16
$\begingroup$

Let $G$ be a finite group and $H$ a subgroup of index $p$, where $p$ is a prime. If $\operatorname{gcd}(|H|, p-1)=1$, then $H$ must be normal. Does somebody have a quick proof of this?

  • 0
    @NickyHekster: I wonder whether character teoritic proof can be done ? For starting, Let $\chi=(1_H)^G$ then $\chi$ is a character of $G$ with degree $\chi(1)=p=$ and $ker(\chi)=Core(H)$. The above result is equivalent to say that every irreducable constitute of $\chi$ is linear.2016-04-17

2 Answers 2

10

By induction on $|G|$, we can assume that there is no non-trivial normal subgroup $N$ of $G$ contained in $H$. Thus the action of $G$ on the conjugates of $H$ gives an embedding of $G$ into $S_p$, of order $p!$. Thus $|H|$ divides $(p-1)!$, and so $p$ does not divide $|H|$. Thus the Sylow p-groups of $G$ are cyclic of order $p$.

Now if any $h\in H$ normalized a Sylow p-group $P$, then $h$ would map into $Aut(P)\cong C_{p-1}$, and by hypothesis the image would be trivial. That is, any $h\in H$ normalizing $P$ also centralizes $P$. It follows that $N_G(P)=C_G(P)$, and by the Burnside Transfer theorem, $G$ has a normal subgroup $M$ of index $p$. Of course, any Sylow q-group of $H$ is then contained in $M$, and so $H$ is contained in $M$; that is, $H=M$ is normal.

  • 0
    It might help to put the extra line $N_G(P) = PN_H(P)$ in your proof.2011-07-10
6

Note: As pointed out in the comments this answer is missing a crucial detail, and unfortunately I have no idea if it can be salvaged.

This is a slightly more elementary way to show this:

Assume $H$ is not normal. Then clearly $N_G(H) = H$ and $G$ acts on the $|G:H| = p$ conjugates of $H$ by conjugation. The stabilizer of $H$ under this action is just $H$, which then acts on the other $p-1$ conjugates.

The orbit of a $gHg^{-1}$ under this action consists of all $g'Hg'^{-1}$ with $g'\in Hg$ and thus all the orbits have the same size. On the other hand, their sizes all divide the order of $H$, which is a contradiction since $gcd(|H|,p-1) = 1$

  • 0
    Tobias, I agree with Steve D. your proof is false. Aren't you mixing up the action of G on the conjugates of H and the action of H on these conjugates?2011-04-22