wu :: forums
« wu :: forums - John Thompson's Lemma Revisited »

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
May 5th, 2024, 12:16pm

RIDDLES SITE WRITE MATH! Home Home Help Help Search Search Members Members Login Login Register Register
   wu :: forums
   riddles
   putnam exam (pure math)
(Moderators: Eigenray, Grimbal, Icarus, towr, william wu, SMQ)
   John Thompson's Lemma Revisited
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1  Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: John Thompson's Lemma Revisited  (Read 2187 times)
ecoist
Senior Riddler
****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 405
John Thompson's Lemma Revisited  
« on: Aug 19th, 2006, 6:57pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Many years ago Zvonimir Janko reported to the group theory community that Thompson's Transfer Lemma is not a transfer lemma.  He gave the proof I had found.  That proof also works for the slight generalization:
 
Let G be a finite group of order greater than 2 whose sylow 2-subgroup S has the form S=CH, where C and H are subgroups of S with C cyclic of order greater than 1 and every G-conjugate of C has trivial intersection with H.  Then G is not simple.
« Last Edit: Aug 19th, 2006, 8:20pm by ecoist » IP Logged
ThudnBlunder
Uberpuzzler
*****




The dewdrop slides into the shining Sea

   


Gender: male
Posts: 4489
Re: John Thompson's Lemma Revisited  
« Reply #1 on: Aug 19th, 2006, 7:27pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Perhaps this should be in Putnam.
IP Logged

THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH.....................................................................er, if that's all right with the rest of you.
ecoist
Senior Riddler
****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 405
Re: John Thompson's Lemma Revisited  
« Reply #2 on: Aug 19th, 2006, 8:26pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Ok with me if the problem is moved to Putnam.  Assumed that the Putnam thread was for more difficult problems.
IP Logged
ThudnBlunder
Uberpuzzler
*****




The dewdrop slides into the shining Sea

   


Gender: male
Posts: 4489
Re: John Thompson's Lemma Revisited  
« Reply #3 on: Aug 19th, 2006, 10:12pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

In my opinion, Easy problems ought to be easily understood by the not-so-mathematically-minded.
« Last Edit: May 15th, 2007, 3:22am by ThudnBlunder » IP Logged

THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH.....................................................................er, if that's all right with the rest of you.
Michael Dagg
Senior Riddler
****






   


Gender: male
Posts: 500
Re: John Thompson's Lemma Revisited  
« Reply #4 on: Aug 21st, 2006, 4:48pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Nice problem!
 
Mechanisms for the classification of finite simple groups attempted to try  
to determine simple groups whose Sylow 2-subgroup was of this-or-that type.
 
Note that the dihedral case is just the kind of thing you have here, with, conjugation of C
nevertheless: |C|=2  and with   H   being the large cyclic subgroup of   S.
« Last Edit: Aug 21st, 2006, 6:45pm by Michael Dagg » IP Logged

Regards,
Michael Dagg
Michael Dagg
Senior Riddler
****






   


Gender: male
Posts: 500
Re: John Thompson's Lemma Revisited  
« Reply #5 on: Nov 1st, 2006, 7:09pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

You have to watch ecoist as he likes intersections within which and onto [which] are interesting!
 
 
« Last Edit: Nov 1st, 2006, 7:33pm by Michael Dagg » IP Logged

Regards,
Michael Dagg
ecoist
Senior Riddler
****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 405
Re: John Thompson's Lemma Revisited  
« Reply #6 on: May 14th, 2007, 5:29pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

In response to M_D (and sneakily reminding all that no one has yet posted a solution),  it is crucial that the conjugates of C intersect H trivially.  For, if C is cyclic of order 4 and H is of order 2 not in the center of the Sylow 2-subgroup HC, it is not enough that H contain no conjugates of C.  The simple group of order 168 is a counterexample.
IP Logged
Eigenray
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
*****






   


Gender: male
Posts: 1948
Re: John Thompson's Lemma Revisited  
« Reply #7 on: May 14th, 2007, 11:57pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

I see.  I was trying to generalize from the point of view of the transfer proof, which uses Ver:G S/S' (|C|=2).  But this is "not a transfer lemma": it generalizes the case |H|=1, which is a standard exercise.
 
Let C=<x> be cyclic of order m, and let n=[G:CH].
 
Let G = giH be a decomposition into [G:H]=mn left cosets.  Left multiplication gives an action : G Smn.  Under this action, xr has a fixed point iff it lies in some conjugate of H; by assumption, this happens iff m|r.  It follows that x acts as a product of n disjoint m-cycles; since m is even and n is odd, this is an odd permutation.  The kernel of sign is then normal of index 2.
IP Logged
Pages: 1  Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4!
Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board