Chapter 7
Topics in group theory
7.1. Semidirect products
Proposition 7.1.1. §
Let and be groups and be a homomorphism. Then there exists a group with underlying set and group operation
for all and . Moreover, and . In fact, in we have for all and .
Proof.
We note that is an identity, that is inverse to , and we leave it to the reader to check associativity. Clearly by definition of the multiplication, and we check that for and , we have
□
Definition 7.1.2. §
For groups and and a homomorphism , the group defined by Proposition 7.1.1 is known as the semidirect product of and relative to and is denoted by .
Example 7.1.3. §
If and are groups and satisfies for all , then is the direct product .
Example 7.1.4. §
Let be the isomorphism taking to multiplication by . Set . Then via , so is also isomorphic to by Proposition 4.3.5.
Proposition 7.1.5. §
Let be a group with normal subgroup and subgroup such that and . Define a homomorphism by . Then we may define an isomorphism of groups by
for all and .
Proof.
Any can be written as for some and by assumption, so is onto. For and , we have
If , then , so . □
The proposition we have just proven has Proposition 4.11.4 as a corollary.
Proof
Alternate proof of Proposition 4.11.4. By Proposition 7.1.5, we need only that given by for and is the trivial map. That is, we need that , or , for all such and . This follows as and are normal, so . □
Definition 7.1.6. §
If is a group with subgroups and such that for given by , then we say that is the internal semidirect product of and and write to denote this.
Definition 7.1.7. §
Let be a group with normal subgroup . A complement to in is a subgroup such that is the internal semidirect product of and .
Remark 7.1.8. §
There are often many complements to a normal subgroup. In particular, if and , then is also a complement to . If is abelian, then we have the equality of conjugation maps, but if is nonabelian, then these may not be equal. The map given by would then satisfy , though not necessarily internally. Rather, this is simply an expression of the fact that .
The following rather general result can be used to show that two semidirect products are isomorphic.
Proposition 7.1.9. §
Let , , , and be groups and and be homomorphisms. Suppose that there exist isomorphisms and , and define
by for any . If , then the map
defined by for all and is an isomorphism.
Proof.
Note that has an inverse given by for all and , so we need only show that is a homomorphism. Letting and , we calculate:
To see that the first coordinates of these expressions are equal, we check that
Thus, is a homomorphism. □
We can use this to completely classify groups of order a product of two distinct primes, completing the study begun in Theorem 4.11.5.
Theorem 7.1.10. §
Let and be distinct primes with . Then there exists a unique isomorphism class of nonabelian groups of order .
Proof.
Let be a nonabelian group. By Theorem 4.11.5, we have that it has a unique normal subgroup of order , and let be a subgroup of order . By Proposition 7.1.5, we have that . We have and . Fixing such isomorphisms and recalling the canonical isomorphism , we are reduced to showing that there is a unique isomorphism class of semi-direct product , where is a nontrivial homomorphism. The group is cyclic by Corollary 6.5.5. Let be a generator.
Any nontrivial homomorphism must send to an element of order in . If we set , then for some with . Let us denote this particular homomorphism by , and define to be multiplication by . Then since both maps send to . Proposition 7.1.9 then tells us that the semidirect products defined by and are isomorphic. That is, there is a unique isomorphism class of nonabelian semidirect product of order . □
7.2. Composition series
First, we explain how simple groups may be used in building arbitrary finite groups, starting with the following definition.
Definition 7.2.1. §
Any collection of subgroups of a group with for is called a series of subgroups of .
Definition 7.2.2. §
Let be a series of subgroups of a group .
- a.
-
We say that is an ascending series if for sufficiently small.
- b.
-
We say that is a descending series if for sufficiently large.
- c.
-
We say that is a finite series if it is both ascending and descending.
- d.
-
The length of a finite series is difference of the smallest integer such that and largest integer such that .
Notation 7.2.3. §
We use the notation
to denote a finite series of subgroups of a group with , . It has length if and .
Remark 7.2.4. §
To say that a series of subgroups of is finite is stronger than simply saying it has only finitely many terms. For instance, if is nontrivial, then for all provides a series with only one distinct subgroup, but it is not finite as no equals .
Remark 7.2.5. §
A descending series in is often taken to be a list of subgroups of with for all and for sufficiently small. This agrees with the usual notion in the sense that letting will provide a descending series in the sense of the original definition.
Definition 7.2.6. §
A finite series
of subgroups of is said to be a subnormal series if for all . It is called a normal series if for all .
Definition 7.2.7. §
Two subnormal series and are equivalent if there exists such that for all .
Definition 7.2.8. §
A refinement of a subnormal series in a group is a subnormal series such that there exists an increasing function such that for .
