Can one prove that a group of order 150 is not simple using element counting?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I'd like to know whether it's possible to show that a group of order 150 is not simple using only element counting (or mostly element counting). I have seen a solution to this problem here
(Every group of order $150$ has a normal subgroup of order $25$), but the method is different.



EDIT: By "element counting," I mean using Sylow's theorems to determine what $n_2$, $n_3$, and $n_5$ can be (other than 1; if any of these were 1, then we'd be done!) and then hopefully use this information to conclude that $G$ is simple. (As user1729 points out below, the only chance seems to be to do something smart with the Sylow 5-subgroups. I guess I am asking if anyone can think of such a smart thing to do!)







share|cite|improve this question






















  • FWIW $$150 = 2 times 3 times 5^2$$
    – Kenny Lau
    Aug 13 at 11:12






  • 1




    What do you mean by "element counting"? Do you mean using Sylow's theorems to say that "if there are $6$ Sylow-5 subgroups then there must be $x$ elements of order $5$, a contradiction"? Assuming $G$ is simple, and doing the above (and without doing anything additional/clever) I worked out that there are at least $3$ Sylow $2$-subgroups and $10$ Sylow $3$-subgroups, and there are $6$ Sylow $5$-subgroups. Adding up the corresponding elements does not give you a number bigger than $150$: $3$ elements of order $2$, $27$ of order $3$ and at least $24$ of order $5$. So $54$ elements, plus identity.
    – user1729
    Aug 13 at 11:53






  • 1




    (Possibly you can do more with the Sylow $5$-subgroups (as they have order $25$ not $5$), but as the answer to the linked post points out, they have pairwise non-trivial intersection so you'd have to be careful.)
    – user1729
    Aug 13 at 11:53







  • 1




    I voted-to-close NOT as being a duplicate but "unclear what you are asking".
    – Nicky Hekster
    Aug 14 at 9:54






  • 2




    I think I found a good interpretation of the question and posted an answer that both uses counting and is much simpler than the answer for the linked-to question, so please vote not to delete this question. Thanks!
    – C Monsour
    Aug 14 at 11:04














up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I'd like to know whether it's possible to show that a group of order 150 is not simple using only element counting (or mostly element counting). I have seen a solution to this problem here
(Every group of order $150$ has a normal subgroup of order $25$), but the method is different.



EDIT: By "element counting," I mean using Sylow's theorems to determine what $n_2$, $n_3$, and $n_5$ can be (other than 1; if any of these were 1, then we'd be done!) and then hopefully use this information to conclude that $G$ is simple. (As user1729 points out below, the only chance seems to be to do something smart with the Sylow 5-subgroups. I guess I am asking if anyone can think of such a smart thing to do!)







share|cite|improve this question






















  • FWIW $$150 = 2 times 3 times 5^2$$
    – Kenny Lau
    Aug 13 at 11:12






  • 1




    What do you mean by "element counting"? Do you mean using Sylow's theorems to say that "if there are $6$ Sylow-5 subgroups then there must be $x$ elements of order $5$, a contradiction"? Assuming $G$ is simple, and doing the above (and without doing anything additional/clever) I worked out that there are at least $3$ Sylow $2$-subgroups and $10$ Sylow $3$-subgroups, and there are $6$ Sylow $5$-subgroups. Adding up the corresponding elements does not give you a number bigger than $150$: $3$ elements of order $2$, $27$ of order $3$ and at least $24$ of order $5$. So $54$ elements, plus identity.
    – user1729
    Aug 13 at 11:53






  • 1




    (Possibly you can do more with the Sylow $5$-subgroups (as they have order $25$ not $5$), but as the answer to the linked post points out, they have pairwise non-trivial intersection so you'd have to be careful.)
    – user1729
    Aug 13 at 11:53







  • 1




    I voted-to-close NOT as being a duplicate but "unclear what you are asking".
    – Nicky Hekster
    Aug 14 at 9:54






  • 2




    I think I found a good interpretation of the question and posted an answer that both uses counting and is much simpler than the answer for the linked-to question, so please vote not to delete this question. Thanks!
    – C Monsour
    Aug 14 at 11:04












up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











I'd like to know whether it's possible to show that a group of order 150 is not simple using only element counting (or mostly element counting). I have seen a solution to this problem here
(Every group of order $150$ has a normal subgroup of order $25$), but the method is different.



