How big must the union of a group's Sylow p-subgroups be?











up vote
7
down vote

favorite
2












For various orders $n$ it's a common exercise to prove that a finite group $G$ of order $n$ can't be simple by using the Sylow theorems to show that there is some prime $p mid n$ such that the number $n_p$ of Sylow $p$-subgroups equals $1$, so the unique Sylow $p$-subgroup is normal. One way these proofs can go is that you show that if $n_p$ isn't equal to $1$, then because $n_p equiv 1 bmod p$ it must be very large, so large that there isn't enough room in $G$ for all of its Sylow $p$-subgroups together plus the other Sylow subgroups.



I know how to run this argument if the exponent $a$ of $p$ in $n$ is $1$ and we can show that $n_p = frac{n}{p}$; in this case the Sylow $p$-subgroups are cyclic, so intersect only in the identity, which means that $G$ has at least $frac{n}{p}(p - 1)$ elements of order $p$, and hence only room for $frac{n}{p}$ elements of other orders.



However, I don't know how to run this argument if $a ge 2$; this came up when I was trying to answer this question and specifically trying to show that a group of order $|G| = 3 cdot 5 cdot 7^2 = 735$ can't be simple. The Sylow theorems give that if $n_7 neq 1$ then $n_7 = 15$, so $G$ has the maximum possible number of Sylow $7$-subgroups. The specific question this gave rise to is:




Specific question: What is the sharpest lower bound on the size of the union of these $15$ Sylow $7$-subgroups?




I wanted to use the Bonferroni inequalities to address this question, using the fact that any two Sylow $7$-subgroups intersect in at most $7$ elements, but something very funny happened: if I apply Bonferroni to all $15$ subgroups I get a lower bound of



$$15 cdot 49 - {15 choose 2} cdot 7 = 0.$$



The problem is that there are too many pairwise intersections between $15$ subgroups. If I instead apply Bonferroni with only $k$ of the $15$ subgroups I get a lower bound of



$$49k - 7 {k choose 2}$$



which turns out to be maximized when $k = 8$, giving a lower bound of $210$. Is it possible to do better than this? I'm ignoring $7$ of the Sylows!



So the general question is:




General question: What is the sharpest lower bound on the size of the union of the Sylow $p$-subgroups of a finite group $G$ which can be written as a function of the size $p^a$ of such a subgroup and the number $n_p$ of such subgroups? What if $G$ is assumed to be simple?




When $a = 1$ the union has size exactly $(p - 1) n_p + 1$. In general any two Sylows intersect in at most $p^{a-1}$ elements, so Bonferroni with $k$ of the Sylows gives a lower bound of



$$k p^a - {k choose 2} p^{a-1} = k p^{a-1} left( p - frac{k-1}{2} right)$$



which is maximized when $k approx p$ as above (or $k = n_p$, if $p$ is more than a little larger than $n_p$). But the smaller $p$ is compared to $n_p$ the less helpful of a bound this will be.










share|cite|improve this question






















  • I'm probably missing something obvious, but does there exist a (non-simple) group of order $735$ that has $15$ Sylow $7$-subgroups?
    – Carl Schildkraut
    2 days ago






  • 1




    I have no idea!
    – Qiaochu Yuan
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @j.p. why 105 must be cyclic? There is a nonabelian one.
    – user10354138
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @user10354138: Upps, $7bmod 3 = 1$. You're right! One only gets that a group of order 105 has a normal subgroup of order $7$, which shows that a group of order 735 has a normal subgroup of order 49.
    – j.p.
    2 days ago






  • 4




    Burnside's Transfer Theorem implies that a group of order $735$ with $15$ Sylow $7$-subgroups would have a normal subgroup of order $15$. But the only group of order $15$ is cyclic, and that has no automorphism of order $7$, so this is impossible.
    – Derek Holt
    2 days ago















up vote
7
down vote

favorite
2












For various orders $n$ it's a common exercise to prove that a finite group $G$ of order $n$ can't be simple by using the Sylow theorems to show that there is some prime $p mid n$ such that the number $n_p$ of Sylow $p$-subgroups equals $1$, so the unique Sylow $p$-subgroup is normal. One way these proofs can go is that you show that if $n_p$ isn't equal to $1$, then because $n_p equiv 1 bmod p$ it must be very large, so large that there isn't enough room in $G$ for all of its Sylow $p$-subgroups together plus the other Sylow subgroups.



