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}