2

Let $G$ finite group, and suppose $G$ has unique subgroup of each order (which divides $G$'s order) - Show that $G$ is cyclic.

I reduced the problem to sylow subgroups of $G$ (they are all normal), so I need to prove the statement only for $p$-groups, and really have no idea..

daPollak
  • 817
  • Have you looked at http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/525643/at-most-one-subgroup-of-every-order-dividing-lvert-g-rvert-implies-g-cyclic?rq=1 ? –  Jan 17 '15 at 21:39
  • @Bungo, that is a generalization.. I would like to know if there is an easier solution for my case. – daPollak Jan 17 '15 at 21:48
  • It's true that the link given by @Bungo is a generalization of the question you asked. But the answer given there was very elementary, without using Sylow's theorem. Your approach is also an elegant one. – Krish Jan 17 '15 at 22:02

1 Answers1

8

I will argue by induction that a $p$-group $P$ with exactly one subgroup of each order $d\mid |P|$ is cyclic.

If the order is $1$ or $p$ (or even $p^2$), it is obvious.

So assume we did all cases of smaller order and consider the center $Z = \mathbf Z(P)$. Note that $Z>1$ because $P$ is a $p$-group. If $Z=P$ then we may use the structure theorem for finite abelian groups and we are done. Otherwise, assume $Z<P$, then $P/Z$ has at most one subgroup of order $d$ for each $d\mid |P/Z|$ by the correspondence theorem, on the other hand it is a $p$-group and therefore has at least one subgroup of order $d$ for each $d\mid |P/Z|$. It follows that $P/Z$ has exactly one subgroup for each divisor and thus must by cyclic because of our inductive hypothesis. Then $P$ is abelian which contradicts $Z<P$.


Here is a different proof, very similar to the arguments used here..

Again, we argue by induction and observe that it is trivial for small $p$-groups. Consider the unique subgroup $H$ of order $|P|/p$. Surely this subgroup is a $p$-group and therefore must have at least (and hence precisely) one subgroup for each divisor or $|H|$.

Now take an arbitrary element $x\in P\setminus H$. Then $\langle x\rangle$ is a subgroup of some order that is not yet contained in $H$. The only option is then that the order is $|P|$ and thus $P$ is cyclic with $x$ as its generator.

Myself
  • 8,781
  • Beautiful solution, thank you very much ! – daPollak Jan 17 '15 at 22:06
  • Two very nice proofs! Much more in the spirit of group theory than the argument involving the Euler $\phi$ function. –  Jan 17 '15 at 22:11
  • @Myself - I have a little question. Can we prove by induction for the condition of "at most one subgroup" instead of "exactly one", and give up the "at least one subgroup.." part in your first proof ? – daPollak Jan 17 '15 at 22:15
  • 1
    @daPollak I think so, yes. Good point. You could prove the 'stronger' theorem that if a $p$-group has at most one subgroup for each divisor of its order, it must be cyclic and this would get around the need for a theorem that says that $p$-groups have subgroups of every order. – Myself Jan 17 '15 at 22:19