I know how to run this argument if the exponent $a$ of $p$ in $n$ is $1$ and we can show that $n_p = frac{n}{p}$; in this case the Sylow $p$-subgroups are cyclic, so intersect only in the identity, which means that $G$ has at least $frac{n}{p}(p - 1)$ elements of order $p$, and hence only room for $frac{n}{p}$ elements of other orders.



However, I don't know how to run this argument if $a ge 2$; this came up when I was trying to answer this question and specifically trying to show that a group of order $|G| = 3 cdot 5 cdot 7^2 = 735$ can't be simple. The Sylow theorems give that if $n_7 neq 1$ then $n_7 = 15$, so $G$ has the maximum possible number of Sylow $7$-subgroups. The specific question this gave rise to is:




Specific question: What is the sharpest lower bound on the size of the union of these $15$ Sylow $7$-subgroups?




I wanted to use the Bonferroni inequalities to address this question, using the fact that any two Sylow $7$-subgroups intersect in at most $7$ elements, but something very funny happened: if I apply Bonferroni to all $15$ subgroups I get a lower bound of



$$15 cdot 49 - {15 choose 2} cdot 7 = 0.$$



The problem is that there are too many pairwise intersections between $15$ subgroups. If I instead apply Bonferroni with only $k$ of the $15$ subgroups I get a lower bound of



$$49k - 7 {k choose 2}$$



which turns out to be maximized when $k = 8$, giving a lower bound of $210$. Is it possible to do better than this? I'm ignoring $7$ of the Sylows!



So the general question is:




General question: What is the sharpest lower bound on the size of the union of the Sylow $p$-subgroups of a finite group $G$ which can be written as a function of the size $p^a$ of such a subgroup and the number $n_p$ of such subgroups? What if $G$ is assumed to be simple?




When $a = 1$ the union has size exactly $(p - 1) n_p + 1$. In general any two Sylows intersect in at most $p^{a-1}$ elements, so Bonferroni with $k$ of the Sylows gives a lower bound of



$$k p^a - {k choose 2} p^{a-1} = k p^{a-1} left( p - frac{k-1}{2} right)$$



which is maximized when $k approx p$ as above (or $k = n_p$, if $p$ is more than a little larger than $n_p$). But the smaller $p$ is compared to $n_p$ the less helpful of a bound this will be.










share|cite|improve this question






















  • I'm probably missing something obvious, but does there exist a (non-simple) group of order $735$ that has $15$ Sylow $7$-subgroups?
    – Carl Schildkraut
    2 days ago






  • 1




    I have no idea!
    – Qiaochu Yuan
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @j.p. why 105 must be cyclic? There is a nonabelian one.
    – user10354138
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @user10354138: Upps, $7bmod 3 = 1$. You're right! One only gets that a group of order 105 has a normal subgroup of order $7$, which shows that a group of order 735 has a normal subgroup of order 49.
    – j.p.
    2 days ago






  • 4




    Burnside's Transfer Theorem implies that a group of order $735$ with $15$ Sylow $7$-subgroups would have a normal subgroup of order $15$. But the only group of order $15$ is cyclic, and that has no automorphism of order $7$, so this is impossible.
    – Derek Holt
    2 days ago













up vote
7
down vote

favorite
2









up vote
7
down vote

favorite
2






2





For various orders $n$ it's a common exercise to prove that a finite group $G$ of order $n$ can't be simple by using the Sylow theorems to show that there is some prime $p mid n$ such that the number $n_p$ of Sylow $p$-subgroups equals $1$, so the unique Sylow $p$-subgroup is normal. One way these proofs can go is that you show that if $n_p$ isn't equal to $1$, then because $n_p equiv 1 bmod p$ it must be very large, so large that there isn't enough room in $G$ for all of its Sylow $p$-subgroups together plus the other Sylow subgroups.



I know how to run this argument if the exponent $a$ of $p$ in $n$ is $1$ and we can show that $n_p = frac{n}{p}$; in this case the Sylow $p$-subgroups are cyclic, so intersect only in the identity, which means that $G$ has at least $frac{n}{p}(p - 1)$ elements of order $p$, and hence only room for $frac{n}{p}$ elements of other orders.



