl}_5(G)| = 1$ or $16$. If $|operatorname{Syl}_5(G)| = 1$, then there is a Sylow 5-subgroup that is normal, and so we would have a contradiction. So suppose that $|operatorname{Syl}_5(G)| = 16$. Consider the action of $G$ on $operatorname{Syl}_5(G)$ by conjugation and let $$phi : G to S_{16}$$ be the associated permutation representation. The map $phi$ is nontrivial since the action is transitive by the second part of Sylow theory, which says that all Sylow p-subgroups are conjugate of each other. This show that the kernel of $phi$ is not all of $G$. Also, note that $10^4 = 5^4times 2^4$ does not divide $16!$, since $16! = 2^{15} times 3^6times 5^3times 7^2times 11times 13$, and this prime factorization does not contain $5^4$. Hence $phi$ is not injective, and so the kernel is not trivial. Hence $ker(phi)$ is a proper nontrivial normal subgroup of $G$, which contradicts out assumption that $G$ is simple.
group-theory proof-verification sylow-theory simple-groups
group-theory proof-verification sylow-theory simple-groups
edited Jan 18 at 16:22
Rei Henigman
717
asked Dec 8 '18 at 23:20
WesleyWesley
554313
edited Jan 18 at 16:22
Rei Henigman
717
asked Dec 8 '18 at 23:20
WesleyWesley
554313
edited Jan 18 at 16:22
Rei Henigman
717
edited Jan 18 at 16:22
Rei Henigman
717
edited Jan 18 at 16:22
Rei Henigman
717
717
asked Dec 8 '18 at 23:20
WesleyWesley
554313
asked Dec 8 '18 at 23:20
WesleyWesley
554313
asked Dec 8 '18 at 23:20
WesleyWesley
554313
554313
1
$begingroup$
I might be missing something, but this is the argument given in brief by the accepted solution to the linked problem. e: Here the action on left cosets of the normalizer of a given sylow 2-subgroup is quite similar to the conjugation action on the set of sylow 2-subgroups
$endgroup$
– Rolf Hoyer
Dec 8 '18 at 23:23
1
$begingroup$
This is not a proof by contradiction: you have two possible cases, for which you find a non-trivial normal subgroup, hence in each case $G$ is not simple.
$endgroup$
– Bernard
Dec 8 '18 at 23:24
$begingroup$
@RolfHoyer So this a valid and complete proof, even though I am using a different action than the other proof?
$endgroup$
– Wesley
Dec 9 '18 at 20:11
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
I might be missing something, but this is the argument given in brief by the accepted solution to the linked problem. e: Here the action on left cosets of the normalizer of a given sylow 2-subgroup is quite similar to the conjugation action on the set of sylow 2-subgroups
$endgroup$
– Rolf Hoyer
Dec 8 '18 at 23:23
1
$begingroup$
This is not a proof by contradiction: you have two possible cases, for which you find a non-trivial normal subgroup, hence in each case $G$ is not simple.
$endgroup$
– Bernard
Dec 8 '18 at 23:24
$begingroup$
@RolfHoyer So this a valid and complete proof, even though I am using a different action than the other proof?
$endgroup$
– Wesley
Dec 9 '18 at 20:11
1
1
$begingroup$
I might be missing something, but this is the argument given in brief by the accepted solution to the linked problem. e: Here the action on left cosets of the normalizer of a given sylow 2-subgroup is quite similar to the conjugation action on the set of sylow 2-subgroups
$endgroup$
– Rolf Hoyer
Dec 8 '18 at 23:23
$begingroup$
I might be missing something, but this is the argument given in brief by the accepted solution to the linked problem. e: Here the action on left cosets of the normalizer of a given sylow 2-subgroup is quite similar to the conjugation action on the set of sylow 2-subgroups
$endgroup$
– Rolf Hoyer
Dec 8 '18 at 23:23
1
1
$begingroup$
This is not a proof by contradiction: you have two possible cases, for which you find a non-trivial normal subgroup, hence in each case $G$ is not simple.
$endgroup$
– Bernard
Dec 8 '18 at 23:24
$begingroup$
This is not a proof by contradiction: you have two possible cases, for which you find a non-trivial normal subgroup, hence in each case $G$ is not simple.
$endgroup$
– Bernard
Dec 8 '18 at 23:24
$begingroup$
@RolfHoyer So this a valid and complete proof, even though I am using a different action than the other proof?
$endgroup$
– Wesley
Dec 9 '18 at 20:11
$begingroup$
@RolfHoyer So this a valid and complete proof, even though I am using a different action than the other proof?
$endgroup$
– Wesley
Dec 9 '18 at 20:11
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3031788%2fno-group-of-order-10000-is-simple%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3031788%2fno-group-of-order-10000-is-simple%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
I might be missing something, but this is the argument given in brief by the accepted solution to the linked problem. e: Here the action on left cosets of the normalizer of a given sylow 2-subgroup is quite similar to the conjugation action on the set of sylow 2-subgroups
$endgroup$
– Rolf Hoyer
Dec 8 '18 at 23:23
1
$begingroup$
This is not a proof by contradiction: you have two possible cases, for which you find a non-trivial normal subgroup, hence in each case $G$ is not simple.
$endgroup$
– Bernard
Dec 8 '18 at 23:24
$begingroup$
@RolfHoyer So this a valid and complete proof, even though I am using a different action than the other proof?
$endgroup$
– Wesley
Dec 9 '18 at 20:11