Theorem 7.2.9 (Schreier refinement theorem). §
Any two subnormal series in a group have refinements that are equivalent.
Proof.
Let and be subnormal series in . For and , let
Set as well. Then for and as , and for as and . Thus is a subnormal series, as is . In fact, we see from this that refines and refines .
It remains to see that and are equivalent. For and , note that
by the butterfly lemma, and
for since . Thus, the two refinements are equivalent. □
Definition 7.2.10. §
A subnormal series of subgroups
of a group is called a composition series for if is simple for each . The simple groups are referred to as the composition factors of the series.
Lemma 7.2.11. §
Let
be a composition series for , and let be a proper normal subgroup of .
- a.
-
There exists and an increasing function with such that
is a composition series for with composition factors
- b.
-
Set for . There exists an and an increasing function with such that
is a composition series for with composition factors
- c.
-
In the notation of parts a and b, the images of and to be complementary away from ,x and to equal .
Proof.
Let . The quotient is a subgroup of the simple group and therefore necessarily trivial or improper. Let be the number of simple quotients. Let , and for , let be the smallest positive integer greater than and such that is simple. Then , and the result follows.
Similarly, by the third isomorphism theorem, we have
which is a quotient of by the image of in it. Since is simple, this image is either trivial or . That is, is either trivial or simple. Let be the number of simple terms. Set , and for , take to be the smallest integer greater than such that is simple. Then .
Note that if and only if . Then and the images of and are complementary by construction. □
We leave the straightforward proof of the following lemma to the reader.
Lemma 7.2.12. §
Let be a group, and let be a normal subgroup. Suppose that has a composition series
and has a composition series
For , let denote the unique subgroup of containing and such that , which exists by Proposition 2.13.10. Then the series
is a composition series of with composition factors satisfying for .
Corollary 7.2.13. §
Let be a group and a normal subgroup. If and have composition series, then has a composition series. Moreover, its list of composition factors consists of the concatenation of the list of composition factors of by the list of composition factors of .
Theorem 7.2.14 (Jordan-Hölder theorem). §
- a.
-
Every finite group has a composition series.
- b.
-
Let be a nontrivial group with composition series
and
Then and there exists a permutation such that
for all .
Proof.
To show part a, we work by induction on the order of the group . It is clear in the case that is trivial, with . Now, if is nontrivial of order , then either it is simple, and the composition series is , or it is not, and there exists a nontrivial normal subgroup , and then and have composition series by induction. The result is then immediate from Lemma 7.2.13.
To see that the composition series is unique in the stated sense of part b, start with two composition series as in the statement of the theorem. We work by induction on the minimal length of a composition series for . If , then is trivial. If , then is simple, so it cannot have a nontrivial normal subgroup, and all composition series must have length . Consider , which has the composition series
as well as a composition series
for some and increasing by Lemma 7.2.11a. Since the minimal length of a composition series of is less than , we have by induction that and there exists such that
for all , again by Lemma 7.2.11a.
Let be maximal such that . Then
Since is simple, this forces . In particular, is not in the image of . Moreover, we have
the latter step as is a maximal normal subgroup of and . As we have found the final composition factor in the series among those of the series , it remains only to show that . If nontrivial for any for , then by Lemma 7.2.11c, the group has a composition series of length at least , but is simple, so this is impossible. Thus, as well, as needed. □
Definition 7.2.15. §
The Jordan-Hölder factors of a group are the terms in a list of the isomorphism classes of the composition factors in a composition series for .
Examples 7.2.16. §
- a.
-
The group for a prime has copies of as its Jordan-Hölder factors, which arise from its unique composition series
- b.
-
The group has two composition series
both of which have Jordan-Hölder factors and .
- c.
-
Let be a nonabelian group order with and distinct primes and . Then has a unique composition series , where has order , and it has Jordan-Hölder factors and .
- d.
-
For , the group has a unique composition series with Jordan-Hölder factors and .
Remark 7.2.17. §
The set of Jordan-Hölder factors of a group tell us a great deal about the structure of a group, but they do not tell us the group. For instance, and have the same Jordan-Hölder factors for any .
7.3. Solvable groups
Definition 7.3.1. §
Let be a group. The derived series of is the unique descending series of subgroups of with and for all .
Notation 7.3.2. §
Often, one writes for and for .
Definition 7.3.3. §
Examples 7.3.4. §
- a.
-
The derived series of an abelian group satisfies for all . Hence, abelian groups are solvable.
- b.
-
The derived series of a nonabelian simple group satisfies for . Hence, nonabelian simple groups are not solvable.
Example 7.3.5. §
Let be a commutative ring. Consider the group
The reader should verify that this group has commutator subgroup equal to its center, which is
In particular, . In fact, the reader might find a rather canonical isomorphism from to the group presented by .