However, I don't know how to run this argument if $a ge 2$; this came up when I was trying to answer this question and specifically trying to show that a group of order $|G| = 3 cdot 5 cdot 7^2 = 735$ can't be simple. The Sylow theorems give that if $n_7 neq 1$ then $n_7 = 15$, so $G$ has the maximum possible number of Sylow $7$-subgroups. The specific question this gave rise to is:




Specific question: What is the sharpest lower bound on the size of the union of these $15$ Sylow $7$-subgroups?




I wanted to use the Bonferroni inequalities to address this question, using the fact that any two Sylow $7$-subgroups intersect in at most $7$ elements, but something very funny happened: if I apply Bonferroni to all $15$ subgroups I get a lower bound of



$$15 cdot 49 - {15 choose 2} cdot 7 = 0.$$



The problem is that there are too many pairwise intersections between $15$ subgroups. If I instead apply Bonferroni with only $k$ of the $15$ subgroups I get a lower bound of



$$49k - 7 {k choose 2}$$



which turns out to be maximized when $k = 8$, giving a lower bound of $210$. Is it possible to do better than this? I'm ignoring $7$ of the Sylows!



So the general question is:




General question: What is the sharpest lower bound on the size of the union of the Sylow $p$-subgroups of a finite group $G$ which can be written as a function of the size $p^a$ of such a subgroup and the number $n_p$ of such subgroups? What if $G$ is assumed to be simple?




When $a = 1$ the union has size exactly $(p - 1) n_p + 1$. In general any two Sylows intersect in at most $p^{a-1}$ elements, so Bonferroni with $k$ of the Sylows gives a lower bound of



$$k p^a - {k choose 2} p^{a-1} = k p^{a-1} left( p - frac{k-1}{2} right)$$



which is maximized when $k approx p$ as above (or $k = n_p$, if $p$ is more than a little larger than $n_p$). But the smaller $p$ is compared to $n_p$ the less helpful of a bound this will be.










share|cite|improve this question













For various orders $n$ it's a common exercise to prove that a finite group $G$ of order $n$ can't be simple by using the Sylow theorems to show that there is some prime $p mid n$ such that the number $n_p$ of Sylow $p$-subgroups equals $1$, so the unique Sylow $p$-subgroup is normal. One way these proofs can go is that you show that if $n_p$ isn't equal to $1$, then because $n_p equiv 1 bmod p$ it must be very large, so large that there isn't enough room in $G$ for all of its Sylow $p$-subgroups together plus the other Sylow subgroups.



I know how to run this argument if the exponent $a$ of $p$ in $n$ is $1$ and we can show that $n_p = frac{n}{p}$; in this case the Sylow $p$-subgroups are cyclic, so intersect only in the identity, which means that $G$ has at least $frac{n}{p}(p - 1)$ elements of order $p$, and hence only room for $frac{n}{p}$ elements of other orders.



However, I don't know how to run this argument if $a ge 2$; this came up when I was trying to answer this question and specifically trying to show that a group of order $|G| = 3 cdot 5 cdot 7^2 = 735$ can't be simple. The Sylow theorems give that if $n_7 neq 1$ then $n_7 = 15$, so $G$ has the maximum possible number of Sylow $7$-subgroups. The specific question this gave rise to is:




Specific question: What is the sharpest lower bound on the size of the union of these $15$ Sylow $7$-subgroups?




I wanted to use the Bonferroni inequalities to address this question, using the fact that any two Sylow $7$-subgroups intersect in at most $7$ elements, but something very funny happened: if I apply Bonferroni to all $15$ subgroups I get a lower bound of



$$15 cdot 49 - {15 choose 2} cdot 7 = 0.$$



The problem is that there are too many pairwise intersections between $15$ subgroups. If I instead apply Bonferroni with only $k$ of the $15$ subgroups I get a lower bound of



$$49k - 7 {k choose 2}$$



which turns out to be maximized when $k = 8$, giving a lower bound of $210$. Is it possible to do better than this? I'm ignoring $7$ of the Sylows!



So the general question is:




General question: What is the sharpest lower bound on the size of the union of the Sylow $p$-subgroups of a finite group $G$ which can be written as a function of the size $p^a$ of such a subgroup and the number $n_p$ of such subgroups? What if $G$ is assumed to be simple?




