THEOREMS LIKE SYLOW'S

By P. HALL
[Received 24 June 1955.Read 17 November 1955]

1. Discussion of results
1.1. Notation. Let w be any set of primes and let w' be the complementary set consisting of all primes not in w. Every positive integer m
can be expressed uniquely in the form
m = mmmVT,,

where mm is the largest divisor of m which has no prime divisor in m'.

We denote the order of a finite group G by (G). If (6%, = (G) we call
G a w-group. If H is a subgroup of G such that (H) = (G)^, we call H an
Sm-subgroup of G. In particular, when w consists of a single prime p, an
$p-subgroup is the same as a Sylow ^-subgroup. But for general -nr, a
Sylow m-subgroup is not the same as an ^-subgroup, but is an $p-subgroup
for some prime ^in-nr.
Let Em) Cm, and Dm be the following propositions about a finite group G.
Em: G has at least one ^-subgroup.
Cm: G satisfies Em and any two /S^-subgroups of G are conjugate in G.
Dm: G satisfies Cm and every -nr-subgroup of G is contained in some
#OT-subgroup of G.
Obviously D^ can also be expressed in either of the alternative forms:
(i) G satisfies Cm and every maximal -nr-subgroup of G is an #OT-subgroup
of G; (ii) G satisfies Em and, if H is an ^-subgroup of G and L is any
xir-subgroup of G, then L ^ Hx for some x e G.
1.2. D-theorems. A sufficient condition for a finite group to satisfy Dw
may be called a D-theorem. Similarly for ^-theorems and C-theorems.
Our main object is to prove a new D-theorem, viz. Theorem D5, below.
The two basic D-theorems are, of course, those due to Sylow and Schur,
viz.
THEOREM Dl. If p is a prime, then every finite group satisfies Dp.
THEOREM D2. / / G has a normal Abelian 8m.-subgroup, then G satisfies Dm.
We make once and for all the obvious remark that, if mx and m2 are two
sets of primes such that (G)mi (G)^, then for this particular group G
the propositions Dmi and J)m% are equivalent: G satisfies both or neither.
Similarly for the corresponding E- and C-propositions. So Sylow3s theorem
Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 6 (1956)

THEOREMS LIKE SYLOW'S

287

may be expressed by saying that G satisfies Dm whenever at most one

prime in m divides (G).
All -nr-groups satisfy Dm trivially.
In an earlier paper (9), we proved
D3. If G is soluble, then G satisfies Dmfor all m.
Quite recently, Wielandt (14) has derived a remarkable new D-theorem,
which resembles Sylow's theorem and differs from D2 and D3 in the fact
that it does not reduce to a triviality for simple groups.
We define the propositions E%, E^, 0%, and Dsm about a finite group G
as follows.
E^\ G has a nilpotent ^-subgroup.
E%f\ G has a soluble ^-subgroup.
Csm: G satisfies Cm and its /S^-subgroups are soluble.
D^: G satisfies D^ and its -nr-subgroups are soluble.
Wielandt's theorem is
THEOREM D4. E% implies Dm.
This makes it superfluous to introduce the propositions C^. and D7^,
analogous to Csm and D% but with 'soluble' replaced by 'nilpotent', since
they would both be equivalent to E^.
THEOREM

1.3. That E%. does not in general imply Dm or even Cm is shown, as has
been remarked before, by the simple group of order 168 which has two
distinct classes of conjugate octahedral subgroups. This group satisfies
Uf.3 but not O2,3Wielandt suggests as a possibility that the presence of a supersoluble
^-subgroup might be sufficient to imply Cm or perhaps even Dm. But
this is not the case, as is shown by the following examples.
We denote by Lp the simple group of order %p(p2l), where p is a prime
greater than 3. Then Llly of order 660, has two distinct classes of conjugate
$2 3-subgroups, one class being dihedral (and therefore supersoluble) and
the other class tetrahedral. Again, Lei has two distinct classes of conjugate
$2 3 5-subgroups, one class being dihedral and the other icosahedral (and
therefore not even soluble). For these properties of Lp, see Burnside (1),
Chapter XX.
However, it is easy to see that any two supersoluble Sm-subgroups must
be conjugate. A more general result may be described as follows. Let
px, p2,..., pr be distinct primes. We say that a finite group H has a Sylow
series of complexion (plt p2,---, pr) if (H) is divisible by no primes other
than p1} p2,"-, pr and if, for each i = 1, 2,..., r1, H has a normal (and
therefore characteristic) 8PltPt ^-subgroup. Then we may state:

288

P. HALL

THEOREM A l . Let pv p^,..., Pr be the distinct primes which divide (G)m,

arranged in any given order. Then any two Sm-subgroups of G both of which
have a Sylow-series of complexion (pv p2,--, pr) must be conjugate in 0.

The conjugacy of supersoluble /S^-subgroups follows from this theorem,

because a supersoluble group of order pi1p%i...p%r, where px > p2 > ... > pr,
always has a Sylow series of complexion (Pi,P2,---,pr)'
The group Ln does not contradict Theorem A1 because its dihedral
#2 g-subgroups have Sylow series of complexion (3,2) but none of complexion (2,3), whereas its tetrahedral $2)3-subgroups have Sylow series of
complexion (2,3) but none of complexion (3,2).
I know of no counter-example to the conjecture that, if 2 does not
belong to m, then Em implies Dm.
1.4. The principal theorem of the present paper is
THEOREM D5. / / K is a normal subgroup of 0 such that K satisfies Ei^
and G/K satisfies D^, then G satisfies D%.

Here we merely note a few corollaries of this theorem.

A chain of subgroups G = Go > Gt > ... > Gr = 1 of a group G will
be called a series of G if each term Gi is normal in the preceding term G^v
though not necessarily normal in G.
COROLLARY D5.1. / / G has a series G = GQ > Gx > ... > Gr = 1 such
that each of the factor groups Gi_xjGi satisfies E1^, then G satisfies D^.

It would be sufficient here to postulate that the first factor group of the
series, G/G1} satisfies the weaker condition D% instead of E%.
Following Cunihin (2), we say that a finite group is vr-separable if all
its c.f. ( = composition factors) are Ttr'p-groups for various primes p in m.
Thus G is tn--separable if and only if no two distinct primes in m divide
the order of any c.f. of G. If p is a prime, all finite grqmps are ^-separable
If G is both -nr-separable and xo-'-separable, then G is soluble: for then the
order of any c.f. of G must have the form paqP with p inTO-and qin m'\
but by a classical theorem of Burnside, groups of order p^qP are always
soluble, so that either a = 1, fi = 0 or else a = 0, = 1.
Clearly, if mx is any subset of m, then every m-separable group is also
ro-j-separable. In (2), Theorem XI, Cunihin proves that all xtr-separable
groups satisfy C^, and therefore, by the preceding remark, also Csmx for
any subset TD-J of m. This result is contained in
COROLLARY

of m.

