On Insoluble Transitive Subgroups in the Holomorph of a Finite Soluble Group

If g \in M_* and m \in M then g \cdot m =\alpha_g \theta_g(m) with \alpha_g \in M, so (ii) and (iii) are equivalent. Assume that these conditions hold. Then, for g, h \in M_* we have (gh) \cdot e = g \cdot (h \cdot e)=g \cdot \alpha_h \in M since \alpha_h \in M. Thus M_* is closed under multiplication. Since M_* is finite and contains the identity element (e, \mathrm{id}) of \mathrm{Hol}(N), it follows that M_* is a subgroup of G. Hence (i) holds.

Conversely, assume (i) and let g \in M_* and m \in M. As G is transitive, there is some h \in G with h \cdot e =m. Then h \in M_* and \alpha_h=m. Since M is G-admissible, we have gh \in M_* and so g \cdot m = g \cdot (h \cdot e)= (gh) \cdot e \in M since gh \in M_*. Thus (ii) holds.

For the first statement, if h=(\alpha_h,\theta_h) \in H then \alpha_h \in M, and \theta_h restricts to an automorphism of M by Proposition 2.2. Thus for m \in M we have h \cdot m= \alpha_h \theta_h(m) \in M. We may therefore view h as an element of \mathrm{Hol}(M). Since G is transitive on N, it is clear that H is transitive on M. If G is regular on N then the stabiliser of e in H is trivial, so H is regular on M.

For the converse, if G is regular on N and H acts regularly on some subgroup M then we must have H=\{ g \in G: g \cdot e \in M \} = M_*. Hence M_* is a group and M is G-admissible.

The action of G on N induces a well-defined action on N/M if and only if g \cdot (nm) \in (g \cdot n) M for all g \in G, n \in N and m \in M. This is equivalent to \alpha_g \theta_g(n) \theta_g(m) \in \alpha_g \theta_g(n)M for all g, n, m, and thus to the G-invariance of M. If M is a G-invariant normal subgroup, then M is G-admissible by Remark 2.3, and the stabiliser of the trivial coset eM is \{g \in G : g \cdot e \in M\}=M^*. Now let K be the core of M^* in G:

Then K \lhd G, and G/K embeds as a subgroup of \mathrm{Hol}(N/M). Moreover G/K is transitive on N/M since G is transitive on N.

Let (G,N) be a minimal counterexample to Conjecture 1.1. Let p be a prime such that N has a maximal normal subgroup of index p, and let L be the intersection of all such subgroups. Then L is a proper characteristic subgroup of N, and N/L is an elementary abelian p-group. In particular, L is a G-invariant normal subgroup of N. Let M be a maximal proper G-invariant normal subgroup of N containing L, and let \overline{N}=N/M. By Proposition 2.6 there is a normal subgroup K of G so that \overline{G}=G/K is a transitive subgroup of \mathrm{Hol}(\overline{N}). The stabiliser in \overline{G} of the identity in \overline{N} is M_*/K where M_* is soluble because (G,N) is minimal. Hence K is soluble. Since G is insoluble, it follows that \overline{G} is insoluble. Thus (\overline{G},\overline{N}) is a solution to Question 1.2, and it is irreducible by the maximality of M. By Theorem 3.7, (\overline{G},\overline{N}) is then as described in Theorem 3.6. In particular, |\overline{N}|=2^{3r} for some r \geq 1, so p=2.

If (G,N) is not a minimal counterexample, we may replace it by a pair (H,M) where M is a proper G-admissible subgroup of N and H=M_* is insoluble. Repeating this construction, we eventually reach a minimal counterexample (G_1,N_1) in which G_1 is a subgroup of G. By Theorem 3.2, \mathrm{GL}_3(2) occurs as a composition factor of G_1, and therefore as a subquotient of G.

Since N has no non-trivial proper G-invariant normal subgroup, it has no non-trivial proper characteristic subgroup. Thus N is characteristically simple, so N is the direct product of isomorphic simple groups by [Robinson, 3.3.15]. Since N is soluble, the conclusion follows.

