MIT 18.701 — Lecture 15

Sylow's Theorems

Recall that the order of any subgroup of GG is a divisor of ∣G∣|G|. However, it is not true that every divisor of ∣G∣|G| must be the order of some subgroup; take G=A5G = A_5 from last lecture, for example.

Sylow's Theorems, surprisingly, can refine the above statement so that it is true.

§ Stating Sylow's Theorems

Definition (pp-Adic Valuation). For primes pp, let νp(k)\nu_p(k) denote the greatest nonnegative integer ℓ\ell such that pℓ∣kp^{\ell} \mid k.

Definition (pp-Subgroup, Sylow pp-Subgroup). For primes pp, a subgroup HH of a group GG is a pp-subgroup if ∣H∣|H| is a power of pp, and a Sylow pp-subgroup if ∣H∣=pνp(∣G∣)|H| = p^{\nu_p(|G|)}.

Theorem. (Sylow's Theorems) Let GG be a finite group and pp be any prime. Then:

  1. GG must have a Sylow pp-subgroup.

  2. All of the Sylow pp-subgroups are conjugates of each other.

  3. Every pp-subgroup of GG is a subset of some Sylow pp-subgroup of GG.

  4. The number NN of Sylow pp-subgroups of GG satisfies N≡1(modp)N \equiv 1 \pmod{p}, and NN divides ∣G∣|G|.

Remark. Usually “NN divides ∣G∣|G|” is written as “NN divides ∣G∣pνp(∣G∣)\frac{|G|}{p^{\nu_p(|G|)}}”. But “NN divides ∣G∣|G|” is good enough given N≡1(modp)N \equiv 1 \pmod{p}.

Example. The group S4S_4 has order 24=23×324 = 2^3 \times 3. Thus,

Example. The group GL2(Fp)GL_2(\mathbb{F}_p) has order p(p−1)2(p+1)p(p - 1)^2(p + 1). Thus, any Sylow pp-subgroup of GL2(Fp)GL_2(\mathbb{F}_p) must have order pp. And indeed, {[1x01]:x∈Fp}\left \{ \left[\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & x \\ 0 & 1 \end{smallmatrix}\right] : x \in \mathbb{F}_p \right \} is such a Sylow pp-subgroup.

§ Applications of Sylow's Theorems: Group Classification

One strong application of Sylow's Theorems is group classification.

Example. (Groups of Order 15) Determine all groups of order 1515 up to isomorphism.

Solution: Let GG be a group of order 1515. Then by Sylow's Theorem #4,

Also observe that HH and KK are normal. Indeed, if they were not normal, then conjugating them could yield a different Sylow pp-subgroup, contradicting the fact that HH and KK are one-of-a-kind.

The rest is standard: do some work to show H×KH \times K bijects with GG via (h,k)↦hk(h, k) \mapsto hk. So G≅C3×C5G \cong C_3 \times C_5.   ■\blacksquare

The situation is a little different when 1515 is replaced with 1010.

Example. (Groups of Order 10) Determine all groups of order 1010 up to isomorphism.

Solution: Let GG be a group of order 1010. Then by Sylow's Theorem #4,

It's now unclear whether KK is normal. But at least HH is normal, so we can write:

y⟨x⟩y−1=⟨x⟩   ⟹   yx=xny for some n∈{1,2,3,4}.y \langle x \rangle y^{-1} = \langle x \rangle ~ \implies ~ yx = x^n y \text{ for some } n \in \{1, 2, 3, 4\}.

At this point, we might be inclined to just define GG via group generation:

Gn={⟨x,y⟩∣x5=y2=id, yx=xny}.G_n = \{\langle x, y \rangle \mid x^5 = y^2 = \mathrm{id}, ~ yx = x^n y\}.

But in fact, not all GnG_n are valid, consistent groups! Observe:

x=y2x=yxny=x(n2)y2=x(n2)   ⟹   n2≡1(mod5).x = y^2 x = yx^n y = x^{(n^2)}y^2 = x^{(n^2)} ~ \implies ~ n^2 \equiv 1 \pmod{5}.

So only G1G_1 and G4G_4 are valid. And one can check that G1≅C2×C5G_1 \cong C_2 \times C_5 and G4≅D5G_4 \cong D_5, which work.   ■\blacksquare

It turns out that the above two arguments are all we need to classify groups of order pqpq.