D5.2. All -m-separable groups satisfy Dsmi, for any subset TO^

THEOREMS LIKE SYLOW'S

289
This corollary also contains as a special case the main Z)-theorem of
Cunihin's paper, Theorem XII, (1) and (2).
We call a finite group G m-serial if every c.f. of G is either a -nr-group
or else a -ur'-group. Equivalently, G is -nr-serial if it has a m-series, i.e. a
series G = Go > Gx > ... > Gr = 1 such that each of the factor groups
Gi_1IGi is either a xtr-group or else a -nr'-group. Clearly, -nr-serial groups
are the same as m'-serial groups. If p is any prime in w and q any prime
in xtr', then every xtr-serial group is p, ^-separable. Hence we have
COROLLARY D5.3. All m-serial groups satisfy D,pq for any p in m and
any a in m'.
We note that, by the theorem of Burnside already mentioned, Dp q is
equivalent to Dsvq.
1.5. In his well-known textbook (15), Chapter IV, Satz 27, Zassenhaus
proves two C-theorems. The corresponding D-theorems, which follow at
once, are
THEOREM D6. / / G has a normal 8^-subgroup K such that G/K is soluble,
then G satisfies Dm.
THEOREM D7. If G has a normal Sm>-subgroup K such that K is soluble,
then G satisfies Dm.
We call a finite group G vx-soluble if it is both -nr-separable and xo--serial.
Equivalently, G is xtr-soluble if every c.f. of G is either a ^p-group (and
therefore cyclic of order p) for some p in vx, or else a xcr'-group.t
In (3), Cunihin proves the following generalizations of D6 and D7.
D6.* Every m-soluble group satisfies D^.1 for any subset mx of -m.
THEOREM D7.* Every m-soluble group satisfies D^Jor any subset TJTX of m.
Of these results, Theorem D6* is contained as a special case in Corollary
D5.2. For the sake of completeness we include in section 2.5 the deduction
of Theorem D7* from Schur's Theorem D2. Both D6* and D7* are generalizations of Theorem D3.
THEOREM

1.6. The theory of systems of permutable Sylow subgroups, developed

in (10) for the case of soluble groups, extends at once in an appropriate
form to all groups satisfying Csm. This has been remarked for the case of
m-separable groups by Gol'berg (8).
t This terminology seems preferable to that of Hall and Higman (12). In that
paper, nr-serial groups as defined above were called -nr-soluble. But the m-subgroups
of m-serial groups need not always be soluble, whereas all m-subgroups of a itr-separable group are soluble, and in particular, all m-subgroups of a m-soluble group are
soluble. Owing to Burnside's theorem, no distinction arises between -nr-serial and
-nr-soluble groups as denned here unless -nr contains at least three primes. I hope
that the present choice of terms is reasonably consistent with Cunihin's.
5388.3.6

XJ

290
P. HALL
A set of Sylow subgroups Pi of the finite group G, one for each prime pi
in w, which are permutable in pairs (i.e. such that PtPj = PiPi for all i, j),
will be called a Sylow m-system of G. Obviously, only a finite number of
the Pi can differ from 1. Owing to the permutability of the Pi} their product
is an ^-subgroup of G and it is shown in (10), 2, that this product must
be soluble. Conversely, a soluble iS^-subgroup H of G has a Sylow m-system
(whose product is therefore H itself) and this will also be necessarily a
Sylow -nr-system of G as defined above.
In (10), 4, it was shown that any two Sylow -nr-systems (..., Pi}...) and
(..., Qi,...) of a soluble -nr-group H are conjugate in H, in the obvious sense
that there is an element x in H, independent of i, such that Qt = P\ for
all i. Thus we may state at once:
A2. G has at least one Sylow m-system if and only if it satisfies
E^. G has one and only one class of conjugate Sylow m-systems if and only
if it satisfies C^.
Theorem D3 allows the following conclusions to be drawn.
(i) E% implies E^ for any subset m1 of to-.
(ii) D^ implies D*ni for any subset m1 of TO-.
(i) is immediate. As for (ii), let G satisfy Dsm and let L be a maximal
xo-j-subgroup of G. Then L is contained in. some /S^-subgroup H of G.
But H is soluble. Hence, by Theorem D3, L is an jS^-subgroup of H and
therefore also of G. Since the ^-subgroups of H are all conjugate in H
and the ^-subgroups H of G are all conjugate in G, it follows that G has
only a single class of conjugate maximal TOi-subgroups and that these are
soluble iS^-subgroups of G. Thus & in fact satisfies Z)^.
Cunihin (2) defines a finite group to be m-Sylow-regular if it satisfies C^JTl
for every subset m1 of m. Thus we conclude that all groups satisfying D^
are m-Sylow-regular; and further, from Theorem A2, all such groups possess
a single class of conjugate Sylow mx-systems for any given subset w1 of xtr.
In particular, this is the case for all groups G satisfying the hypothesis of
Theorem D5 or Corollary D5.1. This statement is a generalization of
Gol'berg's result about -nr-separable groups. It is obvious that in a
itr-Sylow-regular group, the Sylow T&i-systems are all to be obtained from
the Sylow xo--systems by deleting the appropriate terms.
It must be noted, however, that a group may very well satisfy C^ for
some suitable -m without being -nr-Sylow-regular in Cunihin's sense. For
example, the simple group L83 has a single class of conjugate subgroups
of order 84. These subgroups are dihedral, so that L83 satisfies Ci^j. But
L83 has two distinct classes of conjugate subgroups of order 12 and therefore does not satisfy C23. Thus L83 is not 2,3,7-Sylow-regular.
THEOREM

THEOREMS LIKE SYLOW'S

291

1.7. E-Theorems. Every Z)-theorem includes a C-theorem and an

jEJ-theorem by implication. But, of course, an ^/-theorem can sometimes be
proved from hypotheses too weak to yield the corresponding D-result.
The basic ^-theorem is Schur's,
E l . If G has a normal Sm,-subgroup, then G satisfies Em.
This may be expressed in a more general form as follows:

