On the solvability of regular subgroups in the holomorph of a finite solvable group
Cindy Tsang, Chao Qin

TL;DR
The paper investigates the conditions under which the holomorph of a solvable group contains insolvable regular subgroups, providing examples and solving a problem from the Kourovka notebook.
Contribution
It demonstrates that for infinitely many orders, the holomorph of any solvable group lacks insolvable regular subgroups, and solves a specific open problem.
Findings
Existence of infinitely many orders with insolvable groups but no insolvable regular subgroups in their holomorphs.
Resolution of Problem 19.90 (d) in the Kourovka notebook.
Insight into the structure of regular subgroups in holomorphs of solvable groups.
Abstract
We exhibit infinitely many natural numbers for which there exists at least one insolvable group of order , and yet the holomorph of any solvable group of order has no insolvable regular subgroup. We also solve Problem 19.90 (d) in the Kourovka notebook.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
On the solvability of regular subgroups
in the holomorph of a finite solvable group
Cindy (Sin Yi) Tsang
School of Mathematics (Zhuhai), Sun Yat-Sen University, P. R. China
[email protected] http://sites.google.com/site/cindysinyitsang/ and
Chao Qin
School of Mathematics (Zhuhai), Sun Yat-Sen University, P. R. China
Abstract.
We exhibit infinitely many natural numbers for which there exists at least one insolvable group of order , and yet the holomorph of any solvable group of order has no insolvable regular subgroup. We also solve Problem 19.90 (d) in the Kourovka notebook.
Contents
1. Introduction
Let be a finite group and write for its symmetric group. First recall that a subgroup of is said to be regular if the map
[TABLE]
is bijective, or equivalently, if the -action on is both transitive and free. For example, the images of the left and right regular representations
[TABLE]
respectively, are both regular subgroups of . Plainly, a regular subgroup of has the same order as , but is not necessarily isomorphic to in general. Given a group of order , define
[TABLE]
where denotes the holomorph of and is given by
[TABLE]
This set is an important object in the studies of Hopf-Galois structures and skew braces; see [5, Chapter 2] and [19], respectively. In particular, there is a connection between elements of and
Hopf-Galois structures of type on a Galois extension with group ; 2. 2.
skew braces with additive group and multiplicative group .
Let us remark that skew braces in turn are closely related to non-degenerate set-theoretic solutions to the Yang-Baxter equation; see [10].
Observe that contains and when . However, in general might be empty when . It is natural to ask:
Question 1.1**.**
For the set to be non-empty, what are some restrictions on and in terms of their group-theoretic properties?
This question was studied by N. P. Byott in [4], where he showed that:
Proposition 1.2**.**
Let and be two finite groups of the same order such that the set is non-empty.
- (a)
If is nilpotent, then is solvable. 2. (b)
If is abelian, then is solvable.
Proof.
See [4, Theorems 1 and 2]. ∎
In fact, the proof of Proposition 1.2 (b) from [4, Section 6] may be used to show the following stronger result. This was observed by the first author in [24, Theorem 4.2.4], which is unpublished, and we shall reproduce the proof in Section 2 below. Let us remark that Theorem 1.3 (c) solves Problem 19.90 (d) in the Kourovka notebook [16].
Theorem 1.3**.**
Let and be two finite groups of the same order such that the set is non-empty.
- (a)
If is cyclic, then is supersolvable. 2. (b)
If is abelian, then is metabelian. 3. (c)
If is nilpotent, then is solvable.
In the proof of [4, Corollary 1.1], N. P. Byott gave examples of solvable and insolvable with non-empty . Also, he noted that by contrast, so far there is no known example of
[TABLE]
Results in the literature suggest that in fact no such example exists.
Proposition 1.4**.**
Let and be two finite groups of the same order such that the set is non-empty.
- (a)
If is non-abelian simple, then . 2. (b)
If is the double cover of with , then . 3. (c)
If is with , then contains an isomorphic copy of .
Here and denote, respectively, the alternating and symmetric groups on letters.
Proof.