Theorem. (Groups of Semiprime Order) Suppose ∣G∣=pq|G| = pq for primes pp and qq and p<qp < q. Then:

Proof: If q≢1(modp)q \not \equiv 1 \pmod{p}, then the argument for pq=15pq = 15 can be copy-pasted verbatim.

Otherwise, if q≡1(modp)q \equiv 1 \pmod{p}, then the argument for pq=10pq = 10 says GG must look like:

Gn={⟨x,y⟩∣xq=yp=id, yx=xny} for some n∈{1,2,…,q−1}.G_n = \{ \langle x, y \rangle \mid x^q = y^p = \mathrm{id}, ~ yx = x^ny\} \text{ for some } n \in \{1,2, \dots, q - 1\}.

However, just as in the pq=10pq = 10 case, we can constrain what nn can be, like so:

x=ypx=x(np)yp=x(np)   ⟹   np≡1(modq).x = y^px = x^{(n^p)}y^p = x^{(n^p)} ~ \implies ~ n^p \equiv 1 \pmod{q}.

To better understand the condition np≡1(modq)n^p \equiv 1 \pmod{q}, recall from Problem Set #4 that the multiplicative group (Fq×,×)(\mathbb{F}_q^{\times}, \times) is cyclic. Thus, {n∈Fq×∣np=1}\{n \in \mathbb{F}_q^{\times} \mid n^p = 1\} is a cyclic subgroup; say it's generated by some n0∈Fq×n_0 \in \mathbb{F}_q^{\times}. Then:

np≡1(modq)   ⟺   n∈{1,n0,n02,…,n0p−1}.n^p \equiv 1 \pmod{q} ~ \iff ~ n \in \{1, n_0, n_0^2, \dots, n_0^{p - 1}\}.

So GG must be G(n0k)G_{(n_0^k)}, with k∈{0,1,…,p−1}k \in \{0, 1, \dots, p - 1\}. It turns out that almost all kk yield the same G(n0k)G_{(n_0^k)}:

Claim. For any k∈{1,2,…,p−1}k \in \{1, 2, \dots, p - 1\}, we have Gn0≅G(n0k)G_{n_0} \cong G_{(n_0^k)}.

Proof: The isomorphism is just via a change of generator yy. Observe the following identity:

yx=xny   ⟺   ykx=x(nk)yk.yx = x^n y ~ \iff ~ y^kx = x^{(n^k)}y^k.

Therefore, we may write:

Gn0= {⟨x,y⟩∣xq=yp=id, yx=xn0y}= {⟨x,y⟩∣xq=yp=id, ykx=x(n0k)yk}= {⟨x,yk⟩∣xq=(yk)p=id, ykx=x(n0k)yk}= {⟨x,y′⟩∣xq=(y′)p=id, y′x=x(n0k)y′}=G(n0k).   □\begin{align*}G_{n_0} = \ & \{ \langle x, y \rangle \mid x^q = y^p = \mathrm{id}, \ yx = x^{n_0}y \} \\ = \ & \{ \langle x, y \rangle \mid x^q = y^p = \mathrm{id}, \ y^k x = x^{(n_0^k)}y^k \} \\ = \ & \{ \langle x, y^k \rangle \mid x^q = (y^k)^p = \mathrm{id}, \ y^kx = x^{(n_0^k)}y^k \} \\ = \ & \{ \langle x, y' \rangle \mid x^q = (y')^p = \mathrm{id}, \ y'x = x^{(n_0^k)}y' \} = G_{(n_0^k)}. ~~~ \square\end{align*}

So either n=1n = 1 or n≡n0k(modq)n \equiv n_0^k \pmod{q} for some k∈{1,2,…,p−1}k \in \{1, 2, \dots, p - 1\}. The former yields G≅Cp×CqG \cong C_p \times C_q, whereas the latter yields the semi-direct product Cq⋊CpC_q \rtimes C_p. (For now, just trust that Cq⋊CpC_q \rtimes C_p is correct.)   ■\blacksquare

Remark. Regarding Problem Set #4… we also showed more strongly that the multiplicative group of any finite field is cyclic. This implies, for example, that there is always a primitive root modulo any prime pp.

§ Proving Sylow's Theorems

Time to justify all the work we've done so far.

Theorem. (Sylow #1) Let GG be a finite group and pp be any prime. Then GG has a subgroup of order pνp(∣G∣)p^{\nu_p(|G|)}.