THEOREM

THEOREM El.*

If K is a normal subgroup of G such that G/K is a m-group,

then G has a m-subgroup L such that KL = G and K n L is nilpotent.
From this we may deduce the following result, suggested by Cunihin's
theorems on the factorization of -nr-separable groups (4).
THEOREM A3. Let m0, inlt and vr2 be mutually exclusive sets of primes.
If every c.f. of thefinitegroup G is either a tcr0 m^group or else a vr0 m2-group,
then G = HK, where H is a -m0 ^-subgroup, K is a w0 m2-subgroup, and
H n K is a soluble m0-subgroup.
An immediate consequence of Theorem E l is the well-known
THEOREM E2. If K is a normal subgroup of G such that K satisfies Gm
and G/K satisfies Em, then G satisfies Em.
It is not sufficient in this theorem to assume that both K and G/K satisfy
Em. For example, the group of automorphisms L, of order 336, of the simple
group L = L7, of order 168, does not satisfy E23, although both L and L/L
do so; because the outer automorphisms of L interchange the two classes
of conjugate octahedral subgroups in L.
It will be convenient to mention here the following corollaries of
Theorem E2.
COROLLARY E2.1. / / all the c.f. of G satisfy Cm, then G satisfies Em.
COROLLARY E2.2.' / / the c.f. of G are either m-groups or else m'p-groups
for various primes p in w, then G satisfies Em.
COROLLARY E2.3. / / G is in-serial and mx = m, m', mq, TJJ'P, or pq,
where p is in w and q in -&', then G satisfies Emi.
It was shown in (11) that, if a finite group G satisfies Ep. for all primes p,
then G is soluble. More generally, by a very similar argument, it is easy
to see that, if G satisfies Em and also Ep. for all primes p in -nr, then G is
m-separable. It may well be conjectured that G is soluble whenever it
satisfies Epq for all pairs of primes p and q which divide its order. Some
light may perhaps be thrown on this question by studying the behaviour
of the better known insoluble groups in relation to the propositions Ep q.
Here we only consider the symmetric groups and prove:
THEOREM A4.

Let S n be the symmetric group of order n\ and letp < q

^n,

292

P. HALL

where p and q are primes. Then S n satisfies Elhq only ivhen p = 2, q = 3,

and n = 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. For n = 5,1, and 8, E u satisfies C|,3 but not D 2 3 .

Taken in conjunction with Theorem D3, this result shows that, if m

involves more than two primes not exceeding n, an ^-subgroup of S?l,
supposing one to exist, can only be insoluble. An example would be the
y-subgroups of S p , where p is a prime greater than 5. These are isomorphic with ^p-x.
1.8. C-Theorems. In a long series of papers (see particularly 2,3,5,6,7),
Cunihin proves a number of interesting (7-theorems, of which we mention
two, deducible from Zassenhaus's Theorems D6 and D7, respectively.
Let C%, be the following proposition about a finite group G.
C^: G satisfies Cm and NJT is soluble, where T is any ^-subgroup of
G and N is its normalizer in G.
Then the theorems in question are as follows.
THEOREM Cl. If K is a normal subgroup of G such that K satisfies Cm
and G/K satisfies Csm, then G satisfies Cm.

C2. If K is a normal subgroup of G such that K satisfies C^

and G/K satisfies Cm, then G satisfies Cm.
THEOREM

It is a corollary of Theorem Cl that, if G has a series whose factor groups

all satisfy Csm, then G itself satisfies Csm. It is a corollary of Theorem C2
that, if G has a series whose factor groups all satisfy Csm, then G itself
satisfies C^. In view of Corollary E2.1, we can also say that, if G has a
series whose factor groups all satisfy Gm, and if all m-subgroups of G are
soluble, then G will satisfy C%\ in view of Theorem El, we can add that,
if G has a series whose factor groups all satisfy Cm and if all xu'-subgroups
of G are soluble, then G will satisfy C^..
It is natural to make the
C3. If K is a normal subgroup of G such that both K and
G/K satisfy Cm, then G satisfies C^.
CONJECTURE

The argument which yields Theorems Cl and C2 from Theorems D6

and D7 shows that this conjecture is equivalent to the special case already
mentioned by Zassenhaus, viz.
CONJECTURE

C3.* / / G has a normal Sm.-subgroup K, then G satisfies Cm.

Zassenhaus states, in (15), p. 126, that E. Witt has shown how to deduce
C3* from the still more special case where K is a simple group of composite
order and the centralizer of K in G is 1. We give here a proof of this reduction in a somewhat more precise form.
Let us say that a group G involves an abstract group V if there is a

THEOREMS LIKE SYLOW'S

293

subgroup H of G and a normal subgroup K of H such that H/K ~ F.

If in addition (T) < (G), we shall say that G involves V properly.
We define a finite group G to be m-exceptional if it satisfies the following
three conditions:
(i) G has a normal ^/-subgroup,
(ii) G does not satisfy Cm.
(iii) Every group F properly involved in G satisfies Cm.
It is clear that, if G satisfies (i) and involves F, then F will also satisfy
(i). Hence every group which satisfies both (i) and (ii) involves a zcr-exceptional group. Thus Conjectures C3 and C3* are equivalent to the statement that xtr-exceptional groups do not exist. We prove
THEOREM A5. Let G be m-exceptional. Then both the normal Sm.-subgroup
K of G and also G/K are simple groups of composite order and the centralizer
of K in G is I, so that G may be regarded as a subgroup of the group of automorphisms of K. For any given prime divisor q of (K), there exist Sm-subgroups of G which do not leave invariant any Sylow q-subgroup of K. G satisfies Cmg but not Dmq.

A closer analysis of the properties which a hypothetical -nr-exceptional

group G must have, particularly those resulting from (iii) above, would no
doubt be of some interest. Here we merely state:
THEOREM C4. Let K be normal in G and suppose that both K and G/K
satisfy Cm. Let T be an Sm-subgroup of K, M its normalizer in G and
N = KnM.
Then M/N ~ G/K. If S/N is an Sm-subgroup of M/N, then
either G satisfies Cm or else S/T involves a m-exceptional group.

In view of Theorem A5, this result contains both Theorems Cl and C2

as special cases. It is a corollary of Theorem C4 that, if G has a series
whose factor groups all satisfy Cm, then either G satisfies Cm or else G
involves a -or-exceptional group.
As Zassenhaus remarks (loc. cit.) the Conjectures C3 and C3* would
follow from either of the long-standing conjectures:
(a) All groups of odd order are soluble.
(6) The group of outer automorphisms of a finite simple group is soluble.
They would also follow, as is shown by Theorem A5, from the conjecturef
(c) If A is a subgroup of the group of automorphisms of the finite group G
and if (A) and (G) are coprime, then for every prime q dividing (G), A leaves
invariant some Sylow ^-subgroup of G.
That (c) is true if either A or G is soluble follows easily from Zassenhaus's
f That the conjecture C3* is equivalent to (c) is proved by D. G. Higman, Pacific
J. Math. 4 (1954), 545-55. I am indebted to the referee for this reference.

