Maximal subgroups and formations (Q1262945)

For a subgroup-closed saturated formation \({\mathcal F}\) containing all nilpotent groups, the author studies various properties of the following subgroups of a finite group G, and of some related constructions: \(L_{{\mathcal F}}(G)=\cap \{M<_{\max}G|\) M \({\mathcal F}\)-abnormal\(\}\), \(L_{{\mathcal F}}(G,p)=\cap \{M<_{\max}G|\) M \({\mathcal F}\)-abnormal, \(| G:M|_ p=1\}\) (p a prime). \{Reviewer's remark: Consider any formation function f such that f(p) is closed under taking normal subgroups for all primes p. Let \(\Phi_ f(G)\) be the (unique) largest normal subgroup of G such that any G-chief factor of \(\Phi_ f(G)\) is f-central or Frattini in G. Then a routine argument shows that for the set \(\pi\) of all primes p with non-empty f(p), one has that \(T=O_{\pi}(\Phi_ f(G))\) belongs to the local formation defined by f, and that \(\Phi_ f(G/T)=\Phi (G/T)\leq O_{\pi '}(G/T)\); clearly, \(L_{{\mathcal F}}(G)=\Phi_ f(G)\) where f is the full and integrated local definition of the saturated formation \({\mathcal F}\). All results on \(L_{{\mathcal F}}(G)\) in the paper under review are trivial corollaries to these observations; in particular, the hypothesis that \({\mathcal F}\) be subgroup closed may be replaced by the requirement that \({\mathcal F}\) be subnormal subgroup closed, and there is no need to assume that \({\mathcal F}\) contains all nilpotent groups. Moreover, it is obvious that \(L_{{\mathcal F}}(G,p)=\Phi_ g(G)\) for a suitable local definition g of \({\mathcal E}_ p{\mathcal F}\), which yields the results on \(L_{{\mathcal F}}(G,p)\) from the paper. Similar observations apply to the subgroups \(CL_{{\mathcal F}}(G)\) and \(CL_{{\mathcal F}}(G,p)\) studied in the paper.\}