Let r \geq 1 and let H be a transitive soluble subgroup of S_r. We will construct a transitive subgroup G \cong T \wr H of \mathrm{Aff}(V) where V=\mathbb{F}_2^{3r}, and we will show that the resulting pair of groups (G,V) is a solution to Question 1.2 such that V contains no non-trivial proper G-admissible subgroup. We view elements of \mathrm{Aut}(V)=\mathrm{GL}_{3r}(2) as block matrices, where each block is a 3 \times 3 matrix over \mathbb{F}_2. Thus the elements of \mathrm{Aff}(V) < \mathrm{GL}_{3r+1}(2) become block matrices in which each row (except the last) consists of r blocks followed by a vector in \mathbb{F}_2^3. The final row of course consists of 3r zeros, followed by 1.

Let J \leq \mathrm{Aff}(V) be the group of such block matrices of the form

where M_1, M_2, …, M_r \in T=\mathrm{GL}_3(2) and \psi is as in Lemma 4.1. Then J \cong T^r. We write J=T_1 \times T_2 \times \cdots \times T_r, where T_i consists of the elements of J with M_k=I for all k \neq i. We also write A_i (respectively, B_i) for the matrix in T_i whose ith component is the matrix A (respectively, B) of (?), and T_i' for the subgroup generated by A_i and B_i. Then the stabiliser of 0_V in J is the group J' = T'_1 \times T'_2 \times \cdots \times T'_r. Thus J' is a soluble group of order 21^r, and the pair (J,V) is a solution of Question 1.2. Writing V=V_1 \oplus \cdots \oplus V_r where V_i is the 3-dimensional subspace corresponding to the ith block, we see that each V_i is an \mathbb{F}_2[J]-submodule of V. Thus (J,V) is not irreducible if r \geq 2.

For each permutation \pi \in S_r, let P(\pi) \in \mathrm{Aff}(V) be the block matrix whose block in position (i,j) is the identity matrix if i=\pi(j), and the zero matrix otherwise, with the final column of P(\pi) consisting of zero vectors except for a 1 in the final entry. We have then embedded S_r as a subgroup of \mathrm{Aut}(V) within \mathrm{Aff}(V). Clearly this subgroup normalises J. Explicitly, if X \in J is the element in (Proof) and \pi \in S_r, we have

We identify the given subgroup H of S_r with its image P(H), and define G to be the subgroup J \rtimes H \cong T \wr H in \mathrm{Aff}(V). Then G is a transitive subgroup of \mathrm{Aff}(V) in which the stabiliser of 0_V is the soluble group G'=J' \rtimes H. Thus (G,V) is a solution of Question 1.2.

Finally, we verify that V contains no non-trivial proper G-admissible subspace. In particular, this means that V contains no non-trivial proper G-invariant subspace, so the pair (G,V) is irreducible. Let W \neq \{0_V\} be a G-admissible subspace of V. Then W_* properly contains G'. Thus W_* contains an element (t_1, \dots, t_r) \in J with t_j \not \in T_j' for at least one index j. Let v=(v_1, \ldots, v_r) be any element of V satisfying the condition that, for 1 \leq i \leq r, we have v_i =0 if and only if t_i \in T_i'. Since T' is transitive on \mathbb{F}_2^3 \backslash \{0_V\}, there exists (s_1, \ldots, s_r) \in J' so that (s_1, \ldots, s_r) (t_1, \ldots, t_r) \cdot 0_V = v. Since W_* is a group containing J', it follows that v \in W. Thus W contains the subspace of V generated by all such v, which is \bigoplus_{t_i \not \in T_i'} V_i. In particular, V_j \subseteq W. Since H \leq W_* and H is transitive on the r components, it follows that W contains V_i for every i. Hence W=V.

Everything except the last sentence follows from the previous discussion. If G_1 \cong T is a transitive subgroup of \mathrm{Aff}(V), then conjugation by a suitable element of \mathrm{Aut}(V) takes the stabiliser of 0_V in G_1 to G'=\langle \widehat{A}, \widehat{B} \rangle, and hence takes G_1 to G. Since G' has 8 conjugates in \mathrm{Aut}(V), there are 8 possible groups G_1.

