How to show that Group of order $2376$ is not simple












5














How to show that Group of order $2376$ is not simple,



Now I know that $2376=2^3.3^3.11$



So, $n_{11}=1,12$(Are there any other possibilities? According to my calculation; these are the all)



Now if I have $12$ Sylow-11 subgroups then counting the elements would not help me.



Even if I consider $2$ Sylow-11 subgroups say $H,K$ then their intersection will contain $1$ element only. So their normalizer is the whole group so this way will also not work.



Now I was thinking that here $N_G(H)/C_G(H) cong Aut(H) cong Bbb Z_{10} $ could that help as if I can show that $N_G(H)=G$ then I am done. Here $N_G(H)$ is the normalizer of the group $H$ in $G$, $C_G(H)$ is the centralizer of the group $H$ in $G$.



I would like to know if there would be any other way as well.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Did you mean to show that a group of this order is not simple?
    – ahulpke
    Sep 27 '18 at 21:30










  • yes, you are right
    – user561073
    Sep 27 '18 at 21:32
















5














How to show that Group of order $2376$ is not simple,



Now I know that $2376=2^3.3^3.11$



So, $n_{11}=1,12$(Are there any other possibilities? According to my calculation; these are the all)



Now if I have $12$ Sylow-11 subgroups then counting the elements would not help me.



Even if I consider $2$ Sylow-11 subgroups say $H,K$ then their intersection will contain $1$ element only. So their normalizer is the whole group so this way will also not work.



Now I was thinking that here $N_G(H)/C_G(H) cong Aut(H) cong Bbb Z_{10} $ could that help as if I can show that $N_G(H)=G$ then I am done. Here $N_G(H)$ is the normalizer of the group $H$ in $G$, $C_G(H)$ is the centralizer of the group $H$ in $G$.



I would like to know if there would be any other way as well.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Did you mean to show that a group of this order is not simple?
    – ahulpke
    Sep 27 '18 at 21:30










  • yes, you are right
    – user561073
    Sep 27 '18 at 21:32














5












5








5


1





How to show that Group of order $2376$ is not simple,



Now I know that $2376=2^3.3^3.11$



So, $n_{11}=1,12$(Are there any other possibilities? According to my calculation; these are the all)



Now if I have $12$ Sylow-11 subgroups then counting the elements would not help me.



Even if I consider $2$ Sylow-11 subgroups say $H,K$ then their intersection will contain $1$ element only. So their normalizer is the whole group so this way will also not work.



Now I was thinking that here $N_G(H)/C_G(H) cong Aut(H) cong Bbb Z_{10} $ could that help as if I can show that $N_G(H)=G$ then I am done. Here $N_G(H)$ is the normalizer of the group $H$ in $G$, $C_G(H)$ is the centralizer of the group $H$ in $G$.



I would like to know if there would be any other way as well.










share|cite|improve this question















How to show that Group of order $2376$ is not simple,



Now I know that $2376=2^3.3^3.11$



So, $n_{11}=1,12$(Are there any other possibilities? According to my calculation; these are the all)



Now if I have $12$ Sylow-11 subgroups then counting the elements would not help me.



Even if I consider $2$ Sylow-11 subgroups say $H,K$ then their intersection will contain $1$ element only. So their normalizer is the whole group so this way will also not work.



Now I was thinking that here $N_G(H)/C_G(H) cong Aut(H) cong Bbb Z_{10} $ could that help as if I can show that $N_G(H)=G$ then I am done. Here $N_G(H)$ is the normalizer of the group $H$ in $G$, $C_G(H)$ is the centralizer of the group $H$ in $G$.



I would like to know if there would be any other way as well.







group-theory finite-groups simple-groups






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Sep 27 '18 at 21:32

























asked Sep 27 '18 at 21:26







user561073



















  • Did you mean to show that a group of this order is not simple?
    – ahulpke
    Sep 27 '18 at 21:30










  • yes, you are right
    – user561073
    Sep 27 '18 at 21:32


















  • Did you mean to show that a group of this order is not simple?
    – ahulpke
    Sep 27 '18 at 21:30










  • yes, you are right
    – user561073
    Sep 27 '18 at 21:32
















Did you mean to show that a group of this order is not simple?
– ahulpke
Sep 27 '18 at 21:30