294
P. HALL
theorems D6 and D7. In this connexion it may be of some interest to point
out the following consequence of Theorem D5.
THEOREM A6. If 0 is a finite group satisfying E^ and A is a soluble
m-subgroup of the group of automorphisms of G, then A leaves invariant some
Sm-subgroup of G.

For we can take G in its regular representation and regard AG as a

subgroup of the holomorph of G. By Theorem D5, AG satisfies Dm> since
AG/G r^j A and so satisfies D^, while G satisfies E%. Hence A is contained
in some #OT-subgroup HoiAG. Therefore A leaves invariant the ^-subgroup
H n G of G.
We remark that, if A is a soluble subgroup of the group of automorphisms
of the arbitrary finite group G and if there is at most one prime q which
divides both (A) and (G), then we can take vr in Theorem A6 to consist of
the prime divisors of (^4) together with q if necessary. In this case then,
A leaves invariant some Sylow ^-subgroup of G, no special assumption
about G being required.
We have already noted (Corollary E2.3) that m-serial groups satisfy Em.
It would follow from Conjecture C3* that they even satisfy Dw. In fact
we have:
THEOREM D8. Let G be a nr-serial group. If L is a soluble m-subgroup
of G and if H is an Sm-subgroup of G, then L < Hx for some x e G. Either
G satisfies Dm or else G involves an in-exceptional group.

2. Proofs
2.1. The arrangement of the proofs is as follows. In 2.2 we deduce
El* and A3 from Dl and D2, while 2.3 contains a proof of E2 and its
corollaries. The main theorem D5 is proved in 2.4, together with the
elementary result Al. Cunihin's theorem D7* is proved in 2.5, while A5
and C4 are derived in 2.6. Finally, D8 is proved in 2.7 and the nonexistence theorem A4 is proved in 2.8.
2.2. Proof of El.* We argue by induction on (K). First suppose that
K is not nilpotent and let P be a Sylow subgroup of K which is not normal
in K. If N is the normalizer of P in G and M = K n N, then M < K and,
by a standard deduction from Sylow's theorem, KN = G so that

N/M ~ G/K.
By the induction hypothesis, N has a xtr-subgroup S such that MS = N
and Mn Sis nilpotent. Then KS = KMS = KN = G and

KnS = Mf)S
is nilpotent as required.

THEOREMS LIKE SYLOW'S

295
We may therefore suppose that K is nilpotent and have only to prove
the existence of a -nr-subgroup S such that KS = G. If there is a normal
subgroup Kx of G such that 1 < Kx < K, we apply the induction hypothesis
to G/Kx and obtain a subgroup Sx ^ Kx such that Sx/Kx is a tr-group and
KSX = G. Then we apply the induction hypothesis to Sx and obtain a
-nr-subgroup S such that Kx S = Sx. This gives KS = KKX S = KSX = G
as required.
Finally, let K he a, minimal normal subgroup of G. Being nilpotent, it
is an Abelian #>-group. If p is in -nr, we can take S = G. If p is in -a/,
then K is a normal Abelian /S^-subgroup of G. By Theorem D2, G satisfies
Em and we can take for S any /S^-subgroup of G.
Proof of A3. We begin with an obvious remark. Let
G=G0>Gx>...>Gr=l
be any series of subgroups of G. Let H and K be subgroups of G such
that, for each i = 1,2 ,..., r, either Grt_x < GtH or else G^ -l ^ Gil Then
G = HK.
For, by hypothesis, either Gr_x ^ H or ^r_x < .fiT. I n any case
^HK.
Suppose it is proved, for some i > 0, that Gt ^ J?iT. If G ^ ^ ^JEf,
then also G^-^ < ^ ^ , since ^ is normal in G^^ Hence
Ot_x < HHK = HK.
If on the other hand Gt_x ^ Gt K, then again G_x ^ HKK = JBTiL Hence
by induction G = Go = HK.
Now let m0, TCT1, and m2 be three mutually exclusive sets of primes and
suppose that every c.f. of G is either a xtr0 -ro^-group or else a m0 m2-group.
Let G = Go > Gx > ... > Gr = 1 be a chief series of G, so that each G
is normal in G. Every factor group G^JGi is a direct product of isomorphic
c.f. of G. Hence we may divide these r factor groups into two mutually
exclusive classes, putting in the first class those which are TO-0 xo-j-groups
(including those, if any, which are xn-0-groups) and in the second class all
the rest. We now show that there is a m0 to^-subgroup H and a TO-0'OT2subgroup K in G such that (i) if Gi_xlGi is in the first class, then G{_x ^ Gi H,
while K^JKi is nilpotent, and (ii) if Gi_xIGi is in the second class, then
G^x ^ GtK and H^JHt is nilpotent. Here we have written Hi= GiC\ H
and Ki= 6^ n K. Arguing by induction on r, we may assume the existence
of subgroups H and K containing Gr_x and such that H/Gr_x is a vr0 mxgroup, K/Gr_x is a vr0 nr2-group and (i)* if G^JGj is in the first class and
i < r, then Gt_x < G^ while Ki_xIKi is nilpotent, (ii)* if G^JGi is in the
second class and i < r, then Gt_x ^ GtK, while Hi_x\Hi is nilpotent. If

296

P. HALL

now Gr_1/Gr ~ Gr_x is in the first class, we take H = H, while for K we

take a vrQ-nrg-subgroup of K such that Gr_xK = K and Gr_x n K is nilpotent. Such a subgroup K exists by Theorem El*. Then it is clear from
(i)* and (ii)* that H and K satisfy (i) and (ii) for each i = 1, 2,..., r. Also
H = H is a xtr0 TDygroup. Similarly if Gr_x/Gr is in the second class.
The remark made above shows that G = HK. The intersection
is a TD-0-group since vrQ, mv and vr2 are mutually exclusive. If Di = GtC\ D,

then Di_1IDi ~ Gi Di-JG^ which is a subgroup of both GiHi_1IGi ~ H^JH^

and of Gi K^JGi ~ K^JK^ But for each i, one of the two groups H^JHi and
Ki.JKj is nilpotent. Hence all the factor groups Di_1/Di are nilpotent
and D is soluble. Thus A3 is completely proved.
2.3. LEMMA 1. Let K be a normal subgroup of G and let H be an Smsubgroup of G. Then K n H is an Sm-subgroup of K and KH/K is an
Sm-subgroup of G/K.

