Recall that the order of any subgroup of G is a divisor of ∣G∣. However, it is not true that every divisor of ∣G∣ must be the order of some subgroup; take G=A5 from last lecture, for example.
Sylow's Theorems, surprisingly, can refine the above statement so that it is true.
§ Stating Sylow's Theorems
Definition (p-Adic Valuation). For primes p, let νp(k) denote the greatest nonnegative integer ℓ such that pℓ∣k.
Definition (p-Subgroup, Sylow p-Subgroup). For primes p, a subgroup H of a group G is a p-subgroup if ∣H∣ is a power of p, and a Sylow p-subgroup if ∣H∣=pνp(∣G∣).
Theorem. (Sylow's Theorems) Let G be a finite group and p be any prime. Then:
G must have a Sylow p-subgroup.
All of the Sylow p-subgroups are conjugates of each other.
Every p-subgroup of G is a subset of some Sylow p-subgroup of G.
The number N of Sylow p-subgroups of G satisfies N≡1(modp), and N divides ∣G∣.
Remark. Usually “N divides ∣G∣” is written as “N divides pνp(∣G∣)∣G∣”. But “N divides ∣G∣” is good enough given N≡1(modp).
Example. The group S4 has order 24=23×3. Thus,
Any Sylow 2-subgroup of S4 must have order 8: they're all conjugates of ⟨(12),(34),(13)(24)⟩.
Any Sylow 3-subgroup of S4 must have order 3: they're all conjugates of ⟨(123)⟩.
Example. The group GL2(Fp) has order p(p−1)2(p+1). Thus, any Sylow p-subgroup of GL2(Fp) must have order p. And indeed, {[10x1]:x∈Fp} is such a Sylow p-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 15 up to isomorphism.
Solution: Let G be a group of order 15. Then by Sylow's Theorem #4,
There is exactly one Sylow 3-subgroup H of G, with ∣H∣=3.
There is exactly one Sylow 5-subgroup K of G, with ∣K∣=5.
Also observe that H and K are normal. Indeed, if they were not normal, then conjugating them could yield a different Sylow p-subgroup, contradicting the fact that H and K are one-of-a-kind.
The rest is standard: do some work to show H×K bijects with G via (h,k)↦hk. So G≅C3×C5. ■
The situation is a little different when 15 is replaced with 10.
Example. (Groups of Order 10) Determine all groups of order 10 up to isomorphism.
Solution: Let G be a group of order 10. Then by Sylow's Theorem #4,
There is exactly one Sylow 5-subgroup H=⟨x⟩ of G, with ∣H∣=5.
There are either one or five Sylow 2-subgroups K, with ∣K∣=2. Let's say K=⟨y⟩.
It's now unclear whether K is normal. But at least H is normal, so we can write:
y⟨x⟩y−1=⟨x⟩⟹yx=xny for some n∈{1,2,3,4}.
At this point, we might be inclined to just define G via group generation:
Gn={⟨x,y⟩∣x5=y2=id,yx=xny}.
But in fact, not all Gn are valid, consistent groups! Observe:
x=y2x=yxny=x(n2)y2=x(n2)⟹n2≡1(mod5).
So only G1 and G4 are valid. And one can check that G1≅C2×C5 and G4≅D5, which work. ■
It turns out that the above two arguments are all we need to classify groups of order pq.
Theorem. (Groups of Semiprime Order) Suppose ∣G∣=pq for primes p and q and p<q. Then:
If q≡1(modp), then G≅Cp×Cq.
If q≡1(modp), then either G≅Cp×Cq or Cq⋊Cp (the semi-direct product).
Proof: If q≡1(modp), then the argument for pq=15 can be copy-pasted verbatim.
Otherwise, if q≡1(modp), then the argument for pq=10 says G must look like:
Gn={⟨x,y⟩∣xq=yp=id,yx=xny} for some n∈{1,2,…,q−1}.
However, just as in the pq=10 case, we can constrain what n can be, like so:
x=ypx=x(np)yp=x(np)⟹np≡1(modq).
To better understand the condition np≡1(modq), recall from Problem Set #4 that the multiplicative group (Fq×,×) is cyclic. Thus, {n∈Fq×∣np=1} is a cyclic subgroup; say it's generated by some n0∈Fq×. Then:
np≡1(modq)⟺n∈{1,n0,n02,…,n0p−1}.
So G must be G(n0k), with k∈{0,1,…,p−1}. It turns out that almost all k yield the same G(n0k):
Claim. For any k∈{1,2,…,p−1}, we have Gn0≅G(n0k).
Proof: The isomorphism is just via a change of generator y. Observe the following identity:
So either n=1 or n≡n0k(modq) for some k∈{1,2,…,p−1}. The former yields G≅Cp×Cq, whereas the latter yields the semi-direct product Cq⋊Cp. (For now, just trust that Cq⋊Cp is correct.) ■
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 p.
§ Proving Sylow's Theorems
Time to justify all the work we've done so far.
Theorem. (Sylow #1) Let G be a finite group and p be any prime. Then G has a subgroup of order pνp(∣G∣).
Proof: For ease of writing, say ℓ=νp(∣G∣) and ∣G∣=mpℓ. Consider the following group action:
Group Action. View G as a group action (via left multiplication) on the set S of all subsets T⊆G such that ∣T∣=pℓ.
We'll use this group action to help us find a subgroup of order pℓ.