Proof: For ease of writing, say ℓ=νp(∣G∣)\ell = \nu_p(|G|) and ∣G∣=mpℓ|G| = m p^{\ell}. Consider the following group action:

Group Action. View GG as a group action (via left multiplication) on the set SS of all subsets T⊆GT \subseteq G such that ∣T∣=pℓ|T| = p^{\ell}.

We'll use this group action to help us find a subgroup of order pℓp^{\ell}.

Claim 1. There is some subset U∈SU \in S such that the orbit GUGU has size not divisible by pp.

Proof: This is a counting argument. The number of subsets in SS is:

∣S∣=(mpℓpℓ)≡(m1)≡m≢0(modp)     by Lucas’ Theorem.|S| = \binom{mp^{\ell}}{p^{\ell}} \equiv \binom{m}{1} \equiv m \not \equiv 0 \pmod{p} ~~~~ \text{ by \href{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas\%27s\_theorem}{Lucas' Theorem}}.

If the orbits are GUiGU_i, then ∑∣GUi∣=∣S∣≢0(modp)\sum |GU_i| = |S| \not \equiv 0 \pmod{p}, so some UiU_i must satisfy ∣GUi∣≢0(modp)|GU_i| \not \equiv 0 \pmod{p}.   □\square

We'll now use the subset UU to construct a subgroup of order pℓp^{\ell}.

Claim 2. The stabilizer H=Stab⁡G(U)H = \Stab_G(U) is a subgroup of GG with order pℓp^{\ell}.

Proof: Stabilizers are always subgroups, so HH being a subgroup of GG comes for free.

The Orbit-Stabilizer Theorem says that ∣G∣=∣GU∣⋅∣H∣|G| = |GU| \cdot |H|. Since pℓp^{\ell} divides ∣G∣|G|, yet pp does not divide ∣GU∣|GU|, this forces pℓp^{\ell} to divide ∣H∣|H|.

Finally, HU=UHU = U implies UU is a union of cosets of HH, and so ∣H∣|H| divides ∣U∣|U|. But U∈SU \in S, so ∣U∣=pℓ|U| = p^{\ell} must hold. Thus, ∣H∣|H| divides pℓp^{\ell}.

Combining “pℓp^{\ell} divides ∣H∣|H|” and “∣H∣|H| divides pℓp^{\ell}” yields ∣H∣=pℓ|H| = p^{\ell}, as desired.   □\square

And so we're done; our desired Sylow pp-subgroup is H=Stab⁡G(U)H = \Stab_G(U).   ■\blacksquare

Remark. (Reading Comprehension) Where does this proof fail when ℓ<νp(∣G∣)\ell < \nu_p(|G|)? What goes wrong if we, say, tried to replace every instance of “ℓ\ell” in the proof with “νp(∣G∣)−1\nu_p(|G|) - 1”?

Theorem. (Sylow #2 & Sylow #3) Let HH be a Sylow pp-subgroup of GG. Then every pp-subgroup of GG must be a subset of some conjugate of HH.

Proof: Let KK be a pp-subgroup of GG. Consider the following group action:

Group Action. View KK as a group action on the set of left cosets S:={gH∣g∈G}S := \{gH \mid g \in G\}.

It turns out we can say a lot about this group action:

Claim 1. This group action has an orbit of size 11. In other words, K(gH)=gHK(gH) = gH for some coset gHgH.

Proof: Say the orbit sizes are n1,n2,…,ntn_1, n_2, \dots, n_t. Then we have:

n1+n2+⋯+nt=∣S∣=∣G∣∣H∣≢0(modp).n_1 + n_2 + \dots + n_t = |S| = \dfrac{|G|}{|H|} \not \equiv 0 \pmod{p}.

Thus, there must exist some ii for which ni≢0(modp)n_i \not \equiv 0 \pmod{p}. But by the Orbit-Stabilizer Theorem, each nin_i is a divisor of ∣K∣=pk|K| = p^k. Combining ni≢0(modp)n_i \not \equiv 0 \pmod{p} and ni∣pkn_i \mid p^k forces ni=1n_i = 1 for some ii.   □\square

Well, what does K(gH)=gHK(gH) = gH mean?

Claim 2. If K(gH)=gHK(gH) = gH, then K⊆gHg−1K \subseteq gHg^{-1} (independent of the context of KK and gHgH).

Proof: Consider the following (more familiar) group action:

Group Action. View GG as a group action on subsets of itself (via left multiplication).