For let (G:K) = h and (K) = k. Then

{G)m = hmkm = (H) = (H:Kn H)(K n H).
But H/K n H ~ KH/K, which is a w-subgroup of G/K, so that (H:Kn H)
divides hm\ and K n H is a To--subgroup of K so that (K n H) divides km.
Hence (KH:K) = hm and (K n H) km, as required.
Proof of E2. Let K satisfy Cm and let 6?/Z satisfy Em. Let T be an
/S^-subgroup of K and let N be its normalizer in G. For any x e G, Tx is
an /S^-subgroup of iT and hence is conjugate to T in K so that Tx = Tv
with y e ! . Thus xy-1 e N and NK = G. Hence JV/Z n N ~ G/JK" SO that
JV/X n JV has an #OT-subgroup H/K n JV. Apply Theorem El to the group
H/T with the normal ^--subgroup K n iV/27 and we obtain an ^-subgroup
U/T of H/T. Then (U:T) = {H.K D N) = hm and (T) = /cOT5 so that U
is an /S^-subgroup of G.
LEMMA 2. .Le H = HxxH2x
...xHr. If each Ht has a given one of the
properties Ew, Cw, Dm, E*m, Csm, Dsm, E%, or C^, then H has the same property.

The proof is straightforward and may be omitted.

Suppose now t h a t all the c.f. of G satisfy Cm, and let K be a minimal
normal subgroup of G. Then K is a direct product of c.f. of G. Hence K
satisfies Cm by Lemma 2. Corollary E2.1 now follows from Theorem E2
by an induction argument on (0), since we may assume that G/K satisfies Em.
Since trr-groups satisfy Cm trivially and TO-'^-groups satisfy Cm by Sylow's
theorem, we obtain Corollary E2.2 as a particular case of E2.1.
As for Corollary E2.3, this follows from E2.2 for m1 = w, m', vrq, and

THEOREMS LIKE SYLOW'S

297

vr'p if we observe that a xo-'-group is a (wqYq-grou^ for any q in m' and that
a xtr-group is a (xtr'^)'p-group for any p in w. Finally, if H is an /S^-subgroup
of the XT-serial group G and K is an iS^-subgroup of G, then the indices
of H and K in G are coprime and therefore (G:H n K) (G:H)(G:K), so
that H n K is an iS^-subgroup of G. Thus G also satisfies Em.
2.4. Proof of T>5.
3. Let G satisfy E^ and let M be any m-subgroup of G. Then
the normalizer N of M in G satisfies E1^.
By Wielandt's Theorem D4, M is contained in some ^-subgroup H of
G and H is nilpotent. Hence M is nilpotent, M = Mx xM2 X ... X Mr, where
Mi is the unique Sylow ^-subgroup of M and px, p2,..., pr are the distinct
prime divisors of (H) = (G)m. Let Nt be the normalizer of Mx X M2 X ... X Mi
in G for i = 1, 2,...,r. Since the il^ are characteristic subgroups of M, we
have Nx^ N2^ ... ^ Nr = N and Nt is the normalizer of Mt in iV^.j.
Thus we may confine attention to the case in which M = Mx is a ^pj-group,
^>x prime. Let Sx be a Sylow ^-subgroup of N = Nx and let H be an Smsubgroup of G containing Sv If H^ is the Sylow ^-subgroup of H, then
and Mx < ASX < jyx. Hence iVrx contains the subH = H1xH2x...Y.Hr
Here Sx is a Sylow ^-subgroup of Nx by
group K = S1xH2x...xHr.
construction, while for i > 1 each JQ^ is a Sylow p^-subgroup of G. Hence
K is an #OT-subgroup of Nx. Since K is nilpotent, iV^ satisfies E%.
We note in passing that a group G may satisfy E% for suitable TO- and
yet contain subgroups which do not satisfy Em. For example, let p be a
prime = 1 mod 15. Then the simple group Lp of order %p{p21) has
cyclic subgroups of each of the orders |(P=bl)- Hence Lp has cyclic $ 35 subgroups and so satisfies E%j5. But Lp contains an icosahedral subgroup
H of order 60 which has no subgroup of order 15.
LEMMA

4. Let K be a normal m-subgroup of G such that G/K satisfies Dm.

Then G satisfies Dm.
LEMMA

For if H/K is an $OT-subgroup of G/K, then H is an ^.-subgroup of G.

If L is any tir-subgroup of G, then KLjK is a -nr-subgroup of G/K. Since
G/K satisfies Dm, we have KL/K < (H/K)x for some x e G, and so L < Hx.
We prove D5 by induction on ((?). We suppose K is a normal subgroup
of G such that K satisfies E^. and G/K satisfies Dsm. By Wielandt's Theorem
D4, if satisfies Dm. Hence G satisfies Em by Theorem E2. If H is an tf^.subgroup of G, then K C\ H is an /S^-subgroup of K and KH/K is an
iS^-subgroup of G/K, by Lemma 1. Hence K n H is nilpotent and
H/K n H ~ KH/K is soluble. Thus H is soluble. Hence we need only
prove that every m-subgroup L of G is contained in some conjugate of H.
Clearly, we may suppose (1) that L is a maximal m-subgroup of G.

298
P. HALL
We make a few preliminary simplifications. Since G/K satisfies Dm, we
have L < KHX for some xeG. Hx is an OT-subgroup of KHX and KHX/K
is a soluble-nr-group. If KHX < G, the result follows by induction. Hence,
replacing Hx by H, we may suppose (2) KH = G.

Let Hx = KLnH.

