On the \(p\)-length of a finite group with conditionally permutable factors (Q6111812): Difference between revisions

We start with some notions/definitions as needed in the formulation of the two main theorems of the paper. All groups are finite here. A subgroup \(H\) of a group \(U\) is called permutable in \(U\) if \(HK = KH\) for all subgroups \(K\) of \(U\). Subgroups \(A\) and \(B\) of a group \(G\) are called mutually permutable in \(G\) if \(UB = BU\) and \(VA = AV\) for all subgroups \(U\) of \(A\) and all subgroups \(V\) of \(B\). The subgroup \(T\) of a group \(G\) is called a tcc-subgroup in \(G\) if \(G = TS\) for some subgroup \(S\) of \(G\) in which for any subgroup \(X\) of \(T\) and for any subgroup \(Y\) of \(S\) there exists an element \(u\) in the subgroup \(<X,Y>\) such that \(XuYu^{-1}\) is a subgroup of \(G\). The normal series \(1 = H_0\le H_1\le \ldots \le H_n = N\) is called a permutable series in the nilpotent group \(N\), if for any index \(1\le i\le n\) and for any cyclic subgroup \(K_i\) of \(H_i / H_{i-1}\) it holds that \(K_i\) is permutable in \(N/H_{i-1}\). That character \(n\) is called the length of such a permutable series. Define \(P(N) = \min \{ n \vert n\) is the length of some permutable series of \(N\}\). The \(p\)-length \(l_p(G)\) of a group \(G\) is the usual one, as defined in [\textit{B. Huppert}, Endliche Gruppen. I. Berlin: Springer-Verlag (1967; Zbl 0217.07201)]. Now we state the first main result of the paper. Theorem 1. Let \(G = AB\) be the product of tcc-subgroups \(A\) and \(B\). Suppose that \(A\) and \(B\) are \(p\)-soluble subgroups of \(G\). Then \(G\) is \(p\)-soluble and \(l_p(G)\le \max \{l_p(A), l_p(B)\}\). And here is the second main result of the paper. Theorem 2. Let \(G = AB\) be the product of \(p\)-soluble mutually permutable subgroups \(A\) and \(B\). Let \(Ap\) be a Sylow \(p\)-subgroup of \(A\) and likewise \(Bp\) a Sylow \(p\)-subgroup of \(B\). Then \(l_p(G)\le \max \{P(Ap), P(Bp)\}\). The max-bound stated in Theorem 2 is precisely 1 lower (whence better) than the max-bound stated in the paper by \textit{J. Cossey} and \textit{Y. Li} [Arch. Math. 110, No. 6, 533--537 (2018; Zbl 1494.20030)]. View more details about it in the present paper. There is a lot to be learned in the proofs of the theorems, the argumentations are well done.