1. Introduction
Let
G be a group and
H is a subgroup of
G. Then
is the normal core of
H in
G, where
is the largest normal subgroup of
G contained in
H. A group
G is called core-
n if
for every subgroup
H of
G, where
n is a positive integer. Buckley, Lennox, Neumaan, Smith and Wiegold investigated the core-
n groups in [
1]. They show that every locally finite group
G with
finite for all subgroups
H is core-
n for some
n. Moreover,
G has an abelian normal subgroup of index bounded in terms of
n only. In [
2], Lennox, Smith and Wiegold show that, for
, a core-
p p-group is nilpotent of class at most 3 and has an abelian normal subgroup of index at most
. Furthermore, Cutolo, Khukhro, Lennox, Wiegold, Rinauro and Smith [
3] prove that a core-
p p-group
G has a normal abelian subgroup whose index in G is at most
if
. Furthermore, if
, Cutolo, Smith and Wiegold [
4] prove that every core-2 2-group has an abelian subgroup of index at most 16. As a deepening of research in this area, it is interesting to study the following question.
How about the structure of a p-group G in which , for any ?
In this paper we hope to investigate the structure of a p-group G in which , for any . For convenience, we call this kind of p-groups quasi-core-p p-groups.
3. Quasi-Core-p p-Groups with p > 2
In this section we investigate the quasi-core-p p-groups for .
Theorem 1. Let G be a quasi-core-p p-group and . If is cyclic, then .
Proof. Suppose the result is not true and G is a counterexample of minimal order. Then there exist such that . Thus we may assume , and . Since G is regular, we may assume . By Lemma 1, we see , where . Since , . So and . Similarly, . It follows from Lemma 7 that , in contradiction to the hypothesis. Thus the theorem is true. □
Corollary 1. Let G be a quasi-core-p p-group with . Then is abelian and .
Proof. For any , we assume . By the hypotheses, we see and so H is metacyclic. By Theorem 1, and so H is abelian or minimal non-abelian. Thus by Lemma 2. It follows that , which implies is abelian and . □
Corollary 2. Let G be a quasi-core-p p-group with . Then , for any .
Proof. We may assume and . Then and there exists an element such that . By Theorem 1, we may assume . Take . Assume , where . Then , which implies and so . It follows from that . □
Corollary 3. Let G be a quasi-core-p p-group with . If , then .
Proof. Set . Then and so . It follows from Theorem 1 that , which implies . □
According to Lemma 3 and Corollary 3, we get the following theorem.
Theorem 2. Suppose that G is a quasi-core-p p-group and is abelian with . If , then . If , then .
If , then, according to Lemma 5 and Corollary 3, we get the theorem below.
Theorem 3. Let G be a quasi-core-3 3-group. If , then . If , then .
Theorem 4. Let G be a quasi-core-3 3-group with . Then is abelian.
Proof. We may assume and . Then . For any , it follows from Theorem 3 that and , which implies is abelian. So, according to Lemma 8 and Corollary 1, is abelian. □
Now, we investigate the exponent of commutator subgroups of the quasi-core-p p-groups.
Lemma 9. Let G be a quasi-core-p p-group with and . Then .
Proof. Suppose the result is not true and G is a counterexample of minimal order. For any , let . By Lemma 1, , where . Since , . By induction, and so . Thus . It follows that there exist such that and .
By induction, we may assume , and . Then, according to Lemma 1, we see , where . Since , and . Thus . Since G is a quasi-core-p p-group, . So . It follows from Theorem 1 that . Similarly, we see .
Without loss of generality, we may assume , and . If , then, by letting , we see and , in contradiction to the hypothesis. So . Let . Then, by Lemma 1, we see , where . Since , we see . Then and . Thus and . Noticing that , we see . If , then , which implies , a contradiction. If , then . It follows that , another contradiction. □
Corollary 4. Let G be a quasi-core-p p-group and with and . Then .
Proof. If , then the conclusion holds by Lemma 9. Thus we may assume . Set . Then . It follows from Lemma 9 that , which implies . □
Corollary 5. Let G be a quasi-core-p p-group and with and . Then .
Proof. If , then the conclusion holds by Lemma 9. Thus we assume . Set . Then . By induction, we see . Since , by Lemma 9, we see . It follows that . □
Theorem 5. Let G be a quasi-core-p p-group with . If is abelian, then and .
