Proof: Preliminary Sylow analysis shows:n3∈{7,13,91,409,2863,5317,37219} n7∈{351,47853} n13∈{27,25767} n409∈{819}Removing the numbers that violate the index restrictions, we have all of them solved except for n3. Assume n3=409, and we have |NG(P3)|=33∗7∗13, so for some P7 we have P3P7 is a subgroup of NG(P3), so that naturally P7⊴P3P7, meaning |P3P7|=189∣|NG(P7)|=21, a contradiction. Assuming n3=5317, we end up with the same contradiction as then |NG(P3)|=33∗7.
A brief digression: By counting the elements of order 7, 13, and 409, we obtain 930,474 elements. If there is an element x of order 21, then P7⊴⟨ x ⟩ so that ⟨ x ⟩=NG(P7) by order, so that by 6.2.16's first lemma there are 12∗47853=574,236 elements of order 21, overloading G.
Now assume n3=37219, and since 37129≢1mod32, we have an order-32 intersection of two Sylow 3-subgroups P3∩Q3, whose normalizer is of order 33∗7,33∗13, or 33∗7∗13. If 33∗7, then by the above the only order the elements in this normalizer can take are 1, 7, and powers of 3. Sylow shows n3=7 (by 6.2.13) and n7=1, so that there are 33∗7−6=183 elements in the Sylow 3-subgroups. Without taking intersections into account, there is a maximum of 7∗26+1=183 elements possible, so that there is no intersection between Sylow 3-subgroups taking place, despite P3,Q3≤NG(P3∩Q3) and P3∩Q3≠1, or 6.2.13 in general. If 33∗13 or 33∗7∗13, the order of the normalizer forces only one Sylow 3-subgroup, despite once again P3,Q3≤NG(P3∩Q3) being distinct Sylow 3-subgroups. Therefore, n3=2863 by default. ◻
No comments:
Post a Comment