See [3, Theorem 1.1], [22, Theorem 1.6], and [23, Theorem 1.3]. ∎
It leads us to the following conjecture. It was N. P. Byott who told the first author about this problem in person and Conjecture 1.5 should be attributed to him.
Conjecture 1.5**.**
For any , there do not exist finite groups and both of order for which (1.2) holds.
In Section 3, using techniques developed by the first author in [22, Section 4.1], we shall prove some necessary criteria for to be non-empty. In Sections 4 and 5, by applying our criteria, we shall show that:
Theorem 1.6**.**
Conjecture 1.5 holds when is cube-free.
Theorem 1.7**.**
Conjecture 1.5 holds when with
[TABLE]
where is any odd prime such that is square-free and is any non-negative integer.
Remark 1.8*.*
The numbers in Theorem 1.7 are significant because
[TABLE]
where denotes the Suzuki groups [20], and there is a unique insolvable group of order which is non-abelian simple; see Lemmas 5.5 and 5.7. Also, the key is that they satisfy the special conditions in Theorem 5.1 below.
Remark 1.9*.*
Let be an odd prime and let us discuss how often
[TABLE]
is square-free. Note that is divisible by , so let us assume that .
Suppose that is a prime and divides . Clearly and cannot divide both and . We shall show that must be a Wieferich prime, namely (mod ). We thank one of the referees for pointing out this relation with Wieferich primes. If
[TABLE]
then and is clearly a Wieferich prime. If
[TABLE]
then is a square mod and . Since (mod ) and , it also implies that . Thus, we have and so (mod ). Then, it follows that , whence and we see that is a Wieferich prime.
Except and , there is no Wieferich prime less than by [6]. This suggests that is square-free for most , if not all.
In Section 6, we shall also present an algorithm which may be used to show that Conjecture 1.5 holds for any given , given that all finite groups of order have been classified. By implementing our algorithm in Magma [17] and using the SmallGroups Library [1], we verified that:
Theorem 1.10**.**
Conjecture 1.5 holds when .
A natural number is called solvable if every group of order is solvable, and is called non-solvable otherwise. Conjecture 1.5 is of course trivial when is a solvable number. Since any multiple of a non-solvable number is again non-solvable, the numbers in Theorem 1.7 are non-solvable by Remark 1.8. See [18, A056866] for a complete list of non-solvable numbers at most .
2. Proof of Theorem 1.3
Let be a finite group and let be any regular subgroup of . Let
[TABLE]
respectively, denote the projection map and homomorphism afforded by (1.1). Since is regular, we easily verify that is bijective and that
[TABLE]
Theorem 1.3 then follows directly from Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2 below.
Lemma 2.1**.**
Let be a finite group which is a product of two subgroups and , namely, elements of are of the shape with .
- (a)
If and are cyclic, then is supersolvable. 2. (b)
If and are abelian, then is metabelian. 3. (c)
If and are nilpotent, then is solvable.
Proof.
This is known, by [7], [14], and [15], respectively. ∎
Lemma 2.2**.**
The properties “cyclic”, “abelian”, “nilpotent”, “supersolvable”, “metabelian”, “solvable” are all quotient-closed and subgroup-closed.
Proof.
For “cyclic” and “abelian”, this is obvious. For “nilpotent” and “supersolvable”, a proof may be found in [11, Theorems 10.3.1 and 10.5.1]. As for “metabelian” and “solvable”, see [13, 3.10 and the discussion after 3.11].∎
3. Criteria for non-emptiness
Throughout this section, assume that and are two finite groups of the same order such that the set is non-empty. Then, as noticed in [22, Proposition 2.1], for example, by (1.1) this is equivalent to the existence of
[TABLE]
satisfying the relation
[TABLE]
Below, we shall use (3.1) to give two necessary relations between and , both of which are not very hard to prove. Yet, the criterion in Proposition 3.3 seems to be fairly powerful, and it alone allows us to prove Theorems 1.6 and 1.7. Also, let us recall the following useful fact.
Lemma 3.1**.**
Let be a group containing a normal subgroup . Then, the group is solvable if and only if both and are solvable.
Proof.
