Let H and K be two subgroups of a group G such that o(H)>o(G) and o(K)>o(G). Show that H∩K={e}, where e is the identity element. Here o(H), o(K) and o(G) denote the order of H, K and G respectively.
Technique
Count using the product-set order formula ∣HK∣=∣H∩K∣∣H∣∣K∣ together with the bound ∣HK∣≤∣G∣.
Solution
Since H,K are finite subgroups of G, consider the product set
HK={hk:h∈H,k∈K}.
Step 1 — Order of the product set. For finite subgroups H,K of G,
|HK| = \frac{|H|\,|K|}{|H\cap K|}. \tag{$\ast$}
Proof of (∗). Define a map from H×K onto HK by (h,k)↦hk. For a fixed product g=hk, the pairs (h′,k′) with h′k′=hk are exactly h′=ht,k′=t−1k for t∈H∩K (since h′k′=hk⇒h−1h′=k(k′)−1=:t∈H∩K). Thus every element of HK has exactly ∣H∩K∣ preimages, so
∣H×K∣=∣HK∣⋅∣H∩K∣⟹∣HK∣=∣H∩K∣∣H∣∣K∣.
Step 2 — Bound the product set. Although HK need not be a subgroup (since G may be non-Abelian), it is a subset of G, so
|HK| \le |G| = o(G). \tag{$\ast\ast$}
Step 3 — Combine. Suppose, for contradiction, that H∩K={e}, i.e. ∣H∩K∣=1. Then by (∗),
∣HK∣=∣H∣∣K∣=o(H)o(K).
Using the hypotheses o(H)>o(G) and o(K)>o(G),
∣HK∣=o(H)o(K)>o(G)⋅o(G)=o(G).
This contradicts (∗∗), namely ∣HK∣≤o(G).
Hence the assumption is false, and
∣H∩K∣>1,i.e.H∩K={e}.■
Answer
H∩K={e}. The proof rests on ∣HK∣=∣H∩K∣o(H)o(K)≤o(G); if the intersection were trivial, o(H)o(K)>o(G) would force ∣HK∣>o(G), which is impossible.
We've mapped all 13 years of this exam. Get new solutions, tools, and guides as we release them — free.