EDIT: By "element counting," I mean using Sylow's theorems to determine what $n_2$, $n_3$, and $n_5$ can be (other than 1; if any of these were 1, then we'd be done!) and then hopefully use this information to conclude that $G$ is simple. (As user1729 points out below, the only chance seems to be to do something smart with the Sylow 5-subgroups. I guess I am asking if anyone can think of such a smart thing to do!)







share|cite|improve this question














I'd like to know whether it's possible to show that a group of order 150 is not simple using only element counting (or mostly element counting). I have seen a solution to this problem here
(Every group of order $150$ has a normal subgroup of order $25$), but the method is different.



EDIT: By "element counting," I mean using Sylow's theorems to determine what $n_2$, $n_3$, and $n_5$ can be (other than 1; if any of these were 1, then we'd be done!) and then hopefully use this information to conclude that $G$ is simple. (As user1729 points out below, the only chance seems to be to do something smart with the Sylow 5-subgroups. I guess I am asking if anyone can think of such a smart thing to do!)









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 14 at 18:50

























asked Aug 13 at 11:08









math4

677




677











  • FWIW $$150 = 2 times 3 times 5^2$$
    – Kenny Lau
    Aug 13 at 11:12






  • 1




    What do you mean by "element counting"? Do you mean using Sylow's theorems to say that "if there are $6$ Sylow-5 subgroups then there must be $x$ elements of order $5$, a contradiction"? Assuming $G$ is simple, and doing the above (and without doing anything additional/clever) I worked out that there are at least $3$ Sylow $2$-subgroups and $10$ Sylow $3$-subgroups, and there are $6$ Sylow $5$-subgroups. Adding up the corresponding elements does not give you a number bigger than $150$: $3$ elements of order $2$, $27$ of order $3$ and at least $24$ of order $5$. So $54$ elements, plus identity.
    – user1729
    Aug 13 at 11:53






  • 1




    (Possibly you can do more with the Sylow $5$-subgroups (as they have order $25$ not $5$), but as the answer to the linked post points out, they have pairwise non-trivial intersection so you'd have to be careful.)
    – user1729
    Aug 13 at 11:53







  • 1




    I voted-to-close NOT as being a duplicate but "unclear what you are asking".
    – Nicky Hekster
    Aug 14 at 9:54






  • 2




    I think I found a good interpretation of the question and posted an answer that both uses counting and is much simpler than the answer for the linked-to question, so please vote not to delete this question. Thanks!
    – C Monsour
    Aug 14 at 11:04
















  • FWIW $$150 = 2 times 3 times 5^2$$
    – Kenny Lau
    Aug 13 at 11:12






  • 1




    What do you mean by "element counting"? Do you mean using Sylow's theorems to say that "if there are $6$ Sylow-5 subgroups then there must be $x$ elements of order $5$, a contradiction"? Assuming $G$ is simple, and doing the above (and without doing anything additional/clever) I worked out that there are at least $3$ Sylow $2$-subgroups and $10$ Sylow $3$-subgroups, and there are $6$ Sylow $5$-subgroups. Adding up the corresponding elements does not give you a number bigger than $150$: $3$ elements of order $2$, $27$ of order $3$ and at least $24$ of order $5$. So $54$ elements, plus identity.
    – user1729
    Aug 13 at 11:53






  • 1




    (Possibly you can do more with the Sylow $5$-subgroups (as they have order $25$ not $5$), but as the answer to the linked post points out, they have pairwise non-trivial intersection so you'd have to be careful.)
    – user1729
    Aug 13 at 11:53







  • 1




    I voted-to-close NOT as being a duplicate but "unclear what you are asking".
    – Nicky Hekster
    Aug 14 at 9:54






  • 2




    I think I found a good interpretation of the question and posted an answer that both uses counting and is much simpler than the answer for the linked-to question, so please vote not to delete this question. Thanks!
    – C Monsour
    Aug 14 at 11:04















