Proof: Note that since p-groups are nilpotent, P∩Q<NP(P∩Q) and P∩Q<NQ(P∩Q), so that p⋅|P∩Q| divides |NG(P∩Q)|. Prove that NP(P∩Q) and NQ(P∩Q) are distinct Sylow p-subgroups of NG(P∩Q). If NP(P∩Q) is not a Sylow subgroup, then place it in one, and call this group P∗. This is a p-group in G, so place P∗ in a Sylow p-subgroup P∗∗. Note that if P∗∗=P, then since P∗≤NG(P∩Q) we have P∗∩P=P∗≤NP(P∩Q), a contradiction. Therefore P and P∗∗ are distinct Sylow p-subgroups of G and P∩Q<NP(P∩Q)≤P∩P∗∗, a contradiction by the maximality of P∩Q. The case for NQ(P∩Q)∈Sylp(NG(P∩Q)) is similar. Now prove that NP(P∩Q)≠NQ(P∩Q): Assuming the contrary, we have P∩Q<NP(P∩Q)≤P∩Q, a clear impossibility.
Assume NG(P∩Q) is a p-group, and thus place it in a Sylow p-subgroup of G, calling it M. If M=P, then NQ(P∩Q)≤P, so that NQ(P∩Q)≤P∩Q, untenable. Therefore M≠P and P∩Q<NP(P∩Q)≤M∩P, another contradiction. Therefore q divides |NG(P∩Q)|.
Finally, let A,B∈Sylp(NG(P∩Q)) with A≠B, and prove A∩B=P∩Q. (⊇) Let P∩Q≤C for some Sylow p-subgroup of NG(P∩Q) with gCg−1=A for some g∈NG(P∩Q). We have g(P∩Q)g−1=P∩Q≤A. The case is parallel for P∩Q≤B. (⊆) A and B are p-subgroups of G, so let A≤D and B≤E for some D,E∈Sylp(G). Assume D=E: Since A≠B and A,B≤D, we have ⟨ A, B ⟩ is a p-subgroup (because it is in D) properly containing A and B, a contradiction (since ⟨ A, B ⟩≤NG(P∩Q) and A and B are supposed to be Sylow in NG(P∩Q)). So D≠E. We have A∩B≤D∩E so that |A∩B|≤|D∩E|≤|P∩Q| and now A∩B=P∩Q. ◻
No comments:
Post a Comment