Permutability is not upper join-closed
This article gives the statement, and possibly proof, of a subgroup property (i.e., permutable subgroup) not satisfying a subgroup metaproperty (i.e., upper join-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 permutable subgroup|Get more facts about upper join-closed subgroup property|
Related facts that don't hold for permutable subgroups
- Permutable not implies normal
- Permutability is not finite-intersection-closed: The same example setup works as the example setup for the proof of this statement.
Related facts that do hold for permutable subgroups
- Permutability is strongly join-closed
- Permutability satisfies intermediate subgroup condition
- Permutability satisfies image condition
- Permutability satisfies inverse image condition
- Permutability satisfies transfer condition
Construction of the counterexample
Setup: Let be an odd prime.
- is a group generated by two elements subject to the relations and . Alternatively is the semidirect product of the additive group modulo by the multiplicative group of order in the multiplicative group of automorphisms. Note that is a non-Abelian group of order .
- is a cyclic group of order , generated by an element .
- , and .
We claim that is permutable in both and but not in .
- is permutable in : This follows from the fact that is permutable in . This can be verified using the fact that it is in the Baer norm, or equivalently, that it commutes with all cyclic subgroups. The proof details are given in the example for permutable not implies normal.
- is permutable in : This follows from the fact that is a direct factor of , hence normal in , hence permutable in .
- is not permutable in : Consider the cyclic subgroup generated by . The claim is that . To prove this notice that . This is clearly not in .