FWIW $$150 = 2 times 3 times 5^2$$
– Kenny Lau
Aug 13 at 11:12




FWIW $$150 = 2 times 3 times 5^2$$
– Kenny Lau
Aug 13 at 11:12




1




1




What do you mean by "element counting"? Do you mean using Sylow's theorems to say that "if there are $6$ Sylow-5 subgroups then there must be $x$ elements of order $5$, a contradiction"? Assuming $G$ is simple, and doing the above (and without doing anything additional/clever) I worked out that there are at least $3$ Sylow $2$-subgroups and $10$ Sylow $3$-subgroups, and there are $6$ Sylow $5$-subgroups. Adding up the corresponding elements does not give you a number bigger than $150$: $3$ elements of order $2$, $27$ of order $3$ and at least $24$ of order $5$. So $54$ elements, plus identity.
– user1729
Aug 13 at 11:53




What do you mean by "element counting"? Do you mean using Sylow's theorems to say that "if there are $6$ Sylow-5 subgroups then there must be $x$ elements of order $5$, a contradiction"? Assuming $G$ is simple, and doing the above (and without doing anything additional/clever) I worked out that there are at least $3$ Sylow $2$-subgroups and $10$ Sylow $3$-subgroups, and there are $6$ Sylow $5$-subgroups. Adding up the corresponding elements does not give you a number bigger than $150$: $3$ elements of order $2$, $27$ of order $3$ and at least $24$ of order $5$. So $54$ elements, plus identity.
– user1729
Aug 13 at 11:53




1




1




(Possibly you can do more with the Sylow $5$-subgroups (as they have order $25$ not $5$), but as the answer to the linked post points out, they have pairwise non-trivial intersection so you'd have to be careful.)
– user1729
Aug 13 at 11:53





(Possibly you can do more with the Sylow $5$-subgroups (as they have order $25$ not $5$), but as the answer to the linked post points out, they have pairwise non-trivial intersection so you'd have to be careful.)
– user1729
Aug 13 at 11:53





1




1




I voted-to-close NOT as being a duplicate but "unclear what you are asking".
– Nicky Hekster
Aug 14 at 9:54




I voted-to-close NOT as being a duplicate but "unclear what you are asking".
– Nicky Hekster
Aug 14 at 9:54




2




2




I think I found a good interpretation of the question and posted an answer that both uses counting and is much simpler than the answer for the linked-to question, so please vote not to delete this question. Thanks!
– C Monsour
Aug 14 at 11:04




I think I found a good interpretation of the question and posted an answer that both uses counting and is much simpler than the answer for the linked-to question, so please vote not to delete this question. Thanks!
– C Monsour
Aug 14 at 11:04










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote













There's an easy proof that does involve element-counting, but perhaps not in the way you have in mind. You already know by Sylow that if the group is simple it must have $6$ $5$-Sylow subgroups. If this is the case, then it acts by conjugation on these $6$ subgroups both transitively (by Sylow) and faithfully (since it's simple), and so embeds monomorphically as a subgroup of $S_6$. But, and here comes the "counting" part, since $150$ does not divide $720$ (the order of $S_6$), this is impossible. So no group of order $150$ is simple.



This idea works for a bunch of similar problems as well. In more complex cases, one can also make more sophisticated use of this embedding in a symmetric group to make inferences about the structure of the given group. For example, in some cases the given group could actually have the putative number of Sylow subgroups but would also have an index $2$ subgroup in that event--one can often prove this by showing that some element of the group maps to an odd permutation.



