[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.