How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
False statement: every divisor of the order of a finite group occurs as a subgroup order
Statement
False claim: every divisor of the order of a finite group occurs as a subgroup order. See Sylow I: every finite group has a Sylow -subgroup.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The hypotheses and objects in the false claim.
Let be finite, let be prime, and write with . Then has a subgroup of order , hence a Sylow -subgroup (def-sylow-p-subgroup). (Sylow I: every finite group has a Sylow -subgroup).
Let be finite abelian and let be a positive divisor of . Then has a subgroup of order . (Converse of Lagrange for finite abelian groups: every divisor occurs as a subgroup order).
For , the alternating group is the kernel of the sign homomorphism, Thus consists exactly of the even permutations. The subgroup and normality assertions implicit in the word “group” follow from thm-image-subgroup-and-kernel-normal. (The alternating group of even permutations).
Let be a finite group and . Then Consequently, under the canonical embedding , divides . (Lagrange's theorem: for every subgroup of a finite group ).
Refutation
The divisor of is not the order of a subgroup. Indeed, a hypothetical subgroup of order would have index and hence be normal. Sylow I applied inside gives an element of order .
Conjugating that -cycle in , and also conjugating its inverse, puts all eight -cycles in the normal subgroup . Together with the identity this gives more than six elements, a contradiction. Thus the general converse fails although the cited abelian and prime-power special cases remain valid. This proves the stated claim.
Depends on
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · next 3 levels
Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 99 results over 16 levels. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, and this result sits at the bottom with a heavier outline. Click the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Keith Conrad, Consequences of the Sylow Theorems, Sections 1-5 (standard reference, not scraped)