For example, we could also solve this very problem by embedding $G$ in $S_150$ using the action of $G$ on itself by right multiplication. Since $G$ has an element of order $2$ and since that element maps to a disjoint product of $75$ transpositions in $S_150$, it maps to an odd permutation, i.e., in $S_150$ but not $A_150$. Thus $G$ has a (necessarily normal) index $2$ subgroup, namely everything that maps to an even permutation (i.e., into $A_150$). In fact, one can use this idea to show that any group of order divisible by $2$ but not $4$ cannot be simple. But it feels a lot more tangible to work with $S_6$ than with $S_150$, and the action by conjugation on Sylow subgroups is also useful for plenty of group orders divisible by $4$.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • Why faithful? Simplicity does not rule out the possibility of some element $gin G$ such that $H^g=H$ for all the Sylow $5$-subgroups $H$. What am I missing? [Nice idea, by the way!]
    – user1729
    Aug 14 at 10:35










  • On the contrary, simplicity does rule that out, since the set of all such $g$ is a normal subgroup that is not the whole group (as the action is transitive on more than one element, and thus non-trivial). Since $G$ is simple, that normal subgroup is just the identity.
    – C Monsour
    Aug 14 at 10:52











  • Let $K$ be the set of all such $g$. Then I understand that $Klneq G$ (you can use Sylow for this as $Kleq N_G(H)$, and $[G:N_G(H)]=6$). I cannot see why $K$ is normal though.
    – user1729
    Aug 14 at 10:59










  • You can verify that normality either directly ($k^-1gk$ fixes $k^-1Hk$ if $g$ fixes $H$, so if $g$ stabilizes all conjugates of $H$, so does $k^-1gk$) or because the set of all such $g$ is the kernel of a homomorphism to $S_6$.
    – C Monsour
    Aug 14 at 10:59






  • 1




    This is a very useful "counting" technique for showing by elementary means that groups of specific orders are not simple. Apparently it is not as well known as I thought. I hope this answer helps a lot of people with a new idea for solving such problems.
    – C Monsour
    Aug 14 at 11:07










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: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
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%2f2881255%2fcan-one-prove-that-a-group-of-order-150-is-not-simple-using-element-counting%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest






























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
2
down vote













There's an easy proof that does involve element-counting, but perhaps not in the way you have in mind. You already know by Sylow that if the group is simple it must have $6$ $5$-Sylow subgroups. If this is the case, then it acts by conjugation on these $6$ subgroups both transitively (by Sylow) and faithfully (since it's simple), and so embeds monomorphically as a subgroup of $S_6$. But, and here comes the "counting" part, since $150$ does not divide $720$ (the order of $S_6$), this is impossible. So no group of order $150$ is simple.



This idea works for a bunch of similar problems as well. In more complex cases, one can also make more sophisticated use of this embedding in a symmetric group to make inferences about the structure of the given group. For example, in some cases the given group could actually have the putative number of Sylow subgroups but would also have an index $2$ subgroup in that event--one can often prove this by showing that some element of the group maps to an odd permutation.



For example, we could also solve this very problem by embedding $G$ in $S_150$ using the action of $G$ on itself by right multiplication. Since $G$ has an element of order $2$ and since that element maps to a disjoint product of $75$ transpositions in $S_150$, it maps to an odd permutation, i.e., in $S_150$ but not $A_150$. Thus $G$ has a (necessarily normal) index $2$ subgroup, namely everything that maps to an even permutation (i.e., into $A_150$). In fact, one can use this idea to show that any group of order divisible by $2$ but not $4$ cannot be simple. But it feels a lot more tangible to work with $S_6$ than with $S_150$, and the action by conjugation on Sylow subgroups is also useful for plenty of group orders divisible by $4$.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • Why faithful? Simplicity does not rule out the possibility of some element $gin G$ such that $H^g=H$ for all the Sylow $5$-subgroups $H$. What am I missing? [Nice idea, by the way!]
    – user1729
    Aug 14 at 10:35










  • On the contrary, simplicity does rule that out, since the set of all such $g$ is a normal subgroup that is not the whole group (as the action is transitive on more than one element, and thus non-trivial). Since $G$ is simple, that normal subgroup is just the identity.
    – C Monsour
    Aug 14 at 10:52











  • Let $K$ be the set of all such $g$. Then I understand that $Klneq G$ (you can use Sylow for this as $Kleq N_G(H)$, and $[G:N_G(H)]=6$). I cannot see why $K$ is normal though.
    – user1729
    Aug 14 at 10:59