Proof. Suppose that the result is not true and G is a counterexample of minimal order. Then there exist such that . We may assume , and . By Lemma 1, , where . By induction, and so . On the other hand, since , it is easy to see that . So . According to Theorem 1, we see , which implies , in contradiction to the hypothesis. So . Thus, for any , we see . It follows that . □
Theorem 6. Let G be a quasi-core-3 3-group. Then and .
Proof. Take with and . Let . Then, by Lemma 1, , where . Since , we see by Theorem 3. Thus by Corollary 5, which implies . It follows that . So, we may assume . According to Corollary 5 and Theorem 3, we see .
Take and . Then and so . Assume and . Then, by Lemma 1, , where . Since , by Lemma 9, we see . It follows that . For any with and , then, by Theorem 3, we see . So , which implies . □
4. Quasi-Core-2 2-Groups
In this section, we investigate the quasi-core-2 2-groups.
Lemma 10. Let be a non-abelian metacyclic quasi-core-2 2-group with and . Then , or .
Proof. Since G is a non-abelian metacyclic 2-group, we see and G is one of the groups listed in Lemma 4.
If G is a group listed in (1) in Lemma 4, then the conclusion holds by the classification of p-groups with a cyclic maximal subgroup.
If G is a group listed in (2) in Lemma 4, then with and . We may assume . By calculation, it is easy to see . Since G is a quasi-core-2 2-group, we see , which implies . Let . If , then = 1. It follows from G is quasi-core-2 that , which implies . However, it is impossible. If , then and . It follows that , which implies . It is also impossible. So and therefore .
If G is of type (3) in Lemma 4, then with and . It follows from that and so . We may assume and so . Then and . We assume . If , then, since , we see . On the other hand, . So, by the hypotheses, we see , a contradiction. If , then and . Thus , another contradiction. So the conclusion holds. □
Corollary 6. Let G be a quasi-core-2 2-group. Then is abelian and .
Proof. For any , we may assume is not abelian and . By the hypotheses, we see and so H is metacyclic. It follows from Lemma 10 that , or . Then, it is easy to see that , which implies is abelian.
Take with . Then for any , which implies and therefore . So . □
Corollary 7. Let G be a quasi-core-2 2-group. Then, for any , , and if , then and .
Proof. Without loss of generality, we may assume , and . By Corollary 6, we see , which implies is elementary abelian. For any , according to Lemma 10, we see or . It is easy to see that and . If , then, there exists an element such that . So and . □
Lemma 11. Let G be a quasi-core-2 2-group with . Then .
Proof. If not, then there exist such that . We may assume . Then . By induction, and so . It follows from Lemma 10 that , which implies . However, , a contradiction. So the conclusion holds. □
Theorem 7. Let G be a quasi-core-2 2-group with and . Then .
Proof. If , then the conclusion holds by Lemma 11. Thus we may assume . Set . Then . By induction, we see . Since , by Lemma 11, we see . It follows that . □
Theorem 8. Let G be a non-abelian quasi-core-2 2-group with . Then , are cyclic, and either or .
Proof. If G is metacyclic, then the conclusion holds by Lemma 10. So we may assume is non-metacyclic, , and with . Thus . By Corollary 6, is abelian. So , which implies and therefore is cyclic. Now we consider the following two cases: and .
- Case 1.
.
By Lemma 11, we see . We may assume . Then and . Thus and . Without loss of generality, we may assume , and . Let . Then . If or , then . Thus , which implies , a contradiction. So and . Noticing that and , we see by the above. It follows from that . So, we see .
- Case 2.
.
In this case, we consider the following two subcases: is cyclic and is not cyclic.
- Subcase 1.
is cyclic.
If , then and . So we may assume . By Lemma 10, we see or . If , then . Thus we may assume and . It follows that . According to Lemma 10, it is easy to see . So and therefore , in contradiction to the hypothesis.
- Subcase 2.
is not cyclic.
Since , . By Lemma 10, we see or . Similarly, or . It follows that , and . Then . So is cyclic.
Now we prove . Assume or , and .
If , then . Since is not cyclic, we see . Take and assume . It follows from that . So .
If , then . If , then and . It is easy to see that . Assume . Take and assume . It follows from that and so .
If or , we may assume by the above. It is easy to see that . Thus , which implies and . On the other hand, we see and therefore . It follows that . However, it is impossible.
Assume or . Without loss of generality, we may assume or . Then . It is clear that . □