Did you mean to show that a group of this order is not simple?
– ahulpke
Sep 27 '18 at 21:30












yes, you are right
– user561073
Sep 27 '18 at 21:32




yes, you are right
– user561073
Sep 27 '18 at 21:32










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















5














I must admit I have never seen such a hard exercise of proving a group of a specific order is not simple. Here is a solution. Assume $G$ is a simple group of order $2376$. Then $n_{11}=12$. Let $S$ be an 11-Sylow subgroup. Then by Sylow theorems the index of $N_G(S)$ is $12$ and hence $|N_G(S)|=198$. Next we use the normalizer-centralizer theorem and get that $|N_G(S)/C_G(S)|$ divides $10$. As $|C_G(S)|$ must be an integer we can see that it is either $99$ or $198$, and anyway it is divisible by $9$.



Now let's look at $C=C_G(S)$. It is a group of size $99$ or $198$, and anyway its $3$-Sylow subgroups have size $9$. So let $P$ be a $3$-Sylow subgroup of $C$, and let $H=N_G(P)$. We know that $Pleq C=C_G(S)$. That means every element of $P$ commutes with any element of $S$. So we also have $Sleq C_G(P)leq N_G(P)=H$, so $|H|$ is divisible by $|S|=11$. Also, note that $P$ is a $3$-group in $G$ and hence is contained in a $3$-Sylow subgroup of $G$. So let $Q$ be a $3$-Sylow subgroup of $G$ that contains $P$. It is known that if $p$ is prime and we have a group of order $p^k$ then any subgroup of order $p^{k-1}$ is normal in it. Hence $P$ is normal in $Q$, and that implies $Qleq N_G(P)=H$. So $|H|$ is also divisible by $|Q|=27$.



So we have that $H$ is a subgroup of $G$ which is divisible by $11$ and by $27$, so it is divisible by their lcm which is $297$. That means the index of $H$ in $G$ is at most $8$. Now, if $H=G$ then it means that $N_G(P)=G$ and hence $P$ is normal in $G$ which contradicts our assumption that $G$ is simple. So it means $H$ must be a proper subgroup of $G$ and its index is at most $8$. So now we can define an action of $G$ on $G/H$ (the left cosets) by $g.xH=gxH$. The action gives us a homomorphism $varphi:Gto S_{G/H}$ by $varphi(g)(xH)=gxH$. As $G$ is simple the homomorphism must be either trivial or injective. It is easy to see that it isn't trivial, so it must be injective. But then $G$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $S_{G/H}$ and hence $|G|$ divides $|S_{G/H}|$. From here we get that $11$ must divide $|S_{G/H}|$. But that is a contradiction because $|S_{G/H}|=k!$ when $k$ is a number which is at most $8$, so it can't be divisible by $11$. So here is the contradiction, $G$ cannot be simple.






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 1




    I think you can shorten this. The conjugation action of $G$ on the $12$ conjugates of $S$ induces a homomorphism $G to S_{12}$ which must be injective because $G$ is simple. But $3$ divides $|C_G(S)|$, so $G$ has an element of order $33$ and $S_{12}$ does not.
    – Derek Holt
    Sep 28 '18 at 5:15










  • Oh, you say we take $gin S$ of order $11$ and $xin C_G(S)$ of order $3$, and as they commute we get that $gx$ has order $33$? You're right. Very good idea!
    – Mark
    Sep 28 '18 at 8:12











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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2933632%2fhow-to-show-that-group-of-order-2376-is-not-simple%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown
























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









5














I must admit I have never seen such a hard exercise of proving a group of a specific order is not simple. Here is a solution. Assume $G$ is a simple group of order $2376$. Then $n_{11}=12$. Let $S$ be an 11-Sylow subgroup. Then by Sylow theorems the index of $N_G(S)$ is $12$ and hence $|N_G(S)|=198$. Next we use the normalizer-centralizer theorem and get that $|N_G(S)/C_G(S)|$ divides $10$. As $|C_G(S)|$ must be an integer we can see that it is either $99$ or $198$, and anyway it is divisible by $9$.