\mathrm{Trans}(G) is normal in G since it is the kernel of the composite homomorphism G \hookrightarrow \mathrm{Aff}(V) \twoheadrightarrow \mathrm{Aut}(V). Clearly U is a subspace of V, and the map (v,I) \mapsto v gives an isomorphism of groups \mathrm{Trans}(G) \to U. Moreover, for u \in U and g=(v,A) \in G, we calculate

Thus Au \in U, so U is a G-invariant subspace. Finally, if U=V then for each g=(v,A) \in G we have (v,I) \in G and so (0_V,A)=(v,I)^{-1}g \in G', and the homomorphism G \to \mathrm{Aut}(V) has image G'.

Choosing bases of U and W, we may write elements \alpha of A and \beta of B as block matrices

where u, u' \in U and w, w' \in W and the matrices M, N correspond to \theta_\alpha, \theta_\beta. We need to show that w=0 and u'=0. Now as \alpha \beta = \beta \alpha, we have Mu'+u = u+u', w'+w=Nw+w'. The first of these simplifies to Mu'=u'. Keeping \beta fixed and letting \alpha \in A vary, we have \theta_\alpha(u')=u' for all \alpha in A. Thus u'=0 since U is fixed-point free. Similarly, w=0.

Let (e_j)_{1 \leq j \leq k} and (f_s)_{1 \leq s \leq t} be bases for U and W. Then an arbitrary element \alpha \in A acts on the \mathbb{F}_p[A]-module U via a matrix M=(m_{ij}), so that \alpha(e_j) = Me_j = \sum_i m_{ij} e_i. Similarly, \beta \in B acts on W via a matrix N=(n_{rs}). Then V=U\otimes W has basis (e_j \otimes f_s)_{1 \leq j \leq k, 1 \leq s \leq t} and the element (\alpha,\beta) \in A \times B =G acts on the \mathbb{F}_p[G]-module V via the matrix M \otimes N: we have (\alpha,\beta) (e_j \otimes f_s) = (M\otimes N) (e_j \otimes f_s) = \sum_{i,r} m_{ij} n_{rs} e_i \otimes f_r.

Now write \alpha \cdot 0_V = x = \sum_{j, s} x_{js} e_j \otimes f_s and \beta \cdot 0_V = y = \sum_{j, s} y_{js} e_j \otimes f_s, so that \alpha = (x, M \otimes I) and \beta = (y, I \otimes N) in \mathrm{Aff}(V)=V \rtimes \mathrm{Aut}(V). Since these two elements must commute, we have

Thus

It follows that, for each pair j, s, we have

Rearranging the coefficients of the vectors x and y into matrices X=(x_{js}) and Y=(y_{js}), this gives the matrix equation

where N^t is the transpose of N. If we now choose \alpha as in the statement, so x=0_V and \theta_\alpha - \mathrm{id} is invertible, then X=0 and the matrix M-I is invertible. It follows that Y=0. Thus \beta \cdot 0_V = 0_V. As \beta \in B was arbitrary, B \cdot 0_V= \{ 0_V\}.

Let H_x be the stabiliser in H of x \in X. For any h \in H, the stabiliser of h \cdot x in J is h H_x h^{-1} \cap J = h(H_x \cap J)h^{-1}. The order of this stabiliser is independent of h, so the J-orbits on X all have the same cardinality. Since these orbits form a partition of X, the number of orbits divides |X|. Thus, for some s \geq 0, there are p^s orbits, and each has cardinality p^t where t=r-s. As |J|>1 and J acts faithfully on X, we have t \geq 1. Also H/J has a well-defined action on the p^s orbits J \cdot x since h \cdot (J \cdot x) = J \cdot (h \cdot x) as J \lhd H. This action is transitive since H is transitive on X.

We show (i) by descending induction on i. If i=m then Hypothesis 6.1 holds by assumption. Suppose that i>1 and (G_i,V) satisfies Hypothesis 6.1, and let v \in V. Then the stabiliser G'_i(v) of v in G_i is soluble of p-power index, so the orbit G_i \cdot v has p-power cardinality. Then G_{i-1} \cdot v also has p-power cardinality by Proposition 6.2 with X=G_i \cdot v, H=G_i, J=G_{i-1}. Moreover the stabiliser G'_{i-1}(v) of v in G_{i-1} is soluble, being a subgroup of G'_i(v). Hence (G_{i-1},V) also satisfies Hypothesis 6.1. This completes the induction.