This is a standard result; see [13, 3.10], for example.∎
To state the first criterion, let and , denote the inner and outer automorphism groups of , respectively. Let denote the natural quotient map with kernel equal to . Then, we have:
Proposition 3.2**.**
If is insolvable and is solvable, then is an insolvable subgroup of .
Proof.
Observe that induces an embedding
[TABLE]
and that restricts to a homomorphism by (3.1). Hence, if is solvable, then both and are solvable by Lemma 2.2, and so is solvable by Lemma 3.1. If is insolvable in addition, then since
[TABLE]
we see that is insolvable, again by Lemma 3.1. ∎
To state the second criterion, let us recall that a subgroup of is called characteristic if for all . In this case, plainly is normal in , and we shall write
[TABLE]
for the natural homomorphism. The use of characteristic subgroups of is motivated by the arguments in [3]; also see [22, Section 4.1]. Our main tool is the following proposition; also see Proposition 6.1.
Proposition 3.3**.**
Let be any characteristic subgroup of and define
[TABLE]
Then, this set is a subgroup of , and is non-empty. Moreover, if is solvable and is insolvable, then is insolvable.
Proof.
The set is a subgroup of by (3.1); see [22, Lemma 4.1]. Also, we have a homomorphism
[TABLE]
induced by since is characteristic, and also a bijective map
[TABLE]
induced by since is bijective. Clearly, it follows directly from (3.1) that
[TABLE]
Then, by [22, Proposition 2.1], which is a consequence of (1.1), this implies that is non-empty. This proves the first statement.
Next, as noted in [22, Lemma 4.1], the relation (3.1) implies that
[TABLE]
induced by is a homomorphism, and so we have an embedding
[TABLE]
Thus, if is solvable and is insolvable, then must be insolvable by Lemma 3.1, which in turn implies that is insolvable by Lemma 2.2. The second statement then follows. ∎
Although Proposition 3.3 is valid for any characteristic subgroup of , motivated by [3], we shall consider the case when is a (proper) maximal characteristic subgroup of . In this case, the quotient is a non-trivial characteristically simple group, and so we know that
[TABLE]
Hence, if is solvable, then
[TABLE]
where is a prime. The following is well-known.
Lemma 3.4**.**
For any prime and , the group is solvable if and only if or with .
4. Proof of Theorem 1.6
Suppose for contradiction that the claim is false and let be the smallest cube-free number for which Conjecture 1.5 fails. Let and be two groups of order satisfying (1.2). Let be any proper and maximal characteristic subgroup of . Clearly is solvable because is solvable. As in (3.2), we then know that
[TABLE]
Notice that and that because is cube-free. Hence, by Lemma 4.1 (b) below, the kernel of any homomorphism is insolvable. From Proposition 3.3, it follows that is non-empty for some insolvable subgroup of of the same order as . This contradicts the minimality of and so Theorem 1.6 must be true.
Lemma 4.1**.**
Let be any prime and let .
- (a)
The group has no non-abelian simple subgroup. 2. (b)
The kernel of a homomorphism from a finite insolvable group of cube-free order to is insolvable.
Proof.
For or , the group is solvable by Lemma 3.4, and the claims hold by Lemmas 2.2 and 3.1. For and odd, first suppose for contradiction that has a subgroup which is non-abelian simple. Observe that the homomorphism
[TABLE]
must be trivial, and so is in fact a subgroup of . Also, note that has an element of order two by the Feit-Thompson theorem. Since is odd, the matrix , which lies in the center, is the only element in of order two. It follows that has non-trivial center, which is a contradiction. Alternatively, the subgroups of have been classified; see [21, Theorem 6.17]. None of the groups listed there are non-abelian simple, and we obtain a contradiction. We thank one of the referees for bringing Dickson’s result on the subgroups of to our attention, which led us to this simpler proof which does not use the Feit-Thompson theorem. This proves part (a). Since any insolvable group of cube-free order has a non-abelian simple subgroup by [8], we see that part (b) follows from part (a) and Lemma 3.1. ∎
5. Almost square-free orders
In this section, we shall prove Theorem 1.7. First, let us prove the following more general statement.
