0

I have written down a proof for the proposition described in the title, but slightly different from most proofs I have found, and I feel something not correct with it, especially the part proving normality. Could anyone please verify it for me? Thanks in advance!

Proposition:

Let $G$ be a group of order $2^nm$, where $m$ is odd. If $G$ has an element of order $2^n$, then $G$ has a normal subgroup of index $2^n$.

Proof:

We use induction on $n$.

Denote by $g \in G$ the element of order $2^n$. $\langle g \rangle$ has an cyclic subgroup $\langle g^2 \rangle$ of order $2^{n-1}$, which we denote by $H$. Consider the action of $G$ on the coset space $X = \{gH|\, g \in G\}$ by left multiplication, which induces a homomorphism $\rho:\,G \to S_{2m}$.

We prove first the existence of an odd permutation in $\rho(G)$ by showing that $\rho(g)$ is such an element. Denote $\langle g \rangle$ by $P$, and consider the action of $P$ on the coset space $X$, which is the restriction of $\rho$. Then $X$ is partitioned into some $P$-orbits.

Write $\rho(g)$ as the product of disjoint cycles, each of which corresponds naturally to one and only one orbit. Hence, any cycle has length some divisor $2^j$ of $|P|$. Suppose there is some one-element cycle, say $(aH)$. Then $gaH = aH$ and $a^{-1}ga \in H$. But $a^{-1}ga$ has the same order with $g$, which is $2^{n}$, contradicting $H$ having order $2^{n-1}$. Therefore such cycles must not exist, and all cycles in the decomposition of $g$ have length a proper multiple of $2$. Thus $\rho(g)$ is an even permutation.

We have found an odd permutation in $\rho(G) = S_{2m}$, so all of the even permutations form a subgroup $T$ of order $m$. Denote its preimage by $K$. The restriction $\rho|_K:\, K \to T$ must be surjective. That is, $T = \rho(K)$. Thus, $K$ is actually a subgroup containing $\ker \rho$. Henceforth, by corresponding theorem $$[G:K] = \left[\frac{G/\ker\rho}{K/\ker\rho}\right] = [\rho(G):\rho(K)] = 2,$$ implying the normality of $K$ .

Write $|K| = 2^{n-1}m$. By the inductive hypothesis, there exists $M \lhd K$ of order $m$, which is a fortiori a subgroup of $G$ having index $2^n$.

It remains to prove normality. Suppose $M' = y^{-1}My \neq M$ for some $y \in G$. Since $K \lhd G$ and $M \leq K$, $M' \leq K$. Then $M'M \leq K$ by the normality of $M$ in $K$. $|M'M|$ is a divisor of $|M'||M| = m$, hence an odd number. But $M$ is strictly contained in $M'M$, so $M'M$ is a subgroup of $K$ having more than $m$ elements of odd order, contradicting $|K|=2^{n-1}m$. So $y^{-1}My = M$ for any $y \in G$, completing the proof.

edit:

I realize that I should have prove $H$ contain a cyclic subgroup of order $2^{n-1}$ to make the inductive hypothesis valid, thanks to Dietrich Burde who offered me Conrad's note. This is one of the severe gaps in my proof, and I try to fix it as below. Since $K \leq G$ has index $2$, every square is contained in $K$, including $g^2$. So $\langle g^2 \rangle \leq G$, and we managed to make the inductive hypothesis valid. Now I do wonder more if there are other gaps here. Could anyone help?

edit2: Gerry Myerson reminded me that the part which was supposed to give an odd permutation in $\mathbb{im}\rho$ is severely insufficient. That is to say, it is not merely a slip of the pen. Compared to the standard proof which uses regular representation, I think the problem is the cycles in the complete decomposition are of different lengths, which makes it hard to judge whether it is odd or not.

Shaun
  • 44,997
zyy
  • 977
  • 2
    For a reference, see also this proof, or this post, with different proofs; one from the notes of K. Conrad here, Theorem $6.8$. Compare your proof with the one by Conrad. – Dietrich Burde Jun 02 '22 at 14:52
  • @DietrichBurde Thank you for your reference. It will be great if I can also borrow a few minutes from you for verifying my proof. I have read most proofs, most of which use regular representation, but I use induced representation. What's worse is the last paragraph proving normality. It does not fell right, but I cannot tell what is wrong. – zyy Jun 02 '22 at 18:58
  • @JyrkiLahtonen Thank you for your reference. It will be great if I can also borrow a few minutes from you for verifying my proof. I have read most proofs, most of which use regular representation, but I use induced representation. What's worse is the last paragraph proving normality. It does not fell right, but I cannot tell what is wrong. – zyy Jun 02 '22 at 19:00
  • @DietrichBurde Thank you for your note. I realize that I should have prove $H$ contain a cyclic subgroup of order $2^{n-1}$ to make the inductive hypothesis valid. This is one of the severe gaps in my proof, and I try to fix it as in my edit. Your second link is also helpful; after I reread it, I found out a proof of normality in the comment, coinciding with mine. So I am less skeptical about this part now. But I still wonder if there are other gaps here. Could you help please? – zyy Jun 03 '22 at 04:56
  • @DietrichBurde I was skeptical of the part proving normality of $M$ because, it seemed at first to apply to arbitrary pair of groups $M \leq K$. Now after comparing it to Conrad's note and the comment, I think it only applies to the case where $M \lhd K$ and $gcd(|M|, [K:M]) = 1$, that is, under such circumstance, we can always prove $M$ is the only subgroup of order $|M|$. Is that so? – zyy Jun 03 '22 at 05:11
  • 1
    You say you're going to prove $\rho(g)$ is odd, then you conclude that $\rho(g)$ is even, then you say you have found an odd permutation $\rho(g)$. Huh? – Gerry Myerson Jun 03 '22 at 05:18
  • @GerryMyerson Thank you. That is really a big gap, and worsely I cannot fix it. How stupid I did not realise it at all. Can it be fixed? – zyy Jun 03 '22 at 05:41
  • @GerryMyerson At first glance, I thought it was just a slip of the pen. But rereading it, I realise there is really some serious gap. My argument is not sufficient enough to prove what I want. I compared it to those proofs using regular representations. In that case all cycles in the decomposition are of same lengths $2^n$, and there are exactly $m$ cycles, so it must be odd. But in my case those cycles have different length, since for $H$, $g^2$ is a transposition, but for $aH$ where $a \notin H$, $g^2$ could be not. Do you think this gap is unfixable? – zyy Jun 03 '22 at 05:48
  • Sorry, I'm not sure when I'm going to be able to give this the attention it deserves. I hope you come up with something. – Gerry Myerson Jun 03 '22 at 06:17
  • @GerryMyerson Thank you all the same. My proof is really a mess; don't let it disturb you. – zyy Jun 03 '22 at 06:31
  • 1
    zyy, my advice is: write down the proof by K. Conrad in full detail (from his notes linked above). Then return back to your proof. – Dietrich Burde Jun 03 '22 at 08:30
  • @DietrichBurde Thanks. I will do that. – zyy Jun 04 '22 at 05:27

0 Answers0