Number of Groups of A Given Order
Given a positive integer n, it is not at all a routine matter to determine how many isomorphism types of groups of order n there are. Every group of prime order is cyclic, since Lagrange's theorem implies that the cyclic subgroup generated by any of its non-identity elements is the whole group. If n is the square of a prime, then there are exactly two possible isomorphism types of group of order n, both of which are abelian. If n is a higher power of a prime, then results of Graham Higman and Charles Sims give asymptotically correct estimates for the number of isomorphism types of groups of order n, and the number grows very rapidly as the power increases.
Depending on the prime factorization of n, some restrictions may be placed on the structure of groups of order n, as a consequence, for example, of results such as the Sylow theorems. For example, every group of order pq is cyclic when q < p are primes with p-1 not divisible by q. For a necessary and sufficient condition, see cyclic number.
If n is squarefree, then any group of order n is solvable. A theorem of William Burnside, proved using group characters, states that every group of order n is solvable when n is divisible by fewer than three distinct primes. By the Feit–Thompson theorem, which has a long and complicated proof, every group of order n is solvable when n is odd.
For every positive integer n, most groups of order n are solvable. To see this for any particular order is usually not difficult (for example, there is, up to isomorphism, one non-solvable group and 12 solvable groups of order 60) but the proof of this for all orders uses the classification of finite simple groups. For any positive integer n there are at most two simple groups of order n, and there are infinitely many positive integers n for which there are two non-isomorphic simple groups of order n.
Read more about this topic: Finite Group
Famous quotes containing the words number of, number, groups and/or order:
“Even in ordinary speech we call a person unreasonable whose outlook is narrow, who is conscious of one thing only at a time, and who is consequently the prey of his own caprice, whilst we describe a person as reasonable whose outlook is comprehensive, who is capable of looking at more than one side of a question and of grasping a number of details as parts of a whole.”
—G. Dawes Hicks (1862–1941)
“Love has its name borrowed by a great number of dealings and affairs that are attributed to it—in which it has no greater part than the Doge in what is done at Venice.”
—François, Duc De La Rochefoucauld (1613–1680)
“Instead of seeing society as a collection of clearly defined “interest groups,” society must be reconceptualized as a complex network of groups of interacting individuals whose membership and communication patterns are seldom confined to one such group alone.”
—Diana Crane (b. 1933)
“The only privilege literature deserves—and this privilege it requires in order to exist—is the privilege of being in the arena of discourse, the place where the struggle of our languages can be acted out.”
—Salman Rushdie (b. 1947)