transfer

Let be a subgroup and . Define and be the permutation induced from . Since , we have that .

Define , and define

as a transfer from to .

Observation.

  • is a homomorphism from to ;
  • does not depend on the choices of ;
  • Writing in cycle form , then there is .

p-nilpotent

A group is called -nilpotent if , where and is a Sylow -subgroup, and .

Burnside's transfer theorem

Let be a finite group, and let be a Sylow -subgroup. If , then is -nilpotent.

\begin{proof} Since , then is abelian and .

Since , is surjective. So has kernel and . So such that and so is -nilpotent. \end{proof}

Corollary

Theorem

Let be finite of which Sylow subgroups are all cyclic. Let be the smallest prime divisor of and let be a Sylow -subgroup of . Then:

  • is -nilpotent.
  • is solvable.

\begin{proof} Since is cyclic and is the smallest prime divisor, we have that and . So has a normal subgroup with . Then is -nilpotent where is the smallest prime divisor of . Repeat this procedure and we get . Note that is a Sylow subgroup and is solvable. So is solvable. \end{proof}

Corollary

If a Sylow -group of is cyclic, then is solvable.

\begin{proof} By ^sezt3q, is -nilpotent and so there exists such that and is odd. By Feit–Thompson theorem, is solvable. \end{proof}

Proposition

Let be a finite nonabelian simple group, and let be the smallest prime divisor of . Then is divisible by or .

\begin{proof} Suppose is not divisible by , then . Otherwise, a Sylow -subgroup and is -nilpotent, contradiction by simple. Thus is cyclic or . The first case is impossible. Hence and . Further and . Since is the smallest prime divisor and is nonsolvable, then and . It yields that .
\end{proof}

Application

Proposition

Let with primes. Then is solvable.

\begin{proof} Note that and , we have . Let be a Sylow -subgroup of . If , then is -nilpotent and so is solvable. Otherwise where . Since , there is and so , . Hence and so for a Sylow -group , . As is a -group and is solvable, is solvable. \end{proof}

Proposition

Group of order is not simple.

\begin{proof} Assume that is simple. Since , does not have subgroup of index . Hence . If , and so . It deduces that is -nilpotent, contradiction. Thus and . Since and , we have and is cyclic.

Let be the group of order . We claim that .

  • Since and , there is .
  • Consider . There exists a Sylow -subgroup . If , then . Otherwise and . Thus .
  • As , .

Since , the number of Sylow -subgroups of is not equal to . Since , the number of Sylow -subgroups of is or .

  • If it equals to , then and , which is impossible.
  • If it equals to , then and , contradicting with simple.

Now we finish the proof. \end{proof}

Proposition

Group of order is not simple.

\begin{proof} Since , we have . If , then and , where is a Sylow -subgroup. It deduces that and so is -nilpotent. Hence and . Since , we have and is cyclic. It yields that has an element of order .

Since , does not have an element of order . Contradiction. \end{proof}

Proposition

Group of order is not simple.

\begin{proof} Assume is simple. By Sylow’s theorem, . Then and yield that . Since and is cyclic, by GZ-Theorem is abelian. It deduces that is cyclic. Assume that is an element of order . Since , there is an injective map . Note that is a cycle of length , then and so is not simple. \end{proof}

Proposition

Group of order is not simple.

\begin{proof} Assume is simple, then . Then and yield that . Thus . Note that acting on has two orbits, as , is a -subgroup and has only one fixed point. Take , then acts on has at most fixed points by ^x4xxhg.

Since , is a product of -cycles. Notice that fixes and so is a product of five -cycles. Therefore, amd so has a normal subgroup of index . \end{proof}