Error in proving subgroup is normal
Let $G$ be a $p$-group and let $H$ be a subgroup of $G$ of index $p$ ($p$ is prime). Prove that $H$ is normal.
I have tried to prove it, but accidentally have proven the opposite by some error:
Let $G$ act on $G/H$ by conjugation. We have proven as a lemma that the number of fixed points of this action is equivalent to $|G/H|$ mod $p$, because $G$ is a $p$-group (see here). Thus, since $|G/H| = p equiv 0 $ mod $p$, it follows there are no fixed points. Thus $H$ is not a fixed point of the action, so there exists some $gin G$ such that $g.Hneq H implies gHg^{-1}neq H$. So $H$ is not normal in $G$.
I have tried to find the error but cannot. Where have I gone wrong? Is the action itself not well-defined? I am not sure how to proceed.
abstract-algebra p-groups
asked Nov 28 '18 at 3:13
MathTrain
669215
add a comment |
Let $G$ be a $p$-group and let $H$ be a subgroup of $G$ of index $p$ ($p$ is prime). Prove that $H$ is normal.
I have tried to prove it, but accidentally have proven the opposite by some error:
Let $G$ act on $G/H$ by conjugation. We have proven as a lemma that the number of fixed points of this action is equivalent to $|G/H|$ mod $p$, because $G$ is a $p$-group (see here). Thus, since $|G/H| = p equiv 0 $ mod $p$, it follows there are no fixed points. Thus $H$ is not a fixed point of the action, so there exists some $gin G$ such that $g.Hneq H implies gHg^{-1}neq H$. So $H$ is not normal in $G$.
I have tried to find the error but cannot. Where have I gone wrong? Is the action itself not well-defined? I am not sure how to proceed.
abstract-algebra p-groups
asked Nov 28 '18 at 3:13
MathTrain
669215
1
$|G/H|$ is $p$, and the number of fixed points is congruent to this mod $p$. But this is satisfied by both $0$ as well as $p$: they're both congruent to $p$ mod $p$. So, you can't automatically say there are no fixed points.
– Randall
Nov 28 '18 at 3:16
1
"Since $|G/H| equiv 0 mod p$, there are no fixed points". No, it just means that the number of fixed points is multiple of $p$, like $2p,p, 0$ etc.
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 28 '18 at 3:21
1
It doesn't even make sense to do quotient before knowing nH$ is normal, it is exactly what to prove. The statement indeed follows directly from Sylow Theorem.
– AdditIdent
Nov 28 '18 at 5:41
Now that I think about it, I don't see how this action is an action at all.
– Randall
Nov 28 '18 at 20:51
add a comment |
Let $G$ be a $p$-group and let $H$ be a subgroup of $G$ of index $p$ ($p$ is prime). Prove that $H$ is normal.
I have tried to prove it, but accidentally have proven the opposite by some error:
Let $G$ act on $G/H$ by conjugation. We have proven as a lemma that the number of fixed points of this action is equivalent to $|G/H|$ mod $p$, because $G$ is a $p$-group (see here). Thus, since $|G/H| = p equiv 0 $ mod $p$, it follows there are no fixed points. Thus $H$ is not a fixed point of the action, so there exists some $gin G$ such that $g.Hneq H implies gHg^{-1}neq H$. So $H$ is not normal in $G$.
I have tried to find the error but cannot. Where have I gone wrong? Is the action itself not well-defined? I am not sure how to proceed.
abstract-algebra p-groups
asked Nov 28 '18 at 3:13
MathTrain
669215
Let $G$ be a $p$-group and let $H$ be a subgroup of $G$ of index $p$ ($p$ is prime). Prove that $H$ is normal.
I have tried to prove it, but accidentally have proven the opposite by some error:
Let $G$ act on $G/H$ by conjugation. We have proven as a lemma that the number of fixed points of this action is equivalent to $|G/H|$ mod $p$, because $G$ is a $p$-group (see here). Thus, since $|G/H| = p equiv 0 $ mod $p$, it follows there are no fixed points. Thus $H$ is not a fixed point of the action, so there exists some $gin G$ such that $g.Hneq H implies gHg^{-1}neq H$. So $H$ is not normal in $G$.