Then {KL:HX) = {KH.H) = (G:H), which is a

<n/-number, so that Hx is an ^-subgroup of KL. Also KL/K is a soluble

-nr-group. If -KX < G, the result again follows by induction. Hence we
may suppose (3) KL = G.
Finally, we may assume (4) that G has no normal m-subgroup =fc 1. For
if G has a minimal normal tcr-subgroup A and if A n K = 1, then G/A has
the normal subgroup KAjA ~ K, which satisfies E^, while G/KA is a
soluble -nr-group. The induction hypothesis allows us to conclude that
G/A satisfies Dm. Hence G satisfies Dm by Lemma 4. If, on the other hand,
A n K T^ 1, then A ^ K and every ^-subgroup 8 of K must contain A.
Since S is nilpotent, so also is the ^.-subgroup S/A of K/A. Once again
G/A satisfies D^ by induction and G itself by Lemma 4.
The rest of the proof divides into two parts according to whether
M =
LnK^loT=l.
First suppose M > 1 and let N be the normahzer of M in G. By (4),
N < G. By Lemma 3, N = N n i satisfies ^ and JVyiV ~ .Of/iT is a
soluble irr-group. By induction, N satisfies Dm and so, by (1), L is an AS^subgroup of N. Hence, by Lemma 1, M is an /S^-subgroup of N. By
Wielandt's theorem, M ^ S, where S is an /S^-subgroup of K. Since S is
nilpotent, M < S would imply M < N n # by a well-known property of
nilpotent groups, since N n # is the normahzer of Jf in $. In this case Jfef
would not be an ^-subgroup of N. Hence M = S. But H C] K = Sxis
also an /S^-subgroup of K by Lemma 1. Since K satisfies Cm by Wielandt's
theorem, S and Sx are conjugate and we may suppose 8 = 8X, replacing H
by a conjugate if necessary. But then both L and H are contained in N,
and are both ^-subgroups of N. Thus L is conjugate to H by induction.
Next let L n K = 1. If if = G there is nothing to prove. Suppose
K < G and let T/K be a minimal normal subgroup of G/K. Since 6r/i is
a soluble -nr-group by (2), we have (T:K) = pm for some prime p in m.
Let L n T = P . By (3), KL = G and we also have K n L = 1. Hence P
is of order # m and is contained in some Sylow p -subgroup Px of T. By
Lemma 1, H n T is an ^-subgroup of T. Hence H n T contains a Sylow
^p-subgroup of T which is conjugate to Px. Replacing H by a conjugate if
necessary, we may assume that Px < H n T.
UT = G, then = P < Px < # and the result follows. Thus we may
take T < G. Then T satisfies Dm by induction. In particular, all Smsubgroups of T are isomorphic.

THEOREMS LIKE SYLOW'S

299

Now let Q be the normalizer of P in G and let Q = K n Q. We first

prove (5) that Q satisfies El^. Since P and Q are both normal in Q and
Pn Q ^. Lr\ K = I, we have PQ = PxQ.
Let the distinct primes
dividing (G)^ be p = px, p2,..., pr and let Qi be a Sylow # r subgroup of Q
for i 1, 2,..., r. Since T satisfies Z^ we may choose an iS^-subgroup T$
of T such that P x (^ < T,. We note that ^ = Z n 2J is an ^-subgroup
of^fiT by Lemma land is therefore nilpotent. Also T = iP and so 7^ = SiP.
Hence Tt contains a unique Sylow ^-subgroup P^ containing P and the
centralizer Zt of Pt in Tt is nilpotent and contains Q^ Since T satisfies Dmi
the subgroups T^ are all isomorphic. More precisely, there is an isomorphism
mapping Tt on to Tx and at the same time mapping Pt on to Px and therefore
Zi onto Zx. If this isomorphism maps Qi onto ii^for i = 2, 3,..., r, itfollows
that iZ^ < Zx. Since Zx is nilpotent, the product R of Rx = Qx, R2,..., Rr
is direct; and since P < Px we have R < ^ . But each i ^ is a Sylow
^^-subgroup of Q since it is isomorphic with Qt. Thus J? is an ^-subgroup
of Q. Since R is nilpotent, # satisfies E%. and (5) is proved.
Since Q < Gby (4) and QjQ is a soluble -nr-group while Q satisfies E^,
it follows by induction that Q satisfies Dm. But L ^ Q. Hence L is an
/S^-subgroup of Q by (1). Since Px is a ^>-group, P < Px would imply that
P < $ n Plt so that P = LOT would not be an ^-subgroup of Q n T7
and therefore, by Lemma 1, L would not be an iS^-subgroup of Q. Hence
P = Px is a Sylow ^-subgroup of H n T. Also H 0 T is normal in J?. By
Sylow's theorem, the normalizer Q C\ H = U of P in H satisfies H ^. TU.
Since T = KP and P < U, we even have H ^KU.
Since KH = G by
(2), we have i?7 = . But LnK = 1. Hence (17) > (X). But is an
/S^-subgroup of Q and ?7 is a -or-subgroup of Q. Hence U is an /S^-subgroup
of Q. But Q satisfies Dm by induction. Hence L = Ux ^ ^ x for some
x e G and Theorem D5 is completely proved.
Corollary D5.1 follows immediately. If G has a series all of whose factor
groups satisfy E^, then all the c.f. of G satisfy E1!^ by Lemma 1. If K is
a minimal normal subgroup of G, then K satisfies E1^. by Lemma 2. The
c.f. of G/K all satisfy E% and we may suppose inductively that GjK
satisfies Dsm. Then G satisfies D%. by Theorem D5.
Corollary D5.2 is a particular case of D5.1. For if G is -nr-separable and
vr1 is any non-empty subset of w, then every c.f. of G is a w'xp-group for
some prime p in -mx and therefore satisfies E^ by Sylow's theorem.
Corollary D5.3 is a special case of D5.2.
Proof of A1. Suppose H and K are Sm -subgroups of G and that both H
and K have Sylow series of complexion (p1,P2>-'->Pr)> where px,..., pr are the
distinct primes dividing (G)m. If Hx and Kx are the normal SVlPi
Prlsubgroups of H and K, respectively, then Hx and Kx have Sylow series of

300

P. HALL

complexion (Pi,.--,Pr-i) a n d a r e $plf2>, 3r_1-subgroups of G. Arguing by

induction on r, we may suppose Hx and Kx are conjugate in G. We may
then take Hx = Kx, replacing K by a conjugate if necessary. H/Hxsmd.K/Hx
are then two Sylow ^-subgroups of N/Hx, where N is the normalizer of Hx
in G. Hence H is conjugate to K in N.
2.5. Proof of D7*. It will be sufficient to show that a ttr'-soluble group G
satisfies Dm.
Let K be a minimal normal subgroup of G. Then K is either a -nr-group
or else an Abelian g-group for some prime q in m'. Also G/K is icr'-soluble.
Arguing by induction on (G), we may assume that G/K satisfies Dm. If K
is a -nx-group, then G satisfies Dm by Lemma 4. Thus we may assume that
K is an Abelian -nr'-group. G satisfies Ew by Theorem E2. Let H be an
^-subgroup of G and L any xtr-subgroup of G. Since G/K satisfies Dm by
the induction hypothesis, we have L < KHX for some x e G. But K is a
normal Abelian iS^-subgroup of KHX. Hence L < Hxy for some y e K by
Schur's Theorem D2.
2.6. Proof of A5. Let (2 be tcr-exceptional and let K be the normal
$OT,-subgroup of G. Then 1 < K < G, since otherwise G would satisfy Cm.
Also G satisfies Em by Theorem E l and we may choose two ^-subgroups
H and Hx of G which are not conjugate in G.
Suppose if possible that G/K is not simple. Then there exists a normal
subgroup M of G such that K < M < G. By the definition of TO--exceptional, M satisfies Cm. By Lemma 1, H n M and Hxn M are iS^-subgroups
of Jf. Hence they are conjugate and we may suppose