  • You can verify that normality either directly ($k^-1gk$ fixes $k^-1Hk$ if $g$ fixes $H$, so if $g$ stabilizes all conjugates of $H$, so does $k^-1gk$) or because the set of all such $g$ is the kernel of a homomorphism to $S_6$.
    – C Monsour
    Aug 14 at 10:59






  • 1




    This is a very useful "counting" technique for showing by elementary means that groups of specific orders are not simple. Apparently it is not as well known as I thought. I hope this answer helps a lot of people with a new idea for solving such problems.
    – C Monsour
    Aug 14 at 11:07














up vote
2
down vote













There's an easy proof that does involve element-counting, but perhaps not in the way you have in mind. You already know by Sylow that if the group is simple it must have $6$ $5$-Sylow subgroups. If this is the case, then it acts by conjugation on these $6$ subgroups both transitively (by Sylow) and faithfully (since it's simple), and so embeds monomorphically as a subgroup of $S_6$. But, and here comes the "counting" part, since $150$ does not divide $720$ (the order of $S_6$), this is impossible. So no group of order $150$ is simple.



This idea works for a bunch of similar problems as well. In more complex cases, one can also make more sophisticated use of this embedding in a symmetric group to make inferences about the structure of the given group. For example, in some cases the given group could actually have the putative number of Sylow subgroups but would also have an index $2$ subgroup in that event--one can often prove this by showing that some element of the group maps to an odd permutation.



For example, we could also solve this very problem by embedding $G$ in $S_150$ using the action of $G$ on itself by right multiplication. Since $G$ has an element of order $2$ and since that element maps to a disjoint product of $75$ transpositions in $S_150$, it maps to an odd permutation, i.e., in $S_150$ but not $A_150$. Thus $G$ has a (necessarily normal) index $2$ subgroup, namely everything that maps to an even permutation (i.e., into $A_150$). In fact, one can use this idea to show that any group of order divisible by $2$ but not $4$ cannot be simple. But it feels a lot more tangible to work with $S_6$ than with $S_150$, and the action by conjugation on Sylow subgroups is also useful for plenty of group orders divisible by $4$.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • Why faithful? Simplicity does not rule out the possibility of some element $gin G$ such that $H^g=H$ for all the Sylow $5$-subgroups $H$. What am I missing? [Nice idea, by the way!]
    – user1729
    Aug 14 at 10:35










  • On the contrary, simplicity does rule that out, since the set of all such $g$ is a normal subgroup that is not the whole group (as the action is transitive on more than one element, and thus non-trivial). Since $G$ is simple, that normal subgroup is just the identity.
    – C Monsour
    Aug 14 at 10:52











  • Let $K$ be the set of all such $g$. Then I understand that $Klneq G$ (you can use Sylow for this as $Kleq N_G(H)$, and $[G:N_G(H)]=6$). I cannot see why $K$ is normal though.
    – user1729
    Aug 14 at 10:59










  • You can verify that normality either directly ($k^-1gk$ fixes $k^-1Hk$ if $g$ fixes $H$, so if $g$ stabilizes all conjugates of $H$, so does $k^-1gk$) or because the set of all such $g$ is the kernel of a homomorphism to $S_6$.
    – C Monsour
    Aug 14 at 10:59






  • 1




    This is a very useful "counting" technique for showing by elementary means that groups of specific orders are not simple. Apparently it is not as well known as I thought. I hope this answer helps a lot of people with a new idea for solving such problems.
    – C Monsour
    Aug 14 at 11:07












up vote
2
down vote










up vote
2
down vote









There's an easy proof that does involve element-counting, but perhaps not in the way you have in mind. You already know by Sylow that if the group is simple it must have $6$ $5$-Sylow subgroups. If this is the case, then it acts by conjugation on these $6$ subgroups both transitively (by Sylow) and faithfully (since it's simple), and so embeds monomorphically as a subgroup of $S_6$. But, and here comes the "counting" part, since $150$ does not divide $720$ (the order of $S_6$), this is impossible. So no group of order $150$ is simple.