When $a = 1$ the union has size exactly $(p - 1) n_p + 1$. In general any two Sylows intersect in at most $p^{a-1}$ elements, so Bonferroni with $k$ of the Sylows gives a lower bound of



$$k p^a - {k choose 2} p^{a-1} = k p^{a-1} left( p - frac{k-1}{2} right)$$



which is maximized when $k approx p$ as above (or $k = n_p$, if $p$ is more than a little larger than $n_p$). But the smaller $p$ is compared to $n_p$ the less helpful of a bound this will be.







group-theory inequality finite-groups sylow-theory






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 2 days ago









Qiaochu Yuan

274k32578914




274k32578914












  • I'm probably missing something obvious, but does there exist a (non-simple) group of order $735$ that has $15$ Sylow $7$-subgroups?
    – Carl Schildkraut
    2 days ago






  • 1




    I have no idea!
    – Qiaochu Yuan
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @j.p. why 105 must be cyclic? There is a nonabelian one.
    – user10354138
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @user10354138: Upps, $7bmod 3 = 1$. You're right! One only gets that a group of order 105 has a normal subgroup of order $7$, which shows that a group of order 735 has a normal subgroup of order 49.
    – j.p.
    2 days ago






  • 4




    Burnside's Transfer Theorem implies that a group of order $735$ with $15$ Sylow $7$-subgroups would have a normal subgroup of order $15$. But the only group of order $15$ is cyclic, and that has no automorphism of order $7$, so this is impossible.
    – Derek Holt
    2 days ago


















  • I'm probably missing something obvious, but does there exist a (non-simple) group of order $735$ that has $15$ Sylow $7$-subgroups?
    – Carl Schildkraut
    2 days ago






  • 1




    I have no idea!
    – Qiaochu Yuan
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @j.p. why 105 must be cyclic? There is a nonabelian one.
    – user10354138
    2 days ago






  • 1




    @user10354138: Upps, $7bmod 3 = 1$. You're right! One only gets that a group of order 105 has a normal subgroup of order $7$, which shows that a group of order 735 has a normal subgroup of order 49.
    – j.p.
    2 days ago






  • 4




    Burnside's Transfer Theorem implies that a group of order $735$ with $15$ Sylow $7$-subgroups would have a normal subgroup of order $15$. But the only group of order $15$ is cyclic, and that has no automorphism of order $7$, so this is impossible.
    – Derek Holt
    2 days ago
















I'm probably missing something obvious, but does there exist a (non-simple) group of order $735$ that has $15$ Sylow $7$-subgroups?
– Carl Schildkraut
2 days ago




I'm probably missing something obvious, but does there exist a (non-simple) group of order $735$ that has $15$ Sylow $7$-subgroups?
– Carl Schildkraut
2 days ago




1




1




I have no idea!
– Qiaochu Yuan
2 days ago




I have no idea!
– Qiaochu Yuan
2 days ago




1




1




@j.p. why 105 must be cyclic? There is a nonabelian one.
– user10354138
2 days ago




@j.p. why 105 must be cyclic? There is a nonabelian one.
– user10354138
2 days ago




1




1




@user10354138: Upps, $7bmod 3 = 1$. You're right! One only gets that a group of order 105 has a normal subgroup of order $7$, which shows that a group of order 735 has a normal subgroup of order 49.
– j.p.
2 days ago




@user10354138: Upps, $7bmod 3 = 1$. You're right! One only gets that a group of order 105 has a normal subgroup of order $7$, which shows that a group of order 735 has a normal subgroup of order 49.
– j.p.
2 days ago




4




4




Burnside's Transfer Theorem implies that a group of order $735$ with $15$ Sylow $7$-subgroups would have a normal subgroup of order $15$. But the only group of order $15$ is cyclic, and that has no automorphism of order $7$, so this is impossible.
– Derek Holt
2 days ago




Burnside's Transfer Theorem implies that a group of order $735$ with $15$ Sylow $7$-subgroups would have a normal subgroup of order $15$. But the only group of order $15$ is cyclic, and that has no automorphism of order $7$, so this is impossible.
– Derek Holt
2 days ago















active

oldest

votes











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2997828%2fhow-big-must-the-union-of-a-groups-sylow-p-subgroups-be%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown






























active

oldest

votes













active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes
















 

draft saved


draft discarded



















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2997828%2fhow-big-must-the-union-of-a-groups-sylow-p-subgroups-be%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Plaza Victoria

Puebla de Zaragoza

Musa