I have tried to find the error but cannot. Where have I gone wrong? Is the action itself not well-defined? I am not sure how to proceed.
abstract-algebra p-groups
abstract-algebra p-groups
asked Nov 28 '18 at 3:13
MathTrain
669215
asked Nov 28 '18 at 3:13
MathTrain
669215
asked Nov 28 '18 at 3:13
MathTrain
669215
asked Nov 28 '18 at 3:13
MathTrain
669215
asked Nov 28 '18 at 3:13
MathTrain
669215
669215
1
$|G/H|$ is $p$, and the number of fixed points is congruent to this mod $p$. But this is satisfied by both $0$ as well as $p$: they're both congruent to $p$ mod $p$. So, you can't automatically say there are no fixed points.
– Randall
Nov 28 '18 at 3:16
1
"Since $|G/H| equiv 0 mod p$, there are no fixed points". No, it just means that the number of fixed points is multiple of $p$, like $2p,p, 0$ etc.
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 28 '18 at 3:21
1
It doesn't even make sense to do quotient before knowing nH$ is normal, it is exactly what to prove. The statement indeed follows directly from Sylow Theorem.
– AdditIdent
Nov 28 '18 at 5:41
Now that I think about it, I don't see how this action is an action at all.
– Randall
Nov 28 '18 at 20:51
add a comment |
1
$|G/H|$ is $p$, and the number of fixed points is congruent to this mod $p$. But this is satisfied by both $0$ as well as $p$: they're both congruent to $p$ mod $p$. So, you can't automatically say there are no fixed points.
– Randall
Nov 28 '18 at 3:16
1
"Since $|G/H| equiv 0 mod p$, there are no fixed points". No, it just means that the number of fixed points is multiple of $p$, like $2p,p, 0$ etc.
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 28 '18 at 3:21
1
It doesn't even make sense to do quotient before knowing nH$ is normal, it is exactly what to prove. The statement indeed follows directly from Sylow Theorem.
– AdditIdent
Nov 28 '18 at 5:41
Now that I think about it, I don't see how this action is an action at all.
– Randall
Nov 28 '18 at 20:51
1
1
$|G/H|$ is $p$, and the number of fixed points is congruent to this mod $p$. But this is satisfied by both $0$ as well as $p$: they're both congruent to $p$ mod $p$. So, you can't automatically say there are no fixed points.
– Randall
Nov 28 '18 at 3:16
$|G/H|$ is $p$, and the number of fixed points is congruent to this mod $p$. But this is satisfied by both $0$ as well as $p$: they're both congruent to $p$ mod $p$. So, you can't automatically say there are no fixed points.
– Randall
Nov 28 '18 at 3:16
1
1
"Since $|G/H| equiv 0 mod p$, there are no fixed points". No, it just means that the number of fixed points is multiple of $p$, like $2p,p, 0$ etc.
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 28 '18 at 3:21
"Since $|G/H| equiv 0 mod p$, there are no fixed points". No, it just means that the number of fixed points is multiple of $p$, like $2p,p, 0$ etc.
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 28 '18 at 3:21
1
1
It doesn't even make sense to do quotient before knowing nH$ is normal, it is exactly what to prove. The statement indeed follows directly from Sylow Theorem.
– AdditIdent
Nov 28 '18 at 5:41
It doesn't even make sense to do quotient before knowing nH$ is normal, it is exactly what to prove. The statement indeed follows directly from Sylow Theorem.
– AdditIdent
Nov 28 '18 at 5:41
Now that I think about it, I don't see how this action is an action at all.
– Randall
Nov 28 '18 at 20:51
Now that I think about it, I don't see how this action is an action at all.
– Randall
Nov 28 '18 at 20:51
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Thinking more about this, there are two issues with your argument. The one raised already is that the orbit-stabilizer techniques show that the number of fixed points must be congruent to $0 bmod p$, but this doesn't mean it has to be the integer $0$. Hence there could be fixed points.
