Some Sylow arguments
I want to outline some arguments concerning Sylow groups that are based on results in this paper of Conder, Potočnik and Širán. My arguments will look slightly different from those of CPS because I will restrict myself to orientable surfaces, and will define the group which is associated with my regular map according to the previous posts on this blog (the group in CPS is constructed differently – it is twice as large as ours).
For the purposes of this post all maps will be finite, hence (as we proved earlier) the corresponding surface is compact and we can define the Euler characteristic . Let
be a regular topological map of type
(where these are true orders). Recall that, when the map is regular we can think of
as acting on the map via homeomorphisms of the surface (we can’t do this for non-regular maps), and this is how we will think of
in what follows..
Write (resp.
,
) for the number of vertices (resp. edges, faces) in our map. I assert that the following follows immediately from the work of Jones & Singerman that we have already discussed:
The first equality is the formula for the Euler characteristic, the second follows by regularity, the third by rearranging. Note that the second equality is based on the fact (which will be useful in its own right) that a vertex (resp. edge, resp. face) stabilizer is a cyclic subgroup of order (resp.
).
Now write (resp.
) for the lcm (resp. gcd) of
and
. Then we can rearrange the above equation to obtain that
The two equations displayed so far immediately yield some nice consequences. In what follows, if is an integer,
a prime, write
if
is the highest power of
that divides
.
Proposition 1: Let be a prime dividing the order of
. Either
divides
or a Sylow
-subgroup of
is cyclic.
Proof: All of the statements that we make depend only on the equations given above. Let be a Sylow
-subgroup of
. Suppose that
. Then either
or
. But in the latter case
is cyclic and we’re done. So we assume from here on that
.
Suppose that . In this case
or
; suppose, without lost of generality that
. Since we know that
contains a cyclic group of order
(a vertex stabilizer) we conclude that
is cyclic as required.
Suppose that ; then
. Since
we conclude that
and
is odd. But this implies that
and
are odd and so
and
is cyclic as required.
QED
Now it is well-known in group theory that any group with a cyclic Sylow -subgroup is solvable. Thus Prop. 1 implies that any map on an orientable surface with odd Euler characteristic corresponds to a solvable group. Great!! Except that no orientable surfaces with odd Euler characteristic exist: in the orientable case
where
is the genus of the surface. (Incidentally I’d like a good explanation of that. I really don’t understand how
and
work in the world of topology.)
CPS have great success in using Prop. 1 to classify regular maps, with most of their attention focussed on non-orientable surfaces. But that story is for another day. For now let me do some bookwork and write down an extension of Prop. 1 that might come in handy to someone someday.
Proposition 2: Let be a prime dividing the order of
. Either
divides
or a Sylow
-subgroup of
has a cyclic subgroup of index
.
Proof: Again all of the statements that we make depend only on the equations given above. Let be a Sylow
-subgroup of
. Suppose that
; there are three possibilities: (a)
; or (b)
and
; or (c)
. The first two cases yield the result immediately, hence we assume that (c) holds.
Suppose that . In this case, WLOG,
or
. Since we know that
contains a cyclic group of order
(a vertex stabilizer) the result follows.
Finally suppose that . Then
and
for some odd integer
. But now if either
or
are even, then
is even and we conclude that
and the result follows. On the other hand if
and
are both odd, then
and the result follows.
QED
I am most interested in applying Prop. 2 in the case . In this situation we know explicitly what the group
looks like (see for instance this paper, and the papers it cites). I wanted to write a load more stuff on this but I’m out of time for now. More anon.