1

Context: Actually, this post is a specific version of my other question: If I happen to have like a subgroup of $S_4$ that is generated by 2 (distinct) elements $a,b$ and then after much multiplication I arrive at 10 more elements, for a total of 12 elements, then how do I go about proving that there aren't any more elements?


There's this question $A_n$ is the only subgroup of $S_n$ of index $2$. but it appears each answer involves one of the following things I'm not allowed: Lagrange, index, cosets, normal subgroups, quotient groups.

This has been asked before specifically for $n=4$, but it appears each question or answer involves one of the above things.

  1. $S_4$ has only a subgroups of order 12?

  2. Prove $S_4$ has only 1 subgroup of order 12

  3. $A_{4}$ unique subgroup of $S_4$ of order $12$

Guess: The only thing that appears to be left is to do the multiplication table, i.e. multiply each element by itself and then the other 11 to get that each of the 144 products are all one of the 12 elements.

BCLC
  • 14,197
  • 2
    This could be done, but it would be hard work, and I am not convinced it would be worthwhile. To get you started, a subgroup of order $12$ other than $A_4$ would have to contain an odd permutation, which you could assume was either $(1,2)$ or $(1,2,3,4)$. I suspect that you would also want to prove as lemmas that subgroups of order $6$ of $8$ of $S_4$, that are isomorphic to $S_3$ or $D_8$ are maximal subgroups - i.e. the only subgroup that strictly contains them is $S_4$ itself. That can be done without using Lagrange. – Derek Holt Oct 13 '21 at 13:03
  • 1
    Why is nothing related to cosets allowed? Is this your own question, or an exercise from a book or a course? I am asking since I am not sure if we can really expect a nice solution. – spin Oct 13 '21 at 13:24
  • @spin from a book or course. at this point no cosets and stuff are allowed. so maybe there is a nice solution, but based on Derek Holt's comment it doesn't seem to be possible. Edit: I edited post re context – BCLC Oct 13 '21 at 13:49
  • @DerekHolt thanks! so your solution would be just multiplication table? Edit: I edited post re context – BCLC Oct 13 '21 at 13:50
  • 1
    @JohnSmithKyon: Ok, which book is it? This would make it easier to see what results have been established at that point in the book, which could give a hint on what the intended solution is. – spin Oct 14 '21 at 02:56
  • @spin homework not book. couldn't find any book for this at least in terms of the little that's allowed at this point. probably this can be found in several books but they allow stronger theorems to answer – BCLC Oct 21 '21 at 10:35

2 Answers2

2

Hints.

Let $H$ be a subgroup in $S_4$ of order $12$ different from $A_4$. Then $H$ contains an odd permutation. It follows that the number of even and odd permutations in $H$ is equal (I'm sure you can easily prove this). Hence, the even permutations of $H$ form a subgroup $F$ of order $6$ (why). Further we consider two cases:

  1. $F$ contains two cycles of length $3$ of the form $(123)$ and $(124)$;
  2. $F$ does not contain a pair of such cycles, then $F$ contains all three permutations of the form $(12)(34)$.

In each of these cases it is necessary to multiply the permutations a little. But this is not much work.

Edit.

For example, in the first case. In the subgroup $F$ must lie permutations: $e,(123),(132),(124),(142),(123)(124)=(14)(23),(123)(142)=(234)$. There is no need to compute further. We already have $|F|>6$. Contradiction.

kabenyuk
  • 12,395
  • Thanks kabenyuk. do you really need to make this a contradiction proof? I think you can just suppose $H$ has order 12 and then proceed to show in each of the 2 cases that $H=A_4$...oh wait is that actually not going to be direct conclusion of each of the 2 cases like you'll reach some contradiction other than that $H=A_4$ (contrary to our assumption that $H \ne A_4$) ? – BCLC Oct 13 '21 at 15:27
  • 1
    John, I added a little to my answer. – kabenyuk Oct 13 '21 at 16:41
  • kabenyuk, this is surely shorter than the 144 product multiplication table right? – BCLC Oct 13 '21 at 16:55
0

Let me answer your question in the first paragraph. Suppose that you have a subgroup $H$ of a group $G$ generated by $a$ and $b$. After some calculations, you find elements $g_1,g_2,\ldots,g_n$ in $H$ and you want to prove that $H = \{g_1,\ldots,g_n\}$.

To do that you calculate $g_ia$ and $g_ib$ for each $i$. If $g_ia,g_ib \in \{g_1,\ldots,g_n\}$ for $1 \le i \le n$, then this proves that $H=\{g_1,\ldots,g_n\}$.

Derek Holt
  • 96,726
  • that's what i said: multiplication table right? Edit: wait you're saying i don't have to do all 144 of the multiplication table...i need do only 12+12=24 of the 144? – BCLC Oct 13 '21 at 15:17