Lemma 7.3.6. §
Proof.
First, Lemma 4.3.15c tells us that is characteristic in for each , and then the result follows recursively from Lemma 4.3.16. □
We can now prove the following equivalence of definitions of solvability.
Proposition 7.3.7. §
The following statements regarding a group are equivalent:
- i.
-
is solvable,
- ii.
-
has a normal series with abelian composition factors, and
- iii.
-
has a subnormal series with abelian composition factors.
Proof.
That (i) implies (ii) is a consequence of the facts that the group are characteristic, hence normal, and that is the quotient of by its commutator subgroup, hence abelian. That (ii) implies (iii) is obvious. So, suppose (iii) and let
be a subnormal series of length . (Note the reversed indexing, as in Remark 7.2.5.) We claim that for each . For , we have . In general, suppose inductively that . Then by definition, and we have as is abelian. Therefore, we have that , and is solvable. □
We also have the following.
Proposition 7.3.8. §
- a.
-
Every subgroup of a solvable group is solvable.
- b.
-
Every quotient group of a solvable group is solvable.
- c.
-
If is a group and is a normal subgroup of such that and are both solvable, then is solvable as well.
Proof.
Let be a group and a normal subgroup. If is solvable, then it has a composition series with abelian factors, so and are solvable by Lemma 7.2.11. Part (iii) is a corollary of Corollary 7.2.13, since the derived series of and have abelian composition factors. □
Proposition 7.3.9. §
A group with a composition series is solvable if and only if it is finite and its Jordan-Hölder factors are all cyclic of prime order.
Proof.
If has cyclic Jordan-Hölder factors, then is solvable by Proposition 7.3.7. If is solvable and has a composition series, then the composition factors are abelian by Proposition 7.3.7 and the uniqueness in Theorem 7.2.14. As composition factors, they are also simple, hence cyclic of prime order, from which it follows that is finite. □
Example 7.3.10. §
All groups of order for distinct primes and are solvable, as their Jordan-Hölder factors are and .
Definition 7.3.11. §
A Hall subgroup of a finite group is a subgroup such that and are relatively prime.
7.4. Nilpotent groups
Definition 7.4.1. §
Let be a group. The lower central series of is the unique descending series of with and
for each .
Remark 7.4.2. §
By convention, starts with , while starts with .
Remark 7.4.3. §
For a group , we have , but can be smaller than . In fact, we clearly have for all .
The reader will easily verify the following by induction.
Lemma 7.4.4. §
The groups in the lower central series of a group are characteristic subgroups of .
Definition 7.4.5. §
Definition 7.4.6. §
The nilpotency class of a nilpotent group is the length of its lower central series, which is to say the smallest such that .
Lemma 7.4.7. §
Let be a group. Then for all .
Proof.
This is almost trivial by induction, as
□
Corollary 7.4.8. §
Nilpotent groups are solvable.
Examples 7.4.9. §
- a.
-
The lower central series of an abelian group satisfies for all .
- b.
-
Let be as in Example 7.3.5. Then and , so is nilpotent.
- c.
-
Let be the group of upper-triangular matrices in with lower-right entry , as in Example 2.12.13). We have
for all and . It follows easily from this that
and then for all . On the other hand, is abelian, so . Thus, is solvable but not nilpotent. (Note that can be replaced by any nonzero commutative ring in which and have nontrivial intersection.)
We can give an alternative characterization of nilpotent groups through the ascending series of the following definition.
Definition 7.4.10. §
The upper central series of a group is the unique ascending series with and equal to the inverse image of under the projection map for all .
Remark 7.4.11. §
For any group , we have , and for all .
Lemma 7.4.12. §
If is a nontrivial nilpotent group, then .
Proof.
Let be the nilpotency class of . Then is nontrivial but central in since . □
Proposition 7.4.13. §
A group is nilpotent if and only if for sufficiently large. In this case, the nilpotency class of equals the smallest such that , and we have for all .
Proof.
The result is clear for abelian groupts, which are the nilpotent groups of nilpotency class . Let for brevity of notation.
Suppose that is nilpotent of nilpotency class . As , we have . Since is central in , it follows that
for all . Since is not central in by definition, we have that . By induction on , we then have
for , and . Taking the inverse images of these groups under the quotient map from , we obtain
for as well, and in particular .
Conversely, if for some minimial , then , so is nilpotent of nilpotency class by induction on . This means that , and therefore , so is nilpotent. □
The following corollary can also be seen directly, using Proposition 4.9.6.
Corollary 7.4.14. §
Finite -groups are nilpotent.
Proof.
