[TOC]
Find group s.t. Cayley graph is
Problem. Express as a normal edge-transitive Cayley graph.
An easier problem
First, try to express as a normal edge-transitive Cayley graph. Suppose and is normal edge-transitive. Then is transitive on .
Recall:
Exm. Let . Then and acting on is transitive. Then where is a prime. See here.
And we know is elementary abelian.
Back to the problem
Now suppose . Define as . Note that the complement graph of is also a Cayley graph, i.e. . Thus is a subgroup with . Assume is normal arc-transitive, then is transitive on . Hence elements of have the same order and are conjugate in a subgroup of . Simply, we say is a REA-group relative to .
Def. A finite group is a relative elementary abelian group if has a subgroup such that all elements of are conjugate in a subgroup of .
Properties of REA-group
Problem. Characterize REA-groups. Study and such that is transitive on and study and its subgroups which are transitive on .
Lemma. Let be a REA-group relative to . Then:
- each element of is of order for some prime and integer , which is independent of the choice of elements;
- an element of does not centralize an element of of order coprime to .
Proof. i) Let . If with , then and do not have the same order and so . Then yields , which is impossible. Hence for some prime . Since all elements in have the same order, for all .
ii) If centralize such that , then and , not possible.
Cor. If is abelian and REA, then is a -group.
Proof. By the lemma above, if order of elements of is and order of an element of is coprime to , then for all , contradiction.
nilpotent + REA ⇒ p-group
Lemma. Let such that . Then is a REA-group relative to .
Proof. Easy. Only need to show elements in are conjugate in .
Lemma. If is a REA-group relative to , then .
Proof. Let be a minimal counter-example. Then is not normal in . Since all elements of have order , define Then and . Let . Then is a REA-group relative to .
If is not a -group, then is non-trivial. By minial counter-example, . Then , contradiction. Thus is a -group.
Let be the center of . Then . Suppose . Then elements of are conjugate to some elements of center and so . Thus , which is impossible.
Fact: A finite group cannot be written as a union of two proper group. For example, suppose and for any , consider .
Hence and . Now is a REA-group relative to and , which is also impossible.
Rmk. is not necessarily a characteristic group. For example:

Lemma. .
Proof. For any , if , then . Thus each non-identity element of is of order .
Assume first that is a -group. Then the commutator subgroup is nontrivial (proof later). We claim that . Otherwise . Since is a characteristic subgroup, every element of lies in , namely, . Thus, , which is impossible. Hence, and is abelian. Therefore, for some positive integer .
Fact: -group has non-trivial commutator is non-trivial.
Proof 1. Suppose is a -group, then is non-trivial. Then has definitely an order smaller than that of . By induction, Hence , so .
Proof 2. Using the following proposition:
- every -group is nilpotent
- a finite group is nilpotent iff all its maximal proper subgroup is normal
- a proper maximal subgroup of a finite group has prime index
and we get a proper maximal subgroup of a -group is normal and has index . Suppose is a -group and is a proper maximal subgroup. Then is of order and so it is cyclic. Then is a non-trivial subgroup of .
Suppose now that is not a -group. Since the elements in have the same order , each element of of order not equal to lies in the normal subgroup . Thus, the set is a subset of the subgroup , and . Clearly, generates a characteristic subgroup of . By Lemma, is an REA group relative to . Since contains all -elements of , so does . So, the factor group is a -group. Therefore, the factor group is an elementary abelian -group by the previous paragraph. So is , because is elementary abelian, completing the proof.
