Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-6scc2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-27T22:15:25.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Metanilpotent fitting classes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 April 2009

R. A. Bryce  and
John Cossey
R. A. Bryce
Affiliation:
School of General Studies, Australian National University, P. O. Box 4, Canberra, A.C.T., 2600, Australia
John Cossey
Affiliation:
School of General Studies, Australian National University, P. O. Box 4, Canberra, A.C.T., 2600, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Hawkes showed in [10] that classes of metanilpotent groups which are both formations and Fitting classes are saturated and subgroup closed; more, he characterized all such classes as those local formations with a local definition consisting of saturated formations (of nilpotent groups). In [3] we showed that those “Fitting formations” which are subgroup closed are also saturated, without restriction on nilpotent length; indeed such classes are, roughly speaking, recursively definable as local formations using a local definition consisting of such classes. It is natural to ask how these hypotheses may be weakened yet still produce the same classes of groups. Already in [10] Hawkes showed that Fitting formations need be neither subgroup closed nor saturated; and in [3] we showed that a saturated Fitting formation need not be subgroup closed (though a Fitting formation of groups of nilpotent length three is saturated if and only if it is subgroup closed).

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , May 1974 , pp. 285 - 304
Copyright
Copyright © Australian Mathematical Society 1974

References

[1]Bryant, Roger M., ‘Finite splitting groups in varieties of groups’, Quart. J. Math. (2) 22 (1971), 169–172.Google Scholar
[2]Bryce, R. A., and Cossey, John, ‘Fitting formations of finite soluble groups’, Math. Z. 127 (1972), 217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Bryce, R. A., and Cossey, John, ‘Some product varieties of groups’, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 3 (1970), 231–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Cossey, P. J., On varieties of A-groups, (Ph. D. Thesis, Australian National University, 1966).Google Scholar
[5]Curtis, Charles W., and Reiner, Irving, Representation Theory of Finite Groups and Associative Algebras, (Interscience New York and London, 1962.)Google Scholar
[6]Gaschütz, Wolfgang, and Blessenohl, Dieter, ‘Über normale Schunk-und Fittingklassen’, Math. Z. 118 (1970), 1–8.Google Scholar
[7]Hall, Marshall JrThe Theory of Groups, (Macmillan, New York, 1959.)Google Scholar
[8]Hall, P., ‘The splitting properties of relatively free groups’, Proc. London. Math. Soc. (3) 4 (1954), 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Hartley, B., ‘On Fischer's dualization of formation theory’, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 19 (1969), 193–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Hawkes, Trevor O., ‘On Fitting formations’, Math. Z. 117 (1970), 177–182.Google Scholar
[11]Graham, . Higman, , The orders of relatively free groups, (Proc. Internat. Conf. Theory of Groups, Austral. Nat. Univ. Canberra, 08 1965, Gordon and Breach, New York, London, Paris, 1967, pp. 153–165.)Google Scholar
[12]Huppert, B., Endliche Gruppen I, (Die Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, Bd 134, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1967).Google Scholar
[13]Makan., Amirali On some aspects of finite soluble groups, (Ph.D. Thesis, Australian National University, 1971.)Google Scholar
[14]Neumann, Hanna, Varieties of Groups, (Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzegbiete. Springer-Verlag. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1967.)Google Scholar
[15]Taunt, D. R., ‘On A-groups’, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 45 (1959), 24–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Taunt, D. R., ‘Remarks on the isomorphism problem in theories of construction of finite groups’, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 51 (1955), 16–24.Google Scholar