|
|
Line 4: |
Line 4: |
|
|
|
|
|
;Theorem |
|
;Theorem |
|
Theorem |
|
|
: If <math>X</math> is a transitive <math>G</math>-set and <math>x \in X</math> then <math>X \simeq G/Stab(x)</math> where the isomorphism an isomorphism of <math>G</math>-sets. |
|
: If <math>X</math> is a transitive <math>G</math>-set and <math>x \in X</math> then <math>X \simeq G/Stab(x)</math> where the isomorphism an isomorphism of <math>G</math>-sets. |
|
|
|
|
Line 11: |
Line 10: |
|
|
|
|
|
; Stabilizer of a point |
|
; Stabilizer of a point |
|
: We write <math>Stab(x) = \{g \in G : gx = x\}</math> for the stabilizer subgroup of $x$. |
|
: We write <math>Stab(x) = \{g \in G : gx = x\}</math> for the stabilizer subgroup of <math>x</math>. |
|
|
|
|
|
''Proof'' We define an equivalence relation <math>x \sim y \iff \exists_{g \in G} gx = y</math>. This relation is reflexive since <math>x = ex</math> and thus <math>x \sim x</math>. This relation is symmetric since <math>y = gx</math> implies <math>g^{-1}y = x</math>. This relation is transitive, since if <math>x = gy</math> and <math>y = hz</math> then <math>x = ghz</math>. It follows that <math> X = \coprod_{i \in I} Gx_{i} </math> where <math>Gx_i</math> denote the orbit of a point <math>x_i</math>. |
|
''Proof'' We define an equivalence relation <math>x \sim y \iff \exists_{g \in G} gx = y</math>. This relation is reflexive since <math>x = ex</math> and thus <math>x \sim x</math>. This relation is symmetric since <math>y = gx</math> implies <math>g^{-1}y = x</math>. This relation is transitive, since if <math>x = gy</math> and <math>y = hz</math> then <math>x = ghz</math>. It follows that <math> X = \coprod_{i \in I} Gx_{i} </math> where <math>Gx_i</math> denote the orbit of a point <math>x_i</math>. |
Line 64: |
Line 63: |
|
: <math>Syl_p(G) \neq \emptyset</math> |
|
: <math>Syl_p(G) \neq \emptyset</math> |
|
|
|
|
|
We proceed by induction on the order of <math>p</math>. Assume the claim holds for all groups of order less than $|G|$. <span style="color:green">[Dror: "Stare at the class equation."]</span> Since <math>|G| \equiv 0\mod\ p</math> we have either: |
|
We proceed by induction on the order of <math>p</math>. Assume the claim holds for all groups of order less than <math>|G|</math>. <span style="color:green">[Dror: "Stare at the class equation."]</span> Since <math>|G| \equiv 0\mod\ p</math> we have either: |
|
* <math>|G| \equiv 0\mod\ p</math> and <math>\sum |G|/|Stab(x_i)| \equiv 0\mod\ p</math>. |
|
* <math>|G| \equiv 0\mod\ p</math> and <math>\sum |G|/|Stab(x_i)| \equiv 0\mod\ p</math>. |
|
* <math>|G| \not\equiv 0\mod\ p</math> and <math>\sum |G|/|Stab(x_i)| \not\equiv 0\mod\ p</math>. |
|
* <math>|G| \not\equiv 0\mod\ p</math> and <math>\sum |G|/|Stab(x_i)| \not\equiv 0\mod\ p</math>. |
Theory of Transitive -sets
- Theorem
- Every -set is a disjoint union of "transitive -sets"
- Theorem
- If is a transitive -set and then where the isomorphism an isomorphism of -sets.
- Transitive -set
- A -set is transitive is .
- Stabilizer of a point
- We write for the stabilizer subgroup of .
Proof We define an equivalence relation . This relation is reflexive since and thus . This relation is symmetric since implies . This relation is transitive, since if and then . It follows that where denote the orbit of a point .
We then claim that is a transitive -set. [Dror: "[This fact] is too easy."]
We show that is isomorphic to as a -set.
We produce two morphism and .
To define there is only one thing we can do. We have and then we define . We check that this map is well defined. If then and hence . It follows that . Thus is well defined.
To define we take and define . We show that this map is well defined. If then and hence . It follows that and hence is well defined.
We need to check that and are mutually inverse and -set morphisms. We quickly check that is a -set morphism. If and then . Similarly, . The last inequality follows since we can take any such that . Why not take -- since we know that works.
- Theorem (Orbit-Stabilizer)
- If and then .
This is just a rewriting of the theorem above.
- -Group
- A -group is a group with for some .
The last group is the famous unit quaternions -- They need a better description here.
- Theorem
- Any -group has a non-trivial centre.
Let act on itself by conjugation. Decompose . Then,
Observe that iff . It follows that
The formula above is called "the class formula". We have that for some since is a subgroup. It follows that and . It follows that . Since we have and thus .
Sylow
A prove a brief technical lemma, for fun, since we could deduce it from more high powered machinery which we don't have yet.
- Cauchy's Lemma
- If is an abelian group and divides , then there is an element of order in .
Proof. Pick . If divides the order of then we have for some . It follows that . We then have that the order of is . If does not divide the order of , then consider . Since is abelian, is a normal subgroup. We have that divides , and . We then induct. Let have order , that is . We then have that for some . We write where . We then have . It follows that contradicting the assumption that the order of is .
- Sylow set
- If for then .
- Sylow I
We proceed by induction on the order of . Assume the claim holds for all groups of order less than . [Dror: "Stare at the class equation."] Since we have either:
- and .
- and .
If then there exists such that . Thus divides . We have that [Why happens here?] We then have that and by induction there is such that . It follows . We've obtained the Sylow -subgroup.
WIf then by Cauchy's Lemma, there is with . Consider the group . By the induction hypothesis there is where . Then, there is the canonical projection . By the fourth isomorphism theory and .
- Sylow 2
- Every Sylow -subgroup of is conjugate. Moreover, every -subgroup is contained in a Sylow -subgroup.
- Sylow 3
- Let . We have and .
- A Nearly Tautological Lemma
- If and is a -group, then .
- If has and then .
[Dror: "This lemma is nearly tautological but it is only nearly tautological once you understand that it is nearly tautological." Parker: "A tautology?"]
We show the first statement. We have that since is a -group. We then know that by the second isomorphism theorem. It foolows that . But since is maximal, we have and thus . The first statement implies the second by taking .
Groups of Order 15
If then and . These imply . Moreover, and . These imply . Thus we have a normal -subgroup. Moreover, we have a normal -subgroup. This tells us a lot about the group.