Theorem 5.1**.**
Suppose that , where
[TABLE]
and that Conjecture 1.5 holds when . Assume that the following hold.
the subgroups of index a power of two of an insolvable group of order are all insolvable; 2. 2.
there is no non-abelian simple group of order for ; 3. 3.
the number is solvable in the case that is even; 4. 4.
the numbers , where ranges over the odd primes dividing , are all solvable for .
Then Conjecture 1.5 also holds when for any .
Proof.
Suppose for contradiction that the four conditions are satisfied but the conclusion is false. Let be the smallest number such that Conjecture 1.5 does not hold when . Also, let and be two groups of order satisfying (1.2). Let be any proper and maximal characteristic subgroup of . Clearly is solvable because is solvable. As in (3.2), we have
[TABLE]
Notice that . Also, we know from Proposition 3.3 that is non-empty for some subgroup of of the same order as .
For odd, we have if and if by the hypothesis on , so is solvable by Lemma 3.4. Then, the kernel of any homomorphism must be insolvable by Lemma 3.1, and we may take to be insolvable by Proposition 3.3, which contradicts condition 4. In the case that , it is possible that when , but note that is also solvable by condition since a factor of a solvable number is solvable.
For , we have , and thus is insolvable by Lemma 5.2 below. Observe that by condition 3. Since Conjecture 1.5 holds when by assumption, we in fact have , which contradicts the minimality of .∎
Lemma 5.2**.**
Let be any integer such that the conditions 1, 2, 3, 4 in Theorem 5.1 are satisfied. Then, for any , we have:
- (i)
the subgroups of index a power of two of any insolvable group of order are insolvable; 2. (ii)
any insolvable group of order has a non-abelian composition factor of order .
Proof.
Notice that since a non-solvable number is a multiple of the order of a non-abelian simple group, conditions 3 and 4 imply that an insolvable group of order must be non-abelian simple.
We shall use induction on . For , claim (i) is simply condition 1, and claim (ii) holds by the above observation. Suppose now that , and let be an insolvable group of order . By condition 2, we know that has a non-trivial and proper normal subgroup . Either or is insolvable by Lemma 3.1. Since a factor of a solvable number is solvable, we have
[TABLE]
where , conditions 3 and 4. By the induction hypothesis, either or has a non-abelian composition factor of order . It follows that has a non-abelian composition factor of order also, which proves (ii). Next, let be a subgroup of of index a power of two. Observe that , and also that
[TABLE]
both of which are powers of two. Hence, by the induction hypothesis, we see that either or is insolvable. It then follows from Lemma 2.2 that is insolvable, which proves (i). ∎
We shall apply Theorem 5.1 to prove Theorem 1.7. To that end, we shall first show that the numbers in the statement of Theorem 1.7 satisfy conditions 1, 2, 3, 4 in Theorem 5.1.
Lemma 5.3**.**
The following statements are true.
- (a)
A non-solvable number is divisible by at least three distinct primes. 2. (b)
A finite non-abelian simple group whose order is not divisible by three is a Suzuki group.
Proof.
Part (a) is Burnside’s theorem. Part (b) follows from the classification of finite simple groups. ∎
Lemma 5.4**.**
Let , where , , and is a prime. If there exists a non-abelian simple group of order , then
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
In particular, condition in Theorem 5.1 is satisfied for in (5.1).
Proof.
Since exactly divides , a Sylow -subgroup of any group of order is cyclic. If , then the claim follows from [12, Theorem 1]. If not, then with , and the claim follows from [2] and [25], respectively. ∎
Lemma 5.5**.**
Let or . Then, up to isomorphism or , respectively, is the only insolvable group of order . Moreover, conditions in Theorem 5.1 are satisfied.
Proof.
Since a non-solvable number is a multiple of the order of a non-abelian simple group, from Lemmas 5.3 (a) and 5.4, it is easy to deduce the first claim and that conditions 3 and 4 hold. Condition 1 holds trivially because and have no proper subgroup of index a power of two. ∎
Note that fails condition 1 while and fail condition 4 in Theorem 5.1.
Lemma 5.6**.**
Let , where . If there exists a non-abelian simple group of order , then
[TABLE]
In particular, condition in Theorem 5.1 is satisfied for .