Ht\M = H1nM = L,
replacing Hx by a conjugate if necessary.. Since KB. G and M > K, we
have L > 1. If N is the normalizer of L in G, then N/L is properly involved
in G and therefore satisfies Cm. But T and J^ are both contained in N, and
so H/L and ^ / J C are ^-subgroups of N/L by Lemma 1. Hence H is conjugate to Hx, a contradiction. Thus G/K must be simple, but cannot be
cyclic of order a prime for then G would satisfy Gm by Sylow's theorem.
Hence G/K is simple and of composite order.
Next suppose if possible that K is not a minimal normal subgroup of G.
Then there exists a normal subgroup Kx of G such that 1 < Kx < K. By
Lemma 1, HKX/KX and HXKX/KX are AS^-subgroups of G/Kx and are therefore conjugate, since G/Kx is properly involved in G. Replacing Hx by a
conjugate if necessary, we may suppose that HKX = JE^ Kx = Gv Since
H n K = 1, we have Gx < G so that Gx is properly involved in G. Hence
the two Sm-subgroups H and Hx of Gx are conjugate, a contradiction.
Thus K must be a minimal normal subgroup of G.

THEOREMS LIKE SYLOW'S

301

K cannot be Abelian or G would satisfy Cm by Theorem D2. Hence

K = K1xK2X...xKr,
where the K are isomorphic simple groups of composite order. The r subgroups iQ are the only normal subgroups of K
which are simple. On transforming K by the elements of H, the Kt must
therefore be permuted transitively among themselves. Hence if N is the
normalizer of Kx in G, we have K < N and (G:N) = r. Let q be a prime
divisor of (Kj) and let Qx be any Sylow (/-subgroup of Kx. Let N be the
normalizer of Qx in N. By Sylow's theorem, KXN = N and therefore
KN = N. Hence N/K n N ~ F / Z and, by Theorem E l , 2V contains an
OT-subgroup U, so that {K n N)U = N and therefore KU = N. Thus 7
is an iSm-subgroup of N. Since 6r = iTT = KHX and K ^. N, the intersections V = H r\ N and 1^ = ^Tx n iV are also ^.-subgroups of N.
Suppose if possible that r > 1. Then N < G and hence N satisfies Cm.
Consequently U, V, Vx are conjugate in N. Replacing / / and Hx by conjugates, we may assume that U = V = Vx. We then have (H:U) = r and
may choose the elements hx = 1, h2,..., hr in H so that
.#* = jfi^

(i = i, 2,..., r).

Then Qi* = Qi is a Sylow ^-subgroup of iQ and hence Q =

Q1xQ2X...xQr
is a Sylow ^-subgroup of K. For any xe H, we have ^x = u^-, where
w e C7 and j = j(i,3). Hence Qf = Q^x = Q"* = Q$ = Qp since U < N.
For a fixed xe H, i -+j(i,x) is a permutation of 1, 2,..., r. Hence Qx = Q
and so i / is contained in the normalizer R of Q in 6r. Similarly Hx is contained in R. Since $ is not normal in K, we have R < G and so 72 satisfies
Cm. Hence the ^-subgroups H and Hx of i? are conjugate, a contradiction.
Thus r = 1 and i is a simple -nr'-group of composite order.
By Sylow's theorem KR = G, so that the ^-subgroups of R, which are
all conjugate in R as we have already remarked, are also ^-subgroups
of G. There is therefore a uniquely determined class of conjugate
^-subgroups of G associated with any given prime divisor q of (K), viz. those
which belong to the normalizer in G of some Sylow (/-subgroup of K. Since
G does not satisfy Cm, there must be some Sm -subgroups of G which do
not leave invariant any Sylow (/-subgroup of K. If H is one of these, then
H cannot be contained in any #m(2-subgroup L of G, for L n K is normal
in L and is a Sylow (/-subgroup of K. Thus G cannot satisfy Dmq. But
G satisfies Emqbj Corollary D5.3, or more simply by Sylow's theorem and
Theorem E l . In fact, G satisfies COT(r For let L and Lx be any two
/S^-subgroups of G. Then LP\K and LXD K are Sylow (/-subgroups of K and
therefore conjugate. Replacing Lx by a conjugate if necessary, we may
suppose that Lc\ K = Lxn K = Q, so that both L and Lx belong to the
normalizer R of Q. L/Q and LJQ are then ^-subgroups of R/Q and

302

P. HALL

therefore conjugate because R/Q is properly involved in G and so satisfies

Cm. Hence L and Lx are conjugate.
Let Z be the centralizer of K in G. Then Z is normal in 0 and K n Z = 1
because if is simple but not cyclic. Since G/K is also simple, Z ^ 1 would
imply that G = KxZ. This would make Z a normal and therefore the
unique ^-subgroup of G. This is impossible since G does not satisfy Cw.
Hence Z = 1 and Theorem A5 is completely proved.
Proof of C4. Let K be a normal subgroup of G such that both K and
#/! satisfy C^. By Theorem E2, G satisfies Em. Suppose that G does not
satisfy Cm and let H and Hx be /S^. -subgroups of G which are not conjugate in G. The ^-subgroups H n K and HXC\ K of K are conjugate and
we may assume H f) K = HXC\ K = T, replacing Hx by a conjugate if
necessary. Then both H and Hx are contained in the normalizer M of T
in G. Let N = K n M. Since Z satisfies COT, we have KM = G as in the
proof of Theorem E2. Hence M/N ~ /Z and satisfies Cw: The
^-subgroups NH/N and NHJN of Jf/iV are therefore conjugate and we
may assume that NH = NHX = S, replacing Hx by a conjugate if necessary. S/T has the normal ^-subgroup N/T and has the two non-conjugate
S^-subgroups H/T and HJT. Hence S/T does not satisfy Cm. Therefore
S/T involves a w-exceptional group and Theorem C4 is proved.
2.7. Proof of D8. We argue by induction on (G). Let K be a minimal
normal subgroup of G, H any /8^-subgroup of G, and L any xo--subgroup
of G. We have to prove that, if either L is soluble or if G involves no
nr-exceptional group, then L ^ Hx for some x e G. Since KL/K is a
-nr-subgroup and KH/K is an /S^-subgroup of G/K, we may suppose by
induction that L < KHX for some x e G; for if L is soluble, so is KL/K,
while if (3 involves no xir-exceptional group, neither does G/K. Also, KHX
is a -nr-serial group and involves no -nr-exceptional group unless G involves
one. The result now follows by induction if KHX < G, since Hx is an
/S^-subgroup of KHX. Thus we may suppose G = KH, replacing JET by a
conjugate if necessary.
If K is a -nr-group, then K ^ H = G and the result again follows. If K
is not a -nr-group, it must be a m'-group, since G is m-serial. L and
Hx = KL n J? are then two ^.-subgroups of ^TL and, if L is soluble, they
are conjugate by Theorem D6. If, on the other hand, G involves no
xo--exceptional group, then neither does KL and again L and Hx are conjugate, this time by Theorem C4 (since the ur'-group K and the xtr-group
KL/K both trivially satisfy Cm). In either case L is contained in a conjugate of H, and Theorem D8 is completely proved.

