Sylow's First Theorem acting on Abelian Group
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Background
In the book of Judson's book on abstract algebra, Sylow's First Theorem is proved by first invoking the class equation and then considering the case where $p$ can/cannot divide $[G:C_G(g)]$ ($C_G(g)$ is the centraliser subgroup $g$ in $G$). But it is not clear what happens if $p$ cannot divide $[G:C_G(g)]$ when $C_G(g)$ is the whole group.
Question
If $G$ is an abelian group, and thus $C_G(g)$ is the whole group for all $g$ in $G$, the induction hypothesis can no longer require that $C_G(g)$ has a group of order $p^r$ since the order of the subgroup is the same as the group itself, then how can Sylow's First Theorem be proved? I understand that Cauchy theorem for abelian groups will say $G$ has a subgroup of order $p$, but then $G$ is now divisible by $p^r$, which is not necessarily a prime number, how should I prove that it also has a subgroup of order $p^r$ (although it definitely has a subgroup of order $p$ by Cauchy)?
group-theory finite-groups abelian-groups sylow-theory
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Background
In the book of Judson's book on abstract algebra, Sylow's First Theorem is proved by first invoking the class equation and then considering the case where $p$ can/cannot divide $[G:C_G(g)]$ ($C_G(g)$ is the centraliser subgroup $g$ in $G$). But it is not clear what happens if $p$ cannot divide $[G:C_G(g)]$ when $C_G(g)$ is the whole group.
Question
If $G$ is an abelian group, and thus $C_G(g)$ is the whole group for all $g$ in $G$, the induction hypothesis can no longer require that $C_G(g)$ has a group of order $p^r$ since the order of the subgroup is the same as the group itself, then how can Sylow's First Theorem be proved? I understand that Cauchy theorem for abelian groups will say $G$ has a subgroup of order $p$, but then $G$ is now divisible by $p^r$, which is not necessarily a prime number, how should I prove that it also has a subgroup of order $p^r$ (although it definitely has a subgroup of order $p$ by Cauchy)?
group-theory finite-groups abelian-groups sylow-theory
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Background
In the book of Judson's book on abstract algebra, Sylow's First Theorem is proved by first invoking the class equation and then considering the case where $p$ can/cannot divide $[G:C_G(g)]$ ($C_G(g)$ is the centraliser subgroup $g$ in $G$). But it is not clear what happens if $p$ cannot divide $[G:C_G(g)]$ when $C_G(g)$ is the whole group.
Question
If $G$ is an abelian group, and thus $C_G(g)$ is the whole group for all $g$ in $G$, the induction hypothesis can no longer require that $C_G(g)$ has a group of order $p^r$ since the order of the subgroup is the same as the group itself, then how can Sylow's First Theorem be proved? I understand that Cauchy theorem for abelian groups will say $G$ has a subgroup of order $p$, but then $G$ is now divisible by $p^r$, which is not necessarily a prime number, how should I prove that it also has a subgroup of order $p^r$ (although it definitely has a subgroup of order $p$ by Cauchy)?
group-theory finite-groups abelian-groups sylow-theory
Background
In the book of Judson's book on abstract algebra, Sylow's First Theorem is proved by first invoking the class equation and then considering the case where $p$ can/cannot divide $[G:C_G(g)]$ ($C_G(g)$ is the centraliser subgroup $g$ in $G$). But it is not clear what happens if $p$ cannot divide $[G:C_G(g)]$ when $C_G(g)$ is the whole group.
Question
If $G$ is an abelian group, and thus $C_G(g)$ is the whole group for all $g$ in $G$, the induction hypothesis can no longer require that $C_G(g)$ has a group of order $p^r$ since the order of the subgroup is the same as the group itself, then how can Sylow's First Theorem be proved? I understand that Cauchy theorem for abelian groups will say $G$ has a subgroup of order $p$, but then $G$ is now divisible by $p^r$, which is not necessarily a prime number, how should I prove that it also has a subgroup of order $p^r$ (although it definitely has a subgroup of order $p$ by Cauchy)?
group-theory finite-groups abelian-groups sylow-theory
group-theory finite-groups abelian-groups sylow-theory
asked Nov 17 at 8:56
hephaes
1527
1527
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
The question is now resolved. It turns out that when $G$ is abelian, $G$ = $Z(G)$, and hence $|Z(G)|$ is now divisible by $p$, and the second part of Judson's proof will take care of this case.
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
The question is now resolved. It turns out that when $G$ is abelian, $G$ = $Z(G)$, and hence $|Z(G)|$ is now divisible by $p$, and the second part of Judson's proof will take care of this case.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
The question is now resolved. It turns out that when $G$ is abelian, $G$ = $Z(G)$, and hence $|Z(G)|$ is now divisible by $p$, and the second part of Judson's proof will take care of this case.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
The question is now resolved. It turns out that when $G$ is abelian, $G$ = $Z(G)$, and hence $|Z(G)|$ is now divisible by $p$, and the second part of Judson's proof will take care of this case.
The question is now resolved. It turns out that when $G$ is abelian, $G$ = $Z(G)$, and hence $|Z(G)|$ is now divisible by $p$, and the second part of Judson's proof will take care of this case.
answered Nov 17 at 9:03
hephaes
1527
1527
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3002116%2fsylows-first-theorem-acting-on-abelian-group%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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