Automorph-conjugacy is not finite-intersection-closed

This article gives the statement, and possibly proof, of a subgroup property (i.e., automorph-conjugate subgroup) not satisfying a subgroup metaproperty (i.e., finite-intersection-closed subgroup property).
View all subgroup metaproperty dissatisfactions | View all subgroup metaproperty satisfactions|Get help on looking up metaproperty (dis)satisfactions for subgroup properties
Get more facts about automorph-conjugate subgroup|Get more facts about finite-intersection-closed subgroup property|

Statement

We can have a group $G$ with two automorph-conjugate subgroups $H,K\leq G$, such that $H\cap K$ is not automorph-conjugate in $G$.

Proof

Example in the symmetric group

Further information: symmetric group:S6

(This example demonstrates the stronger fact that automorph-conjugacy is not finite-conjugate-intersection-closed).

Let $G$ be the symmetric group on six letters: $\{1,2,3,4,5,6\}$. Let $H,K$ be the following 2-Sylow subgroups of $G$:

$H=\langle (1,3,2,4),(1,2),(5,6)\rangle ;\qquad K=\langle (1,2),(3,5,4,6),(5,6)\rangle$

In other words, $H$ is the internal direct product of a 2-Sylow subgroup on $\{1,2,3,4\}$ with the 2-Sylow subgroup on $\{5,6\}$, while $K$ is the internal direct product of the 2-Sylow subgroup on $\{1,2\}$ with a 2-Sylow subgroup on $\{3,4,5,6\}$.

The intersection is given by:

$H\cap K=\langle (1,2),(3,4),(5,6)\rangle$.

Now, note that:

• Both $H$ and $K$ are automorph-conjugate, because they are both Sylow subgroups, and Sylow implies automorph-conjugate.
• $H\cap K$ is not automorph-conjugate. To see this, note that $G$ has an outer automorphism that sends transpositions to triple transpositions. Under this automorphism, $H\cap K$ goes to a subgroup of $G$ that contains three commuting triple transpositions. If this is conjugate to $H\cap K$, then $H\cap K$ should also contain three commuting triple transpositions. But it doesn't.