Products of subgroups, subnormality, and relative orders of elements

Let ord_H(x) := \min \{ n \geq 1: x^n \in H \}. We first notice that o_H(x)=ord_H(x). Indeed, from the definitions we have o_H(x)=o_{H \cap \langle x \rangle}(x) and ord_H(x)=ord_{H \cap \langle x \rangle}(x). The fact that o_{H \cap \langle x \rangle}(x) = ord_{H \cap \langle x \rangle}(x) is a simple exercise. Now, the “if” part of the statement is trivial. On the other hand, if x^n \in H for some n \geq 1, then clearly ord_H(x) < \infty. Let n = q \cdot ord_H(x) + r with r,q \geq 0 and r<ord_H(x). Since H is a subgroup, the fact that x^n = x^{q \cdot ord_H(x)} x^r \in H implies that x^r \in H, which in turn means r=0.

We have to prove that S(G) = \cap_{N \lhd_f G} F_N(G). Let x \in S(G) and N \lhd_f G. From Lemma 0.19 and Proposition 0.18 we have Nx \in S(G/N)=F(G/N), i.e. x \in F_N(G).
On the other hand, let x \in \cap_{N \lhd_f G} F_N(G) and H \leqslant_f G. If N \lhd_f G is the normal core of H, then in particular x \in F_N(G). From Proposition 0.18 we have

and so Lemma 0.19 provides x^{|G:H|} \in H. The proof follows because H is arbitrary.

We have to prove that the ratio

is an integer. Now H \lhd M implies that H(M \cap K) is a subgroup of M, and so we can write

In particular, the original ratio equals |M:H(M \cap K)|.

We have

We have that H \cap P is a p-Sylow of H if and only if |H:H \cap P|=|HP:P| is not divisible by p. Since |H:H \cap P| is a divisor of |G|, the last condition is equivalent to |HP:P| dividing |G:P|, i.e. |HP| \mid |G|.

Suppose that H is not subnormal, and in particular H \nleqslant F(G). So there exists a p-element x such that x \in H \setminus F(G). Since x \notin O_p(G), there exists a p-Sylow P of G such that x \notin P. By hypothesis H \cap P is a p-Sylow of H and, since H is nilpotent, H \cap P contains all the p-elements of H. This contradicts the fact that x \notin P.

Let K \leqslant G. We have to show that |HK:K|=|H:H \cap K| divides |G:K|. Let p^\alpha be a prime power that divides |H:H \cap K|. Since p^\alpha is arbitrary, it is sufficient to prove that p^\alpha \mid |G:K|. Let P_0 \leqslant K be a p-Sylow of K, and let P \leqslant G be a p-Sylow of G such that P \cap K=P_0. Of course, p^\alpha \mid |H:H \cap P_0|. By hypothesis |H:H \cap P|=|HP : P| divides |G:P|, and so is not divisible by p. Therefore, p^\alpha \mid |H \cap P:H \cap P_0|. Now |H \cap P:H \cap P_0|=|(H \cap P)P_0:P_0|, and this divides |P:P_0| because P is a p-group. So p^\alpha \mid |P:P_0|, and then of course p^\alpha \mid |G:P_0|. Since p \nmid |K:P_0|, we obtain p^\alpha \mid |G:K| as desired.

Let x \in G and H \leqslant_{exp} G. Then (Nx)^{|G/N:H/N|}=Nx^{|G:H|} \in H/N and so H/N \leqslant_{exp} G/N. If H/N \leqslant_{exp} G/N, then Nx^{|G:H|} = (Nx)^{|G/N:H/N|} \in H, and so x^{|G:H|} \in H.

Let n=|G:H|. By the exponentiality of H we have G^n \leqslant H. Since G^n is a characteristic subgroup of G contained in H, we obtain G^n=1. But this means exactly that n is a multiple of \exp(G). The converse is trivial.

Suppose that H is not normal, and let N \lhd G be the normal core of H. Since H/N is a Hall subgroup of G/N, by induction and Lemma 0.12, we can assume that H is core-free. Now \exp(G) captures every prime dividing |G|, and so the contradiction is given by Lemma 0.14.

Suppose that M is not normal, and let N \lhd G be the normal core of M. Since M/N is a maximal subgroup of G/N, by induction and Lemma 0.12, we can assume that M is core-free. Now |G:M|=q^\alpha for some prime power q^\alpha. If G is a q-group we are done. Otherwise, the contradiction is given by Lemma 0.14.

Let x \in G. Since M \leqslant_{exp} G, we have m=x^{|G:M|} \in M. Then x^{|G:H|}=m^{|M:H|} \in H. To prove the second statement, it is sufficient to notice that |G:H \cap K| is a multiple of both |G:H| and |G:K|.

Let x \in G. Then x \in S(G) if and only if |H \langle x \rangle| divides |G| for every H \leqslant G. From Proposition 0.3 and Lemma 0.10, this is equivalent to \langle x \rangle \lhd \lhd \> G, i.e. x \in F(G).

Let x \in G and N \leqslant H \leqslant_f G. The equality (Nx)^{|G:H|} = Nx^{|G:H|} implies that Nx \in H/N if and only if x^{|G:H|} \in H, and the first part follows because H is arbitrary. The second part follows because R(G) contains all the subgroups of G of finite index.

We have that NF(G)/N \cong F(G)/(N \cap F(G)) is a nilpotent normal subgroup of G/N. Then NF(G)/N \leqslant F(G/N) = F_N(G)/N, and so NF(G) \leqslant F_N(G).

This follows easily from Theorem 0.5.

Let 1 \neq x \in G. By definition, there exists N \lhd G such that x \notin N and S(G/N)=1. In particular Nx \notin S(G/N), and so from Lemma 0.19 we obtain x \notin S(G). Since x is arbitrary, it follows that S(G)=1.

The fact that G=S(G) follows from Proposition 0.22 and the fact that finite p-groups are nilpotent. If B(G) \neq 1, then B(G) is a free abelian group by Theorem 0.26, which contraddicts that G is a p-group.