I think the bigger issue is your action itself. If $H$ is not known to be normal (yet), then $G/H$ can only mean the set of left (or right, pick a side) cosets of $H$ in $G$. Standard actions of $G$ on this set in standard Sylow-ish proofs involve action by left multiplication, not conjugation. Indeed, if your action is "defined" by
$$
g cdot xH = g(xH)g^{-1}
$$
this doesn't make any sense at all: how is $g(xH)g^{-1}$ again a left coset? There's no reason.
answered Nov 28 '18 at 20:50
Randall
9,12611129
You're correct, and it turns out it does work, but only because the conclusion that H is normal is true. One can prove that with a totally different argument, but I think an interesting thing about this one is it actually proves (once you know H is normal) that every left coset is fixed under conjugation.
– MathTrain
Nov 28 '18 at 21:08
add a comment |
Randall commented correctly that the fact that $|G/H|=p$ does not mean that the number of fixed points is a multiple of $p$, not that it is zero.
answered Nov 28 '18 at 3:21
MathTrain
669215
add a comment |
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
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
});
}
});
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%2f3016657%2ferror-in-proving-subgroup-is-normal%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thinking more about this, there are two issues with your argument. The one raised already is that the orbit-stabilizer techniques show that the number of fixed points must be congruent to $0 bmod p$, but this doesn't mean it has to be the integer $0$. Hence there could be fixed points.
I think the bigger issue is your action itself. If $H$ is not known to be normal (yet), then $G/H$ can only mean the set of left (or right, pick a side) cosets of $H$ in $G$. Standard actions of $G$ on this set in standard Sylow-ish proofs involve action by left multiplication, not conjugation. Indeed, if your action is "defined" by
$$
g cdot xH = g(xH)g^{-1}
$$
this doesn't make any sense at all: how is $g(xH)g^{-1}$ again a left coset? There's no reason.
answered Nov 28 '18 at 20:50
Randall
9,12611129
You're correct, and it turns out it does work, but only because the conclusion that H is normal is true. One can prove that with a totally different argument, but I think an interesting thing about this one is it actually proves (once you know H is normal) that every left coset is fixed under conjugation.
– MathTrain
Nov 28 '18 at 21:08
add a comment |
Thinking more about this, there are two issues with your argument. The one raised already is that the orbit-stabilizer techniques show that the number of fixed points must be congruent to $0 bmod p$, but this doesn't mean it has to be the integer $0$. Hence there could be fixed points.
I think the bigger issue is your action itself. If $H$ is not known to be normal (yet), then $G/H$ can only mean the set of left (or right, pick a side) cosets of $H$ in $G$. Standard actions of $G$ on this set in standard Sylow-ish proofs involve action by left multiplication, not conjugation. Indeed, if your action is "defined" by
$$
g cdot xH = g(xH)g^{-1}
$$
this doesn't make any sense at all: how is $g(xH)g^{-1}$ again a left coset? There's no reason.
answered Nov 28 '18 at 20:50
Randall
9,12611129
You're correct, and it turns out it does work, but only because the conclusion that H is normal is true. One can prove that with a totally different argument, but I think an interesting thing about this one is it actually proves (once you know H is normal) that every left coset is fixed under conjugation.
– MathTrain
Nov 28 '18 at 21:08
add a comment |
Thinking more about this, there are two issues with your argument. The one raised already is that the orbit-stabilizer techniques show that the number of fixed points must be congruent to $0 bmod p$, but this doesn't mean it has to be the integer $0$. Hence there could be fixed points.
I think the bigger issue is your action itself. If $H$ is not known to be normal (yet), then $G/H$ can only mean the set of left (or right, pick a side) cosets of $H$ in $G$. Standard actions of $G$ on this set in standard Sylow-ish proofs involve action by left multiplication, not conjugation. Indeed, if your action is "defined" by
$$
g cdot xH = g(xH)g^{-1}
$$
this doesn't make any sense at all: how is $g(xH)g^{-1}$ again a left coset? There's no reason.
answered Nov 28 '18 at 20:50
Randall
9,12611129
Thinking more about this, there are two issues with your argument. The one raised already is that the orbit-stabilizer techniques show that the number of fixed points must be congruent to $0 bmod p$, but this doesn't mean it has to be the integer $0$. Hence there could be fixed points.