Now let's look at $C=C_G(S)$. It is a group of size $99$ or $198$, and anyway its $3$-Sylow subgroups have size $9$. So let $P$ be a $3$-Sylow subgroup of $C$, and let $H=N_G(P)$. We know that $Pleq C=C_G(S)$. That means every element of $P$ commutes with any element of $S$. So we also have $Sleq C_G(P)leq N_G(P)=H$, so $|H|$ is divisible by $|S|=11$. Also, note that $P$ is a $3$-group in $G$ and hence is contained in a $3$-Sylow subgroup of $G$. So let $Q$ be a $3$-Sylow subgroup of $G$ that contains $P$. It is known that if $p$ is prime and we have a group of order $p^k$ then any subgroup of order $p^{k-1}$ is normal in it. Hence $P$ is normal in $Q$, and that implies $Qleq N_G(P)=H$. So $|H|$ is also divisible by $|Q|=27$.



So we have that $H$ is a subgroup of $G$ which is divisible by $11$ and by $27$, so it is divisible by their lcm which is $297$. That means the index of $H$ in $G$ is at most $8$. Now, if $H=G$ then it means that $N_G(P)=G$ and hence $P$ is normal in $G$ which contradicts our assumption that $G$ is simple. So it means $H$ must be a proper subgroup of $G$ and its index is at most $8$. So now we can define an action of $G$ on $G/H$ (the left cosets) by $g.xH=gxH$. The action gives us a homomorphism $varphi:Gto S_{G/H}$ by $varphi(g)(xH)=gxH$. As $G$ is simple the homomorphism must be either trivial or injective. It is easy to see that it isn't trivial, so it must be injective. But then $G$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $S_{G/H}$ and hence $|G|$ divides $|S_{G/H}|$. From here we get that $11$ must divide $|S_{G/H}|$. But that is a contradiction because $|S_{G/H}|=k!$ when $k$ is a number which is at most $8$, so it can't be divisible by $11$. So here is the contradiction, $G$ cannot be simple.






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 1




    I think you can shorten this. The conjugation action of $G$ on the $12$ conjugates of $S$ induces a homomorphism $G to S_{12}$ which must be injective because $G$ is simple. But $3$ divides $|C_G(S)|$, so $G$ has an element of order $33$ and $S_{12}$ does not.
    – Derek Holt
    Sep 28 '18 at 5:15










  • Oh, you say we take $gin S$ of order $11$ and $xin C_G(S)$ of order $3$, and as they commute we get that $gx$ has order $33$? You're right. Very good idea!
    – Mark
    Sep 28 '18 at 8:12
















5














I must admit I have never seen such a hard exercise of proving a group of a specific order is not simple. Here is a solution. Assume $G$ is a simple group of order $2376$. Then $n_{11}=12$. Let $S$ be an 11-Sylow subgroup. Then by Sylow theorems the index of $N_G(S)$ is $12$ and hence $|N_G(S)|=198$. Next we use the normalizer-centralizer theorem and get that $|N_G(S)/C_G(S)|$ divides $10$. As $|C_G(S)|$ must be an integer we can see that it is either $99$ or $198$, and anyway it is divisible by $9$.



Now let's look at $C=C_G(S)$. It is a group of size $99$ or $198$, and anyway its $3$-Sylow subgroups have size $9$. So let $P$ be a $3$-Sylow subgroup of $C$, and let $H=N_G(P)$. We know that $Pleq C=C_G(S)$. That means every element of $P$ commutes with any element of $S$. So we also have $Sleq C_G(P)leq N_G(P)=H$, so $|H|$ is divisible by $|S|=11$. Also, note that $P$ is a $3$-group in $G$ and hence is contained in a $3$-Sylow subgroup of $G$. So let $Q$ be a $3$-Sylow subgroup of $G$ that contains $P$. It is known that if $p$ is prime and we have a group of order $p^k$ then any subgroup of order $p^{k-1}$ is normal in it. Hence $P$ is normal in $Q$, and that implies $Qleq N_G(P)=H$. So $|H|$ is also divisible by $|Q|=27$.



So we have that $H$ is a subgroup of $G$ which is divisible by $11$ and by $27$, so it is divisible by their lcm which is $297$. That means the index of $H$ in $G$ is at most $8$. Now, if $H=G$ then it means that $N_G(P)=G$ and hence $P$ is normal in $G$ which contradicts our assumption that $G$ is simple. So it means $H$ must be a proper subgroup of $G$ and its index is at most $8$. So now we can define an action of $G$ on $G/H$ (the left cosets) by $g.xH=gxH$. The action gives us a homomorphism $varphi:Gto S_{G/H}$ by $varphi(g)(xH)=gxH$. As $G$ is simple the homomorphism must be either trivial or injective. It is easy to see that it isn't trivial, so it must be injective. But then $G$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $S_{G/H}$ and hence $|G|$ divides $|S_{G/H}|$. From here we get that $11$ must divide $|S_{G/H}|$. But that is a contradiction because $|S_{G/H}|=k!$ when $k$ is a number which is at most $8$, so it can't be divisible by $11$. So here is the contradiction, $G$ cannot be simple.