THEOREMS L I K E SYLOW'S

303

2.8. Proof of A4. Let p < q < w, where p and q are primes, and let H
be an $pg-subgroup of the symmetric group S n . By a theorem of Burnside,
H is soluble.
Suppose first that H is a primitive permutation group. Then n = rm,
where r is a prime, and r is either p or q. Also, H is contained in the holomorph H of the elementary Abelian group of order rm. Cf. Speiser (13,
Satz 98). Since (H)r = r^-m(-m+x> and (H)r = ( S J r = ri+r+r*+...+r-} w e m u s t
have

This equation implies that either m = 1 or else m = 2, r = 2. In the case

m = 1, if is the metacyclic group of order r(r1), so that we must have
r = q = n = l-\-kp. But then (?>n)p ^ pk, so that & must be divisible by
p*-1. Thus either k = 2, p = 2, or k.= 1. But (S5)2 = 8 so that & = 2 is
impossible. Hence jfc=l,^> = 2, g = 3, and H = S 3 .
If, on the other hand, m = 2, so that r = 2 = p, we have w = 4 and so
q = 3, H = S4. We conclude that the only cases where H can be primitive

are when p = 2, q = 3, and w = 3 or 4, and in these cases H is the whole

of S,/r In all other cases H is either imprimitive or intransitive.
Next suppose that H is intransitive, with components of degrees I and m
where +ra = n. Then i / is contained in S z x S.m and, since it must be an
$pS-subgroup of this group, both j and S m must satisfy JE^. Further,
# cannot exceed both I and m, since then (H) would be prime to q, contrary
I of S; X Swl in SM must be prime to pq,
mj
since otherwise H could not be an $pg-subgroup of SM.
A similar argument applies if JE^ is imprimitive, with e systems of
imprimitivity of d symbols each. Then n = de and H is contained in
S^ISg, a maximal imprimitive subgroup of SM corresponding to this
factorization of n. The order of 2^1; e is (d\)ee\ and therefore q cannot
exceed both d and e. Since G = S d 1 S e has a normal subgroup K which
is the direct product of e factors isomorphic with 2 d and G/K ~ Se> it is
clear from Lemma 1 that both 2 d and 2 e must satisfy Epq. Further the
index n\/(d\)ee\ of G in S n must be prime to pq.
If therefore JET is either imprimitive or intransitive, there is necessarily
an integer nx such that q < nx < n and such that S n i satisfies Epq. Thus
for the smallest integer n0^ q such that S no satisfies .E^, STCo must contain
a primitive $pg-subgroup. As we have seen, this implies p = 2, q = 3.
S 5 has only one class of conjugate subgroups of index 5. These are the
stabilizers of the five symbols permuted by 2 5 and none of them contains
a cyclic subgroup of order 6. Thus S 5 satisfies C23 but not D 23 .
H6 has no subgroup of index 5 and therefore fails to satisfy E2 3.

304

THEOREMS L I K E SYLOW'S

A subgroup of index 35 in S 7 cannot be transitive and so must have

the form E 3 x S 4 . Again we have a single class of # 23 -subgroups. None of
these contains a cyclic permutation of order 6. Thus S 7 satisfies C 23 but
not D2 3 .
A subgroup of index 35 in S 8 cannot be intransitive since all the binomial
coefficients 8, 28, 56,70 are even. I t cannot be primitive since the holomorph
of the elementary group of order 8 has index 30 in S 8 . Hence it must be
imprimitive and only the subgroups of the form S 4 1 S 2 are large enough.
Again we have a single class of conjugate S2 3-subgi\oups. None of them
contains a subgroup of the form 2 2 1 E 4 . Thus 2 8 satisfies C 23 but not Z)23.
I t remains to show that, if n > 8, E n does not satisfy E2 3 . Suppose the
contrary and choose n > 8 as small as possible so that 2 n has an
S2 3 -subgroup H. If H is intransitive with components of degrees I and m,
where I < m and l-\-m = n, then as we have seen both 2 , and SOT must
n\
I must be prime to 6. By our choice of n, we

have m ^ 8; and neither I nor m is 6. But all the fourteen relevant

binomial coefficients are divisible by 3, as is immediately verified. Hence
H must be imprimitive and a subgroup of l>d% S e where de = n. As we have
also seen, both 2,d and 2 e must have $23-subgroups and n\/(d\)ee\ must be
prime to 6. By our choice of n, both d and e must be ^ 8, ^ 6, and ^ 1.
But in this case H is transitive so that n must be of the form 2a3^. Thus
d and e can only be 2, 3, 4, or 8. Again it is easy to verify that none of the
eleven relevant indices is prime to 6. This concludes the proof of Theorem A4.
REFERENCES
W. BURNSIDE, Theory of groups of finite order, 2nd edition (Cambridge, 1911).
S. A. CUNIHIN, Mat. Sbornik, N.S. (25) 67 (1949), 321-46.
Doklady Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R. N.S. 73 (1950), 29-32.
ibid. 95 (1954), 725-7.
ibid. 66 (1949), 165-8.
ibid. 69 (1949), 735-7.
Mat. Sbornik, N.S. (33) 75 (1953), 111-32.
P. A. GOL'BERG, Doklady Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R. N.S. 64 (1949), 615-8.
P. HAXL, J. London Math. Soc. 3 (1928), 98-105.
Proc. London Math. Soc. (2) 43 (1937), 316-23.
J. London Math. Soc. 12 (1937), 198-200.
and GRAHAM HIGMAN, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 6 (1956), 1-42.
A. SPEISER, Theorie der Gruppen von endlicher Ordnung, 3rd edition (Berlin,
1937).
14. H. WIELANDT, Math. Zeitschrift, 60 (1954), 407-8.
15. H. ZASSENHAUS, Lehrbuch der Gruppentheorie (Leipzig and Berlin, 1937).

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

King's College,
Cambridge