Proof.
This is clear from Lemma 5.3 (b) and (1.3).∎
Lemma 5.7**.**
Let , where is an odd prime. Then, up to isomorphism is the only insolvable group of order . Moreover, conditions in Theorem 5.1 are satisfied.
Proof.
Suppose for contradiction that there is an insolvable group of order which is not isomorphic to , and thus cannot be non-abelian simple by Lemma 5.6. Since a non-solvable number is the multiple of the order of a non-abelian simple group, from Lemma 5.3 (b) and (1.3), we deduce that
[TABLE]
where with odd and . Plainly , and because is prime, we deduce that
[TABLE]
This means that divides . Note that then . But
[TABLE]
By induction, this implies that divides for some , which is impossible because . This proves the first claim.
Now, the maximal subgroups of are known; see [26, Theorem 4.1], for example. None has index a non-trivial power of two and so condition 1 is satisfied. To prove conditions 3 and 4, note that if were non-solvable, then it would be a multiple of the order of a non-abelian simple group, so by Lemma 5.3 (b) and (1.3), we have
[TABLE]
where with odd. Similarly, if were non-solvable for some odd prime divisor of and , then we have
[TABLE]
where with odd. In both cases, using the same argument as above, we obtain a contradiction. This completes the proof. ∎
5.1. Proof of Theorem 1.7
Let be as in the statement of the theorem. By Lemmas 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, and 5.7, conditions 1, 2, 3, 4 in Theorem 5.1 are satisfied. Also, up to isomorphism there is only one insolvable group of order and it is non-abelian simple. It then follows from Proposition 1.4 (a) that Conjecture 1.5 holds when . We now deduce directly from Theorem 5.1 that Conjecture 1.5 also holds when for any .
6. Algorithm to test the conjecture
In this section, we shall describe an algorithm which may be used to prove Conjecture 1.5 for a given , as long as all finite groups of order are known. Then, we shall apply our algorithm to prove Theorem 1.10.
Recall that given any finite group , the Fitting subgroup of , denoted by , is the unique largest normal nilpotent subgroup of . Plainly is a characteristic subgroup of .
Proposition 6.1**.**
Let and be two finite groups of the same order such that the set is non-empty. Define
[TABLE]
Then, we have . Also, there is a solvable subgroup of whose order is that of .
Proof.
This follows directly from Propositions 1.2 (a) and 3.3. ∎
While Proposition 6.1 gives us a way to test whether a pair satisfies condition (1.2), applying it directly to prove Conjecture 1.5 has two issues:
- •
Often there are many groups of a given order , and it is inefficient to test whether (1.2) holds for each pair of groups of order .
- •
It is time-consuming to compute characteristic subgroups.
To overcome these difficulties, our idea is to let vary, and check that
[TABLE]
cannot hold for each fixed separately. Also, we shall apply the test involving the Fitting subgroup first because it is the least time-consuming.
For , define the following sets:
[TABLE]
Write for the set of all solvable groups of order . For all :
- •
If , then (6.1) does not hold by Proposition 6.1.
- •
If is solvable, then is solvable by Lemma 3.1 and so it has no insolvable subgroup by Lemma 2.2, whence (6.1) does not hold.
- •
If and Conjecture 1.5 holds for , then (6.1) does not hold by Proposition 3.3, because any subgroup of index two (when it exists) of an insolvable group must be insolvable by Lemma 3.1.
- •
If , then (6.1) does not hold by Proposition 6.1.
- •
If the greatest common divisor of and is solvable, then (6.1) does not hold by Proposition 3.2.
Our algorithm uses thee above criteria, and removes the groups for which (6.1) fails to hold; if the set becomes empty, then Conjecture 1.5 holds for . More specifically, define the following sets:
[TABLE]
If , then Conjecture 1.5 holds for . Similarly, if Conjecture 1.5 holds for and , then Conjecture 1.5 holds for .
We have implemented the computations of the above sets, except , in Magma [17] and GAP [9]. The code may be found in the appendix.
6.1. Proof of Theorem 1.10
The groups of order are available in the SmallGroups Library [1]. Using this library, we ran our algorithm in Magma to the non-solvable numbers .