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 1




    I think you can shorten this. The conjugation action of $G$ on the $12$ conjugates of $S$ induces a homomorphism $G to S_{12}$ which must be injective because $G$ is simple. But $3$ divides $|C_G(S)|$, so $G$ has an element of order $33$ and $S_{12}$ does not.
    – Derek Holt
    Sep 28 '18 at 5:15










  • Oh, you say we take $gin S$ of order $11$ and $xin C_G(S)$ of order $3$, and as they commute we get that $gx$ has order $33$? You're right. Very good idea!
    – Mark
    Sep 28 '18 at 8:12














5












5








5






I must admit I have never seen such a hard exercise of proving a group of a specific order is not simple. Here is a solution. Assume $G$ is a simple group of order $2376$. Then $n_{11}=12$. Let $S$ be an 11-Sylow subgroup. Then by Sylow theorems the index of $N_G(S)$ is $12$ and hence $|N_G(S)|=198$. Next we use the normalizer-centralizer theorem and get that $|N_G(S)/C_G(S)|$ divides $10$. As $|C_G(S)|$ must be an integer we can see that it is either $99$ or $198$, and anyway it is divisible by $9$.



Now let's look at $C=C_G(S)$. It is a group of size $99$ or $198$, and anyway its $3$-Sylow subgroups have size $9$. So let $P$ be a $3$-Sylow subgroup of $C$, and let $H=N_G(P)$. We know that $Pleq C=C_G(S)$. That means every element of $P$ commutes with any element of $S$. So we also have $Sleq C_G(P)leq N_G(P)=H$, so $|H|$ is divisible by $|S|=11$. Also, note that $P$ is a $3$-group in $G$ and hence is contained in a $3$-Sylow subgroup of $G$. So let $Q$ be a $3$-Sylow subgroup of $G$ that contains $P$. It is known that if $p$ is prime and we have a group of order $p^k$ then any subgroup of order $p^{k-1}$ is normal in it. Hence $P$ is normal in $Q$, and that implies $Qleq N_G(P)=H$. So $|H|$ is also divisible by $|Q|=27$.



So we have that $H$ is a subgroup of $G$ which is divisible by $11$ and by $27$, so it is divisible by their lcm which is $297$. That means the index of $H$ in $G$ is at most $8$. Now, if $H=G$ then it means that $N_G(P)=G$ and hence $P$ is normal in $G$ which contradicts our assumption that $G$ is simple. So it means $H$ must be a proper subgroup of $G$ and its index is at most $8$. So now we can define an action of $G$ on $G/H$ (the left cosets) by $g.xH=gxH$. The action gives us a homomorphism $varphi:Gto S_{G/H}$ by $varphi(g)(xH)=gxH$. As $G$ is simple the homomorphism must be either trivial or injective. It is easy to see that it isn't trivial, so it must be injective. But then $G$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $S_{G/H}$ and hence $|G|$ divides $|S_{G/H}|$. From here we get that $11$ must divide $|S_{G/H}|$. But that is a contradiction because $|S_{G/H}|=k!$ when $k$ is a number which is at most $8$, so it can't be divisible by $11$. So here is the contradiction, $G$ cannot be simple.






share|cite|improve this answer














I must admit I have never seen such a hard exercise of proving a group of a specific order is not simple. Here is a solution. Assume $G$ is a simple group of order $2376$. Then $n_{11}=12$. Let $S$ be an 11-Sylow subgroup. Then by Sylow theorems the index of $N_G(S)$ is $12$ and hence $|N_G(S)|=198$. Next we use the normalizer-centralizer theorem and get that $|N_G(S)/C_G(S)|$ divides $10$. As $|C_G(S)|$ must be an integer we can see that it is either $99$ or $198$, and anyway it is divisible by $9$.