Then we can interpret K(gH)=gHK(gH) = gH as:

K(gH)=gH   ⟺   K⊆Stab⁡G(gH)=gStab⁡G(H)g−1=gHg−1.   □K(gH) = gH ~ \iff ~ K \subseteq \Stab_G(gH) = g\Stab_G(H)g^{-1} = gHg^{-1}. ~~~ \square

And Claim 2 says exactly what we want.   ■\blacksquare

Remark. (Reading Comprehension) Try to apply this argument more generally to prove a statement of the form:

Suppose AA and BB are subgroups of GG, with ∣G∣=n|G| = n, ∣A∣=a|A| = a, and ∣B∣=b|B| = b.
Then BB must be a subset of some conjugate of AA.

Show this succeeds if b=pνp(n)b = p^{\nu_p(n)} and b∣ab \mid a (where pp is a prime). Also show this for (n,a,b)=(1050,150,15)(n, a, b) = (1050, 150, 15).

Theorem. (Sylow #4) The number NN of Sylow pp-subgroups of GG satisfies N≡1(modp)N \equiv 1 \pmod{p} and NN divides ∣G∣|G|.

Proof: Let XX denote the set of all Sylow pp-subgroups.

Claim 1. We must have that ∣X∣|X| divides ∣G∣|G|.

Proof: Consider the group GG acting on the set XX via conjugation. Sylow #2 says this is a transitive group action. Then the Orbit-Stabilizer Theorem says ∣G∣=∣X∣⋅∣Stab⁡G(H)∣|G| = |X| \cdot |\Stab_G(H)| for any H∈XH \in X, so ∣X∣|X| divides ∣G∣|G|.   □\square

Showing ∣X∣≡1(modp)|X| \equiv 1 \pmod{p} is trickier. This time, pick any H0∈XH_0 \in X, and consider this group action:

Group Action. View H0H_0 as a group action on the set XX via conjugation.
(Explicitly, an element h0∈H0h_0 \in H_0 acts on a set H1∈XH_1 \in X by sending it to h0H1h0−1∈Xh_0H_1h_0^{-1} \in X.)

Consider the orbit sizes n1,n2,…,nkn_1, n_2, \dots, n_k of this group action. Then Orbit-Stabilizer tells us nin_i divides ∣H0∣=pνp(∣G∣)|H_0| = p^{\nu_p(|G|)}. In other words, for all ii, either p∣nip \mid n_i or ni=1n_i = 1.

Claim 2. There is exactly one orbit with size ni=1n_i = 1. (This orbit, of course, is {H0}\{H_0\}.)

Proof: Suppose some orbit {H′}\{H'\} has size ni=1n_i = 1. Consider the normalizer N(H′)N(H'), defined by:

N(H′):={n∈G∣nH′n−1=H′}N(H') := \{n \in G \mid nH'n^{-1} = H'\}

Then if {H′}\{H'\} is an orbit, we must have H0⊆N(H′)H_0 \subseteq N(H'). Also, H′⊆N(H′)H' \subseteq N(H') (obviously).

The key, now, is to think of H0H_0 and H′H' as Sylow pp-subgroups of N(H′)N(H'). By Sylow #2, this means H0H_0 is the conjugate of H′H' by some n∈N(H′)n \in N(H'); that is, H0=nH′n−1H_0 = nH'n^{-1} for some n∈N(H′)n \in N(H').

But nH′n−1=H′nH'n^{-1} = H' for all n∈N(H′)n \in N(H') by definition. So H0=H′H_0 = H', as desired.   □\square

Thus, we can take (WLOG) n1=1n_1 = 1 and p∣nip \mid n_i for all i>1i > 1, which yields:

∣X∣=(n1)⏟=1+(n2+⋯+nk)⏟divisible by p≡1(modp).   ■|X| = \underbrace{(n_1)}_{=1} + \underbrace{(n_2 + \dots + n_k)}_{\text{divisible by } p} \equiv 1 \pmod{p}. ~~~ \blacksquare

Remark. (Reading Comprehension) The following claim is not true. (A counterexample is G=S4G = S_4 and n=4n = 4.)

Let GG be a group and nn be a positive integer. Consider XX to be the set of all
subgroups HH of GG such that ∣H∣=n|H| = n. Then ∣X∣|X| divides ∣G∣|G|.

Why doesn't the proof of Claim 1 succeed in proving the above (false) claim? (Why was Sylow #2 so necessary?)