I think the bigger issue is your action itself. If $H$ is not known to be normal (yet), then $G/H$ can only mean the set of left (or right, pick a side) cosets of $H$ in $G$. Standard actions of $G$ on this set in standard Sylow-ish proofs involve action by left multiplication, not conjugation. Indeed, if your action is "defined" by
$$
g cdot xH = g(xH)g^{-1}
$$
this doesn't make any sense at all: how is $g(xH)g^{-1}$ again a left coset? There's no reason.
answered Nov 28 '18 at 20:50
Randall
9,12611129
answered Nov 28 '18 at 20:50
Randall
9,12611129
answered Nov 28 '18 at 20:50
Randall
9,12611129
answered Nov 28 '18 at 20:50
Randall
9,12611129
9,12611129
You're correct, and it turns out it does work, but only because the conclusion that H is normal is true. One can prove that with a totally different argument, but I think an interesting thing about this one is it actually proves (once you know H is normal) that every left coset is fixed under conjugation.
– MathTrain
Nov 28 '18 at 21:08
add a comment |
You're correct, and it turns out it does work, but only because the conclusion that H is normal is true. One can prove that with a totally different argument, but I think an interesting thing about this one is it actually proves (once you know H is normal) that every left coset is fixed under conjugation.
– MathTrain
Nov 28 '18 at 21:08
You're correct, and it turns out it does work, but only because the conclusion that H is normal is true. One can prove that with a totally different argument, but I think an interesting thing about this one is it actually proves (once you know H is normal) that every left coset is fixed under conjugation.
– MathTrain
Nov 28 '18 at 21:08
You're correct, and it turns out it does work, but only because the conclusion that H is normal is true. One can prove that with a totally different argument, but I think an interesting thing about this one is it actually proves (once you know H is normal) that every left coset is fixed under conjugation.
– MathTrain
Nov 28 '18 at 21:08
add a comment |
Randall commented correctly that the fact that $|G/H|=p$ does not mean that the number of fixed points is a multiple of $p$, not that it is zero.
answered Nov 28 '18 at 3:21
MathTrain
669215
add a comment |
Randall commented correctly that the fact that $|G/H|=p$ does not mean that the number of fixed points is a multiple of $p$, not that it is zero.
answered Nov 28 '18 at 3:21
MathTrain
669215
add a comment |
Randall commented correctly that the fact that $|G/H|=p$ does not mean that the number of fixed points is a multiple of $p$, not that it is zero.
answered Nov 28 '18 at 3:21
MathTrain
669215
Randall commented correctly that the fact that $|G/H|=p$ does not mean that the number of fixed points is a multiple of $p$, not that it is zero.
answered Nov 28 '18 at 3:21
MathTrain
669215
answered Nov 28 '18 at 3:21
MathTrain
669215
answered Nov 28 '18 at 3:21
MathTrain
669215
answered Nov 28 '18 at 3:21
MathTrain
669215
669215
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%2f3016657%2ferror-in-proving-subgroup-is-normal%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
1
$|G/H|$ is $p$, and the number of fixed points is congruent to this mod $p$. But this is satisfied by both $0$ as well as $p$: they're both congruent to $p$ mod $p$. So, you can't automatically say there are no fixed points.
– Randall
Nov 28 '18 at 3:16
1
"Since $|G/H| equiv 0 mod p$, there are no fixed points". No, it just means that the number of fixed points is multiple of $p$, like $2p,p, 0$ etc.
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Nov 28 '18 at 3:21
1
It doesn't even make sense to do quotient before knowing nH$ is normal, it is exactly what to prove. The statement indeed follows directly from Sylow Theorem.
– AdditIdent
Nov 28 '18 at 5:41
Now that I think about it, I don't see how this action is an action at all.
– Randall
Nov 28 '18 at 20:51