First, we computed that is empty except for
[TABLE]
Among these numbers, we further computed that is empty except for . In fact, we have
[TABLE]
Then, using the Magma command OuterOrder, we checked that and are empty. Thus, we now conclude that Conjecture 1.5 indeed holds when .
The calculations of took a total of 22 min for all non-solvable numbers . By contrast, it took a total of 231 min to confirm Conjecture 1.5 directly by using the Magma command RegularSubgroups for all non-solvable numbers with . The calculations were done on an Intel Xeon CPU E5-1620 vs3 @ 3.5GHz machine with 16GB of RAM under Ubuntu 16.04LTS.
The cases also follow from Theorem 1.7.
7. Acknowledgments
Part of this research was done while the authors visited each other at the University of Waikato and the Yau Mathematical Sciences Center at Tsinghua University in year 2018. The visits were supported by the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation Special Financial Grant (no.: 2017T100060). We would like to thank both institutions. The first author would like to specially thank Prof. Daniel Delbourgo for his hospitality.
The first author would like to thank Prof. Leandro Vendramin for pointing out that Theorem 1.3 (c) solves Problem 19.90 (d) in [16].
Finally, we would like to thank the editor Prof. Eamonn O’Brien and the two referees for some very helpful suggestions. We would particularly like to thank one of the referees for pointing out a small gap in Theorem 5.1 in the original manuscript.
Appendix: Computational codes
Magma code to compute :
TestOrders:=[any list of non-solvable numbers n which we wish to test];
for n in TestOrders do
//Compute LL1 and LL2.
GG:=SmallGroups(n,func<x|not IsSolvable(x)>);
L1:=[];
L2:=[];
for G in GG do
Sub:=Subgroups(G);
for H in Sub do
order:=H‘order;
if IsSolvable(H‘subgroup) then
Append(~L1,order);
end if;
Append(~L2,order);
end for;
end for;
LL1:=Set(L1);
LL2:=Set(L2);
//Compute NN1, NN2, NN31, NN32.
NN0:=[i:i in [1..#SmallGroups(n:Warning:=false)]|IsSolvable(SmallGroup(n,i))];
NN1:=[];
NN2:=[];
NN31:=[];
NN32:=[];
for i in NN0 do
N:=SmallGroup(n,i);
Fit:=FittingSubgroup(N);
//Determine whether N is in NN1.
if Order(Fit) in LL1 then
Append(~NN1,i);
end if;
if i in NN1 then
Aut:=AutomorphismGroup(N);
//Determine whether N is in NN2.
if not IsSolvable(Aut) then
Append(~NN2,i);
end if;
if i in NN2 then
Out:=[a:a in Generators(Aut)|not IsInner(a)];
NorSub:=NormalSubgroups(N);
CharSub:=[x:x in NorSub|forall{a:a in Out|a(x‘subgroup) eq x‘subgroup}];
MM:={M‘order:M in CharSub};
//Determine whether N is in NN31.
if n/2 notin MM then
Append(~NN31,i);
end if;
//Determine whether N is in NN32.
if MM subset LL2 then
Append(~NN32,i);
end if;
end if;
end if;
end for;
//If NN2 is empty, then Conjecture 1.5 holds for n.
//If NN31 NN32 is empty, then Conjecture 1.5 holds for n as long as it holds for n/2.
//If NN31 NN32 is non-empty, then further test is required.
if IsEmpty(NN2) then
printf "Conjecture 1.5 holds for %o\n",n;
else
if IsEmpty(NN32) then
printf "Conjecture 1.5 holds for %o\n",n;
else
Inter:=Set(NN31) meet Set(NN32);
if IsEmpty(Inter) then
printf "Conjecture 1.5 holds for %o if it holds for %o\n",n,n/2;
else
print n,Inter;
end if;
end if;
end if;
end for;
GAP code to compute :
TestOrders:=[any list of non-solvable numbers n which we wish to test];;
for n in TestOrders do
GG:=Filtered(AllSmallGroups(n),G->not IsSolvable(G));
#Compute LL1 and LL2.