This follows by induction on the order of a nontrivial -group , since , and is a -group which we suppose by induction to be nilpotent. Then is the inverse image of in , so is nilpotent as well. □
Theorem 7.4.15 (Frattini’s argument). §
Let be a finite group and a normal subgroup. Let be a Sylow -subgroup of . Then .
Proof.
For any , we have , as is normal, so is also a Sylow -subgroup of . As such, it is conjugate to in , which is to say there exists such that , or . In other words, . □
We are now ready to prove the following equivalent conditions for nilpotency.
Theorem 7.4.16. §
Let be a finite group. Then the following are equivalent:
- i.
-
the group is nilpotent,
- ii.
-
every proper subgroup of is a proper subgroup of its normalizer in ,
- iii.
-
every Sylow -subgroup of is normal,
- iv.
-
is the direct product of its Sylow -subgroups,
- v.
-
every maximal proper subgroup of is normal.
Proof.
Suppose that is nilpotent of nilpotence class , and let be a proper subgroup of . If , then is a proper subgroup of . Thus, we may suppose that . As we always have that , we may further assume that in proving (ii). In this case, is a proper subgroup of , which has nilpotence class less than as , so . Thus, is a proper subgroup of by induction, but the latter group is since , and therefore is a proper subgroup of . Thus, (i) implies (ii).
Next, suppose (ii). If is a -group, (iii) obviously holds, so suppose this is not the case. Let be a Sylow -subgroup of for some , and note that . Let . By part (ii), we have that . Note also that is a normal subgroup of in that it is characteristic in , which forces . Since (ii) holds, cannot be proper in , and thus is normal in . Hence, (ii) implies (iii).
Suppose (iii). Let be the number of primes dividing , and let be the distinct Sylow subgroups of . If , then we are done. In general, we set , and by induction we have that . We then note that and , so . Hence, (iii) implies (iv).
Suppose (iv), and let be a maximal proper subgroup of . Let be the distinct Sylow subgroups of . If for some , then for all , since otherwise . Thus, is the direct product of and the for . By the first Sylow theorem, is normal in , so is normal in . Thus, (iv) implies (v).
Suppose (v). Let be a Sylow -subgroup of , and suppose it is not normal. Let be a maximal proper subgroup of containing . Then is normal in , and Frattini’s argument implies that , a contradiction. So, is normal and (iii) holds, and so (iv) holds. It then suffices to note that finite -groups are nilpotent by Corollary 7.4.14, as this tells us that (v) implies (i). □
The following is a useful fact regarding nilpotent groups.
Proposition 7.4.17. §
Let be a nilpotent group, and let be a subset of with image in a generating set. Then generates .
Proof.
We prove this by induction on the nilpotence class of nilpotent groups . It is clear if is abelian, or . For , consider , and note that its abelianization is , so by induction is generated by the image of . Thus, if we let , we have . This implies that is normal in since and thus elements of and of normalize . We have that
the first equality as , the second as , and the third as . It follows that
as claimed. □
7.5. Groups of order
We note the following useful fact.
Lemma 7.5.1. §
Let be a group such that is cyclic. Then is abelian, so .
Proof.
Any has image generating , so . As commutes with itself and every element of , it is in the center of , a contradiction. □
Let us classify the groups of order for a prime number .
Theorem 7.5.2. §
Let be a prime number. There are exactly two isomorphism classes of nonabelian groups of order . These are represented by:
- a.
-
if , the dihedral group and the quaternion group , and
- b.
-
if is odd, the Heisenberg group and the group
Proof.
Let be a nonabelian group of order . By Lemma 7.5.1, the quotient cannot be cyclic. This eliminates the possibility that , since then would be cyclic of order . Also, as is a -group. Thus, we have , and is a direct product of two cyclic groups of order . Note that since is abelian, which forces since is nonabelian. Let with images together generating . Then by Proposition 7.4.17, since finite -groups are nilpotent. Moreover, generates , and note that this means .
Now, suppose that has an element of order . Without loss of generality, we may suppose that it is . Then generates , so we have for some with . We then have , which in particular tells us that is a normal subgroup of . Suppose that we can also choose to have order . Then , and in fact has a presentation
If is odd, then we have an isomorphism
and if , then defined by , works as well.
Suppose now that we cannot choose and with and either or of order . If , then this implies that , and from this one checks that is a quotient of the group with presentation
and the latter group is isomorphic to under the map which takes to and to . If is odd, then one sees that
for some prime to . Note that we have used is odd here, since otherwise , which is not a multiple of . If we replace by where with , then , which yields a contradiction.
Finally, suppose that has no element of order . If , then , which is a contradiction. If is odd, then is a quotient of the group that has presentation
but has this presentation, so it is isomorphic to in that has order . □