This idea works for a bunch of similar problems as well. In more complex cases, one can also make more sophisticated use of this embedding in a symmetric group to make inferences about the structure of the given group. For example, in some cases the given group could actually have the putative number of Sylow subgroups but would also have an index $2$ subgroup in that event--one can often prove this by showing that some element of the group maps to an odd permutation.



For example, we could also solve this very problem by embedding $G$ in $S_150$ using the action of $G$ on itself by right multiplication. Since $G$ has an element of order $2$ and since that element maps to a disjoint product of $75$ transpositions in $S_150$, it maps to an odd permutation, i.e., in $S_150$ but not $A_150$. Thus $G$ has a (necessarily normal) index $2$ subgroup, namely everything that maps to an even permutation (i.e., into $A_150$). In fact, one can use this idea to show that any group of order divisible by $2$ but not $4$ cannot be simple. But it feels a lot more tangible to work with $S_6$ than with $S_150$, and the action by conjugation on Sylow subgroups is also useful for plenty of group orders divisible by $4$.






share|cite|improve this answer














There's an easy proof that does involve element-counting, but perhaps not in the way you have in mind. You already know by Sylow that if the group is simple it must have $6$ $5$-Sylow subgroups. If this is the case, then it acts by conjugation on these $6$ subgroups both transitively (by Sylow) and faithfully (since it's simple), and so embeds monomorphically as a subgroup of $S_6$. But, and here comes the "counting" part, since $150$ does not divide $720$ (the order of $S_6$), this is impossible. So no group of order $150$ is simple.



This idea works for a bunch of similar problems as well. In more complex cases, one can also make more sophisticated use of this embedding in a symmetric group to make inferences about the structure of the given group. For example, in some cases the given group could actually have the putative number of Sylow subgroups but would also have an index $2$ subgroup in that event--one can often prove this by showing that some element of the group maps to an odd permutation.



For example, we could also solve this very problem by embedding $G$ in $S_150$ using the action of $G$ on itself by right multiplication. Since $G$ has an element of order $2$ and since that element maps to a disjoint product of $75$ transpositions in $S_150$, it maps to an odd permutation, i.e., in $S_150$ but not $A_150$. Thus $G$ has a (necessarily normal) index $2$ subgroup, namely everything that maps to an even permutation (i.e., into $A_150$). In fact, one can use this idea to show that any group of order divisible by $2$ but not $4$ cannot be simple. But it feels a lot more tangible to work with $S_6$ than with $S_150$, and the action by conjugation on Sylow subgroups is also useful for plenty of group orders divisible by $4$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Aug 14 at 20:48

























answered Aug 14 at 10:20









C Monsour

4,651221




4,651221











  • Why faithful? Simplicity does not rule out the possibility of some element $gin G$ such that $H^g=H$ for all the Sylow $5$-subgroups $H$. What am I missing? [Nice idea, by the way!]
    – user1729
    Aug 14 at 10:35










  • On the contrary, simplicity does rule that out, since the set of all such $g$ is a normal subgroup that is not the whole group (as the action is transitive on more than one element, and thus non-trivial). Since $G$ is simple, that normal subgroup is just the identity.
    – C Monsour
    Aug 14 at 10:52











  • Let $K$ be the set of all such $g$. Then I understand that $Klneq G$ (you can use Sylow for this as $Kleq N_G(H)$, and $[G:N_G(H)]=6$). I cannot see why $K$ is normal though.
    – user1729
    Aug 14 at 10:59










  • You can verify that normality either directly ($k^-1gk$ fixes $k^-1Hk$ if $g$ fixes $H$, so if $g$ stabilizes all conjugates of $H$, so does $k^-1gk$) or because the set of all such $g$ is the kernel of a homomorphism to $S_6$.
    – C Monsour
    Aug 14 at 10:59






  • 1




    This is a very useful "counting" technique for showing by elementary means that groups of specific orders are not simple. Apparently it is not as well known as I thought. I hope this answer helps a lot of people with a new idea for solving such problems.
    – C Monsour
    Aug 14 at 11:07
















  • Why faithful? Simplicity does not rule out the possibility of some element $gin G$ such that $H^g=H$ for all the Sylow $5$-subgroups $H$. What am I missing? [Nice idea, by the way!]
    – user1729
    Aug 14 at 10:35