L1:=[];
L2:=[];
for G in GG do
Sub:=List(ConjugacyClassesSubgroups(G),Representative);
for H in Sub do
order:=Order(H);
if IsSolvable(H) then
Add(L1,order);
fi;
Add(L2,order);
od;
od;
LL1:=Set(L1);
LL2:=Set(L2);
#Compute NN1, NN2, NN31, NN32.
NN0:=Filtered([1..Size(AllSmallGroups(n))],i->IsSolvable(SmallGroup(n,i)));
NN1:=[];
NN2:=[];
NN31:=[];
NN32:=[];
for i in NN0 do
N:=SmallGroup(n,i);
Fit:=FittingSubgroup(N);
#Determine whether N is in NN1.
if Order(Fit) in LL1 then
Add(NN1,i);
fi;
if i in NN1 then
Aut:=AutomorphismGroup(N);
#Determine whether N is in NN2.
if not IsSolvable(Aut) then
Add(NN2,i);
fi;
if i in NN2 then
CharSub:=CharacteristicSubgroups(N);
MM:=Set(CharSub,Order);
#Determine whether N is in NN31.
if not n/2 in MM then
Add(NN31,i);
fi;
#Determine whether N is in NN32.
if IsSubset(LL2,MM) then
Add(NN32,i);
fi;
fi;
fi;
od;
#If NN2 is empty, then Conjecture 1.5 holds for n.
#If NN31 NN32 is empty, then Conjecture 1.5 holds for n as long as it holds for n/2.
#If NN31 NN32 is non-empty, then further test is required.
if IsEmpty(NN2) then
Print("Conjecture 1.5 holds for ",n,"\n");
else
if IsEmpty(NN32) then
Print ("Conjecture 1.5 holds for ",n,"\n");
else
Inter:= Intersection(NN31,NN32);
if IsEmpty(Inter) then
Print("Conjecture 1.5 holds for ",n," if it holds for ",n/2,"\n");
else
Print(n,Inter,"\n");
fi;
fi;
fi;
od;
Magma code to test Conjecture 1.5 directly:
TestOrders:=[any list of non-solvable numbers n which we wish to test]; for n in TestOrders do NN0:=[i:i in [1..#SmallGroups(n:Warning:=false)]|IsSolvable(SmallGroup(n,i))]; NN00:=[]; for i in NN0 do N:=SmallGroup(n,i); Hol:=Holomorph(N); RegSub:=RegularSubgroups(Hol); InsolRegSub:=[R:R in RegSub| not IsSolvable(R‘subgroup)]; if not IsEmpty(InsolRegSub) then Append(~NN0,i); end if; end for; //NN00 is empty if and only if Conjecture 1.5 holds for n. print n,NN00; end for;
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] H. U. Besche, B. Eick, and E. A. O’Brien, A millennium project: constructing small groups , Internat. J. Algebra Comput. 12 (2002), no. 5, 623–644.
- 2[2] R. Brauer, On simple groups of order 5 ⋅ 3 a ⋅ 2 b ⋅ 5 superscript 3 𝑎 superscript 2 𝑏 5\cdot 3^{a}\cdot 2^{b} , Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 74 (1968), 900–903.
- 3[3] N. P. Byott, Hopf-Galois structures on field extensions with simple Galois groups , Bull. London Math. Soc. 36 (2004), no. 1, 23–29.
- 4[4] N. P. Byott, Solubility criteria for Hopf-Galois structures , New York J. Math. 21 (2015), 883–903.
- 5[5] L. N. Childs, Taming wild extensions: Hopf algebras and local Galois module theory . Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 80. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2000.
- 6[6] R. Crandall, K. Dilcher, and C. Pomerance, A search for Wieferich and Wilson primes , Math. Comp. 66 (1997), no. 217, 433–449.
- 7[7] J. Douglas, On the supersolvability of bicyclic groups , Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 47 (1961), 1493–1495.
- 8[8] H. Dietrich and B. Eick, On the groups of cube-free order , J. Algebra 292 (2005), no. 1, 122–137. Addendum, ibid , 367 (2012), 247–248.
