4

Let $G$ be a finite group. It is possible that $Soc(G)=G$. For example: if $G=\prod_{i=1}^n \mathbb{Z}_{p_i}$ for some primes $p_1,\dotsc,p_n$ (not necessarily distinct), then $Soc(G)=G$.

Can this happen for non-abelian groups? If the answer is affirmative, can we find a condition that guarantees that $Soc(G)$ is a proper subgroup of $G$?

EDIT: It always happens if $G$ is simple, so there are non-abelian examples. The question about a general condition remains though.

EDIT: A related question is: for which groups does it hold that taking $Soc$ some finite number of times results in an abelian group. That is: $Soc(Soc(Soc(\dotsm G\dotsm)))$ is abelian for some finite number of iterations of taking the socle.

Stefan4024
  • 36,357
user3533
  • 3,375

1 Answers1

10

(All groups are finite.)

The following are equivalent:

  • $G$ is a direct product of simple groups
  • $G ={\rm Soc}(G)$, that is, $G$ is the product of its minimal normal subgroups

Such a group is called completely reducible.

From this it should be clear that ${\rm Soc}({\rm Soc}(G)) = {\rm Soc}(G)$, that is, ${\rm Soc}$ is idempotent. Hence the following are equivalent:

  • ${\rm Soc}({\rm Soc}(...({\rm Soc}(G))...))$ is abelian
  • ${\rm Soc}(G)$ is abelian
  • Every minimal normal subgroup is (elementary) abelian

I don't know a name for such groups, but in line with the previous question, an abelian socle only requires that the minimal normal subgroups are modules at all.

If one requires an abelian socle not only of $G$, but also of $H=G/{\rm Soc}(G)$, and $K=H/{\rm Soc}(H)$, etc., then one gets solvable groups. So:

  • nilpotent means every chief factor is a one dimensional module and central
  • supersolvable means every chief factor is a one dimensional module
  • solvable means every chief factor is a module

When people define iterated socles, they usually mean:

$$\newcommand{\Soc}{\operatorname{Soc}} \Soc^{n+1}(G)/\Soc^n(G) = \Soc( G/\Soc^n(G) )$$

This is sometimes called the (upper) Loewy series of $G$.

Shaun
  • 47,747
Jack Schmidt
  • 56,967
  • The first equivalence should be a little surprising since minimal normal subgroups need not be simple (just direct products of simples). However, for a minimal normal subgroup not to be simple, there has to be something above it to swirl its factors around. If G=Soc(G), then there is nothing on top to do the mixing. – Jack Schmidt May 09 '11 at 14:11
  • @Jack: "If one requires \emph{this}". Are you referring to the condition "$Soc(G)=G$" or to "$Soc(G)$ is abelian"? – user3533 May 09 '11 at 14:18
  • One more caveat: it is not true that the socle is the largest normal subgroup that is a direct product of simple groups. For instance, in any non-abelian p-group of exponent p, the center is the socle, but the center is always contained as a maximal subgroup in some abelian subgroup, which is a direct product of simple groups of order p since the exponent is p. For instance, the Sylow p-subgroup of GL(3,p) is like this. – Jack Schmidt May 09 '11 at 14:19
  • @user3533: this = "Soc(G) is abelian". Thanks for catching it. My phrasing was unclear. If G=Soc(G), then G/Soc(G)=1 is pretty dull. – Jack Schmidt May 09 '11 at 14:20
  • @Jack: Thank you! When you say "is a module" do you mean it's an abelian group? – user3533 May 09 '11 at 14:36
  • @user3533: Yup, that is a fine way to think of it. I do mean a little more than that: It is an abelian group N such that G/N acts on it as automorphisms, and so I might distinguish between the abelian group of order 3 that is central and the abelian group of order 3 that is not. Both are modules, but they are different modules. – Jack Schmidt May 09 '11 at 15:22