Claim 1. There is some subset U∈S such that the orbit GU has size not divisible by p.
Proof: This is a counting argument. The number of subsets in S is:
If the orbits are GUi, then ∑∣GUi∣=∣S∣≡0(modp), so some Ui must satisfy ∣GUi∣≡0(modp). □
We'll now use the subset U to construct a subgroup of order pℓ.
Claim 2. The stabilizer H=StabG(U) is a subgroup of G with order pℓ.
Proof: Stabilizers are always subgroups, so H being a subgroup of G comes for free.
The Orbit-Stabilizer Theorem says that ∣G∣=∣GU∣⋅∣H∣. Since pℓ divides ∣G∣, yet p does not divide ∣GU∣, this forces pℓ to divide ∣H∣.
Finally, HU=U implies U is a union of cosets of H, and so ∣H∣ divides ∣U∣. But U∈S, so ∣U∣=pℓ must hold. Thus, ∣H∣ divides pℓ.
Combining “pℓ divides ∣H∣” and “∣H∣ divides pℓ” yields ∣H∣=pℓ, as desired. □
And so we're done; our desired Sylow p-subgroup is H=StabG(U). ■
Remark. (Reading Comprehension) Where does this proof fail when ℓ<νp(∣G∣)? What goes wrong if we, say, tried to replace every instance of “ℓ” in the proof with “νp(∣G∣)−1”?
Theorem. (Sylow #2 & Sylow #3) Let H be a Sylow p-subgroup of G. Then every p-subgroup of G must be a subset of some conjugate of H.
Proof: Let K be a p-subgroup of G. Consider the following group action:
Group Action. View K as a group action on the set of left cosets S:={gH∣g∈G}.
It turns out we can say a lot about this group action:
Claim 1. This group action has an orbit of size 1. In other words, K(gH)=gH for some coset gH.
Proof: Say the orbit sizes are n1,n2,…,nt. Then we have:
n1+n2+⋯+nt=∣S∣=∣H∣∣G∣≡0(modp).
Thus, there must exist some i for which ni≡0(modp). But by the Orbit-Stabilizer Theorem, each ni is a divisor of ∣K∣=pk. Combining ni≡0(modp) and ni∣pk forces ni=1 for some i. □
Well, what does K(gH)=gH mean?
Claim 2. If K(gH)=gH, then K⊆gHg−1 (independent of the context of K and gH).
Proof: Consider the following (more familiar) group action:
Group Action. View G as a group action on subsets of itself (via left multiplication).
Then we can interpret K(gH)=gH as:
K(gH)=gH⟺K⊆StabG(gH)=gStabG(H)g−1=gHg−1.□
And Claim 2 says exactly what we want. ■
Remark. (Reading Comprehension) Try to apply this argument more generally to prove a statement of the form:
Suppose A and B are subgroups of G, with ∣G∣=n, ∣A∣=a, and ∣B∣=b. Then B must be a subset of some conjugate of A.
Show this succeeds if b=pνp(n) and b∣a (where p is a prime). Also show this for (n,a,b)=(1050,150,15).
Theorem. (Sylow #4) The number N of Sylow p-subgroups of G satisfies N≡1(modp) and N divides ∣G∣.
Proof: Let X denote the set of all Sylow p-subgroups.
Claim 1. We must have that ∣X∣ divides ∣G∣.
Proof: Consider the group G acting on the set X via conjugation. Sylow #2 says this is a transitive group action. Then the Orbit-Stabilizer Theorem says ∣G∣=∣X∣⋅∣StabG(H)∣ for any H∈X, so ∣X∣ divides ∣G∣. □
Showing ∣X∣≡1(modp) is trickier. This time, pick any H0∈X, and consider this group action:
Group Action. View H0 as a group action on the set X via conjugation. (Explicitly, an element h0∈H0 acts on a set H1∈X by sending it to h0H1h0−1∈X.)
Consider the orbit sizes n1,n2,…,nk of this group action. Then Orbit-Stabilizer tells us ni divides ∣H0∣=pνp(∣G∣). In other words, for all i, either p∣ni or ni=1.
Claim 2. There is exactly one orbit with size ni=1. (This orbit, of course, is {H0}.)
Proof: Suppose some orbit {H′} has size ni=1. Consider the normalizer N(H′), defined by:
N(H′):={n∈G∣nH′n−1=H′}
Then if {H′} is an orbit, we must have H0⊆N(H′). Also, H′⊆N(H′) (obviously).
The key, now, is to think of H0 and H′ as Sylow p-subgroups of N(H′). By Sylow #2, this means H0 is the conjugate of H′ by some n∈N(H′); that is, H0=nH′n−1 for some n∈N(H′).
But nH′n−1=H′ for all n∈N(H′) by definition. So H0=H′, as desired. □
Thus, we can take (WLOG) n1=1 and p∣ni for all i>1, which yields:
∣X∣==1(n1)+divisible by p(n2+⋯+nk)≡1(modp).■
Remark. (Reading Comprehension) The following claim is not true. (A counterexample is G=S4 and n=4.)
Let G be a group and n be a positive integer. Consider X to be the set of all subgroups H of G such that ∣H∣=n. Then ∣X∣ divides ∣G∣.
Why doesn't the proof of Claim 1 succeed in proving the above (false) claim? (Why was Sylow #2 so necessary?)