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: all subgroups of the same -power order are conjugate
Statement
False claim: all subgroups of the same -power order are conjugate. See Sylow II: in a finite group every -subgroup lies in a conjugate of any Sylow -subgroup, and the Sylow -subgroups form a single conjugacy class.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The hypotheses and objects in the false claim.
Let be finite, let be a Sylow -subgroup, and let be a -subgroup. There is with . In particular, for every Sylow -subgroup there is with , so the Sylow -subgroups form one conjugacy class. (Sylow II: in a finite group every -subgroup lies in a conjugate of any Sylow -subgroup, and the Sylow -subgroups form a single conjugacy class).
Let , so that (def-natural-numbers). The symmetric group on letters is the group of all bijections of under composition (def-symmetric-group), with the composition convention. (The finite symmetric group , one-line notation, and cycle notation).
For , there is a with if and only if and have the same cycle type, including their numbers of fixed points. (Two elements of are conjugate if and only if they have the same cycle type).
Refutation
In the of [L2], the order-two subgroups generated by and cannot be conjugate because their nonidentity generators have different cycle types.
Two subgroups of order are conjugate exactly when their nonidentity elements are, so step 1.1 exhibits two subgroups of the same -power order that are not conjugate, refuting the universal claim. No conflict with [L1] arises: both have order while the Sylow -subgroups of have order , and [L1] asserts conjugacy only among subgroups of that maximal -power order. This proves the stated claim.
Depends on
- Sylow II: in a finite group every $p$-subgroup lies in a conjugate of any Sylow $p$-subgroup, and the Sylow $p$-subgroups form a single conjugacy class
- The finite symmetric group $S_n$, one-line notation, and cycle notation
- Two elements of $S_n$ are conjugate if and only if they have the same cycle type
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: 48 results over 10 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)