  • On the contrary, simplicity does rule that out, since the set of all such $g$ is a normal subgroup that is not the whole group (as the action is transitive on more than one element, and thus non-trivial). Since $G$ is simple, that normal subgroup is just the identity.
    – C Monsour
    Aug 14 at 10:52











  • Let $K$ be the set of all such $g$. Then I understand that $Klneq G$ (you can use Sylow for this as $Kleq N_G(H)$, and $[G:N_G(H)]=6$). I cannot see why $K$ is normal though.
    – user1729
    Aug 14 at 10:59










  • You can verify that normality either directly ($k^-1gk$ fixes $k^-1Hk$ if $g$ fixes $H$, so if $g$ stabilizes all conjugates of $H$, so does $k^-1gk$) or because the set of all such $g$ is the kernel of a homomorphism to $S_6$.
    – C Monsour
    Aug 14 at 10:59






  • 1




    This is a very useful "counting" technique for showing by elementary means that groups of specific orders are not simple. Apparently it is not as well known as I thought. I hope this answer helps a lot of people with a new idea for solving such problems.
    – C Monsour
    Aug 14 at 11:07















Why faithful? Simplicity does not rule out the possibility of some element $gin G$ such that $H^g=H$ for all the Sylow $5$-subgroups $H$. What am I missing? [Nice idea, by the way!]
– user1729
Aug 14 at 10:35




Why faithful? Simplicity does not rule out the possibility of some element $gin G$ such that $H^g=H$ for all the Sylow $5$-subgroups $H$. What am I missing? [Nice idea, by the way!]
– user1729
Aug 14 at 10:35












On the contrary, simplicity does rule that out, since the set of all such $g$ is a normal subgroup that is not the whole group (as the action is transitive on more than one element, and thus non-trivial). Since $G$ is simple, that normal subgroup is just the identity.
– C Monsour
Aug 14 at 10:52





On the contrary, simplicity does rule that out, since the set of all such $g$ is a normal subgroup that is not the whole group (as the action is transitive on more than one element, and thus non-trivial). Since $G$ is simple, that normal subgroup is just the identity.
– C Monsour
Aug 14 at 10:52













Let $K$ be the set of all such $g$. Then I understand that $Klneq G$ (you can use Sylow for this as $Kleq N_G(H)$, and $[G:N_G(H)]=6$). I cannot see why $K$ is normal though.
– user1729
Aug 14 at 10:59




Let $K$ be the set of all such $g$. Then I understand that $Klneq G$ (you can use Sylow for this as $Kleq N_G(H)$, and $[G:N_G(H)]=6$). I cannot see why $K$ is normal though.
– user1729
Aug 14 at 10:59












You can verify that normality either directly ($k^-1gk$ fixes $k^-1Hk$ if $g$ fixes $H$, so if $g$ stabilizes all conjugates of $H$, so does $k^-1gk$) or because the set of all such $g$ is the kernel of a homomorphism to $S_6$.
– C Monsour
Aug 14 at 10:59




You can verify that normality either directly ($k^-1gk$ fixes $k^-1Hk$ if $g$ fixes $H$, so if $g$ stabilizes all conjugates of $H$, so does $k^-1gk$) or because the set of all such $g$ is the kernel of a homomorphism to $S_6$.
– C Monsour
Aug 14 at 10:59




1




1




This is a very useful "counting" technique for showing by elementary means that groups of specific orders are not simple. Apparently it is not as well known as I thought. I hope this answer helps a lot of people with a new idea for solving such problems.
– C Monsour
Aug 14 at 11:07




This is a very useful "counting" technique for showing by elementary means that groups of specific orders are not simple. Apparently it is not as well known as I thought. I hope this answer helps a lot of people with a new idea for solving such problems.
– C Monsour
Aug 14 at 11:07












 

draft saved


draft discarded


























 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2881255%2fcan-one-prove-that-a-group-of-order-150-is-not-simple-using-element-counting%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest













































































這個網誌中的熱門文章

How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

Mutual Information Always Non-negative

Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?