Now let's look at $C=C_G(S)$. It is a group of size $99$ or $198$, and anyway its $3$-Sylow subgroups have size $9$. So let $P$ be a $3$-Sylow subgroup of $C$, and let $H=N_G(P)$. We know that $Pleq C=C_G(S)$. That means every element of $P$ commutes with any element of $S$. So we also have $Sleq C_G(P)leq N_G(P)=H$, so $|H|$ is divisible by $|S|=11$. Also, note that $P$ is a $3$-group in $G$ and hence is contained in a $3$-Sylow subgroup of $G$. So let $Q$ be a $3$-Sylow subgroup of $G$ that contains $P$. It is known that if $p$ is prime and we have a group of order $p^k$ then any subgroup of order $p^{k-1}$ is normal in it. Hence $P$ is normal in $Q$, and that implies $Qleq N_G(P)=H$. So $|H|$ is also divisible by $|Q|=27$.



So we have that $H$ is a subgroup of $G$ which is divisible by $11$ and by $27$, so it is divisible by their lcm which is $297$. That means the index of $H$ in $G$ is at most $8$. Now, if $H=G$ then it means that $N_G(P)=G$ and hence $P$ is normal in $G$ which contradicts our assumption that $G$ is simple. So it means $H$ must be a proper subgroup of $G$ and its index is at most $8$. So now we can define an action of $G$ on $G/H$ (the left cosets) by $g.xH=gxH$. The action gives us a homomorphism $varphi:Gto S_{G/H}$ by $varphi(g)(xH)=gxH$. As $G$ is simple the homomorphism must be either trivial or injective. It is easy to see that it isn't trivial, so it must be injective. But then $G$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $S_{G/H}$ and hence $|G|$ divides $|S_{G/H}|$. From here we get that $11$ must divide $|S_{G/H}|$. But that is a contradiction because $|S_{G/H}|=k!$ when $k$ is a number which is at most $8$, so it can't be divisible by $11$. So here is the contradiction, $G$ cannot be simple.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jan 4 at 14:15

























answered Sep 28 '18 at 0:22









MarkMark

6,155416




6,155416








  • 1




    I think you can shorten this. The conjugation action of $G$ on the $12$ conjugates of $S$ induces a homomorphism $G to S_{12}$ which must be injective because $G$ is simple. But $3$ divides $|C_G(S)|$, so $G$ has an element of order $33$ and $S_{12}$ does not.
    – Derek Holt
    Sep 28 '18 at 5:15










  • Oh, you say we take $gin S$ of order $11$ and $xin C_G(S)$ of order $3$, and as they commute we get that $gx$ has order $33$? You're right. Very good idea!
    – Mark
    Sep 28 '18 at 8:12














  • 1




    I think you can shorten this. The conjugation action of $G$ on the $12$ conjugates of $S$ induces a homomorphism $G to S_{12}$ which must be injective because $G$ is simple. But $3$ divides $|C_G(S)|$, so $G$ has an element of order $33$ and $S_{12}$ does not.
    – Derek Holt
    Sep 28 '18 at 5:15










  • Oh, you say we take $gin S$ of order $11$ and $xin C_G(S)$ of order $3$, and as they commute we get that $gx$ has order $33$? You're right. Very good idea!
    – Mark
    Sep 28 '18 at 8:12








1




1




I think you can shorten this. The conjugation action of $G$ on the $12$ conjugates of $S$ induces a homomorphism $G to S_{12}$ which must be injective because $G$ is simple. But $3$ divides $|C_G(S)|$, so $G$ has an element of order $33$ and $S_{12}$ does not.
– Derek Holt
Sep 28 '18 at 5:15




I think you can shorten this. The conjugation action of $G$ on the $12$ conjugates of $S$ induces a homomorphism $G to S_{12}$ which must be injective because $G$ is simple. But $3$ divides $|C_G(S)|$, so $G$ has an element of order $33$ and $S_{12}$ does not.
– Derek Holt
Sep 28 '18 at 5:15












Oh, you say we take $gin S$ of order $11$ and $xin C_G(S)$ of order $3$, and as they commute we get that $gx$ has order $33$? You're right. Very good idea!
– Mark
Sep 28 '18 at 8:12




Oh, you say we take $gin S$ of order $11$ and $xin C_G(S)$ of order $3$, and as they commute we get that $gx$ has order $33$? You're right. Very good idea!
– Mark
Sep 28 '18 at 8:12


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • 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.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2933632%2fhow-to-show-that-group-of-order-2376-is-not-simple%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

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







Popular posts from this blog

An IMO inspired problem

Management

Has there ever been an instance of an active nuclear power plant within or near a war zone?