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 \ell such that pkp^{\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 N1(modp)N \equiv 1 \pmod{p}, and NN divides G|G|.

Remark. Usually “NN divides G|G|” is written as “NN divides Gpνp(G)\frac{|G|}{p^{\nu_p(|G|)}}”. But “NN divides G|G|” is good enough given N1(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(p1)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]:xFp}\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 GC3×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:

yxy1=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,yx5=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)      n21(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 G1C2×C5G_1 \cong C_2 \times C_5 and G4D5G_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 q1(modp)q \equiv 1 \pmod{p}, then the argument for pq=10pq = 10 says GG must look like:

Gn={x,yxq=yp=id, yx=xny} for some n{1,2,,q1}.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)      np1(modq).x = y^px = x^{(n^p)}y^p = x^{(n^p)} ~ \implies ~ n^p \equiv 1 \pmod{q}.

To better understand the condition np1(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, {nFq×np=1}\{n \in \mathbb{F}_q^{\times} \mid n^p = 1\} is a cyclic subgroup; say it's generated by some n0Fq×n_0 \in \mathbb{F}_q^{\times}. Then:

np1(modq)      n{1,n0,n02,,n0p1}.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,,p1}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,,p1}k \in \{1, 2, \dots, p - 1\}, we have Gn0G(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,yxq=yp=id, yx=xn0y}= {x,yxq=yp=id, ykx=x(n0k)yk}= {x,ykxq=(yk)p=id, ykx=x(n0k)yk}= {x,yxq=(y)p=id, yx=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 nn0k(modq)n \equiv n_0^k \pmod{q} for some k{1,2,,p1}k \in \{1, 2, \dots, p - 1\}. The former yields GCp×CqG \cong C_p \times C_q, whereas the latter yields the semi-direct product CqCpC_q \rtimes C_p. (For now, just trust that CqCpC_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 =νp(G)\ell = \nu_p(|G|) and G=mp|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 TGT \subseteq G such that T=p|T| = p^{\ell}.

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

Claim 1. There is some subset USU \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=(mpp)(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 pp^{\ell}.

Claim 2. The stabilizer H=StabG(U)H = \Stab_G(U) is a subgroup of GG with order pp^{\ell}.

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

The Orbit-Stabilizer Theorem says that G=GUH|G| = |GU| \cdot |H|. Since pp^{\ell} divides G|G|, yet pp does not divide GU|GU|, this forces pp^{\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 USU \in S, so U=p|U| = p^{\ell} must hold. Thus, H|H| divides pp^{\ell}.

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

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

Remark. (Reading Comprehension) Where does this proof fail when <νp(G)\ell < \nu_p(|G|)? What goes wrong if we, say, tried to replace every instance of “\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:={gHgG}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=GH≢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 nipkn_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 KgHg1K \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      KStabG(gH)=gStabG(H)g1=gHg1.   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 bab \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 N1(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=XStabG(H)|G| = |X| \cdot |\Stab_G(H)| for any HXH \in X, so X|X| divides G|G|.   \square

Showing X1(modp)|X| \equiv 1 \pmod{p} is trickier. This time, pick any H0XH_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 h0H0h_0 \in H_0 acts on a set H1XH_1 \in X by sending it to h0H1h01Xh_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 pnip \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):={nGnHn1=H}N(H') := \{n \in G \mid nH'n^{-1} = H'\}

Then if {H}\{H'\} is an orbit, we must have H0N(H)H_0 \subseteq N(H'). Also, HN(H)H' \subseteq N(H') (obviously).

The key, now, is to think of H0H_0 and HH' as Sylow pp-subgroups of N(H)N(H'). By Sylow #2, this means H0H_0 is the conjugate of HH' by some nN(H)n \in N(H'); that is, H0=nHn1H_0 = nH'n^{-1} for some nN(H)n \in N(H').

But nHn1=HnH'n^{-1} = H' for all nN(H)n \in N(H') by definition. So H0=HH_0 = H', as desired.   \square

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

X=(n1)=1+(n2++nk)divisible by p1(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?)