For (ii), we apply Proposition 6.2 with X=G_i \cdot 0_V, H=G_i, J=G_{i-1}. Let G' be the stabiliser of 0_V in G. For some s \geq 0, the set X decomposes into p^s orbits under G_{i-1}, and G_i/G_{i-1} acts transitively on these orbits. The stabiliser of the orbit G_{i-1} \cdot 0_V in this action is G_{i-1} G'_i/G_{i-1}, where G'_i=G' \cap G_i is the stabiliser of 0_V in G_i. Since G' is soluble by hypothesis, the groups G'_i and G_{i-1}G'_i/G_{i-1} \cong G'_i/(G'_i \cap G_{i-1}) are also soluble. Thus G_i/G_{i-1} contains the soluble subgroup G_{i-1}G'_i/G_{i-1} of index p^s.

Let F be the Frattini subgroup of P. Then F \lhd H, and P/F is an elementary abelian p-group. Moreover, F \lneq P unless P is trivial.

Let \mathcal{M} be the kernel of the canonical homomorphism \mathbb{F}_p[H] \to \mathbb{F}_p[H/F]. It suffices by induction to show that \mathcal{N}^k \subseteq \mathcal{M} for some k>0. Replacing H and P by H/F and P/F, we may therefore assume that P is elementary abelian.

Now \mathcal{N} is the subspace of \mathbb{F}_p[H] spanned by all elements of the form h(\pi-1) for h \in H and \pi \in P; this subspace is visibly a left ideal, and it is a right ideal since

For k>0, we can use (Proof) repeatedly to write the product of any k elements of the form h(\pi-1) as

with h^* \in H and \pi_1, \ldots, \pi_k \in P. Moreover, since P is abelian, we may reorder the factors \pi_i-1. Taking k=(p-1)|P|+1, the product can therefore be rewritten to contain (\pi-1)^p for some \pi \in P. Since

this shows that \mathcal{N}^k=\{0\}.

Let P be a non-trivial normal p-subgroup of G, let \mathcal{J} be the Jacobson radical of \mathbb{F}_p[G], and let \mathcal{N} be the kernel of the canonical ring homomorphism \mathbb{F}_p[G] \to \mathbb{F}_p[G/P]. Then \mathcal{N} \subseteq \mathcal{J} since \mathcal{N} is nilpotent by Lemma 6.4. Let W be the subspace \mathcal{N} V of V. Then W is a G-invariant subspace since \mathcal{N} is an ideal. Now if W=V we have

so by Nakayama’s Lemma (applied to the finitely generated \mathbb{F}_p[G]-module V), we have V=\{0_V\}, contradicting the hypotheses. Since V is irreducible, we therefore have W=\{0_V\} \neq V.

For each \pi=(u_\pi,A_\pi) \in P we have \pi -1 \in \mathcal{N}, so (A_\pi-I)v=0_V for all v \in V. Hence P consists of translations. Then \mathrm{Trans}(G) is non-trivial, and by Proposition 5.2, U = \{ u \in V: (u,I) \in G \} is a non-trivial G-invariant subspace of V. Using the irreducibility of V again, it follows that U=V. By Proposition 5.2 again, G/\mathrm{Trans}(G) is isomorphic to the stabiliser G' of 0_V. This is a contradiction since G is insoluble but G' and \mathrm{Trans}(G) are soluble.

Let H be such a subgroup. Then there is a composition series (6.3) of G with G_i=H for some i \geq 1. By Lemma 6.3(i), the group G_1 in this series acts faithfully on V with orbits of p-power cardinality. Since G_1 is a soluble simple group, we have |G_1|=p. By [Robinson, 9.1.1], G contains a unique maximal normal p-subgroup O_p(G), and G_1 \subseteq O_p(G). Thus O_p(G) \neq \{1\}, contradicting Lemma 6.5.

Let J_1, …, J_s be the distinct minimal normal subgroups of H. We will show by induction that, for 1 \leq i \leq s, the subgroup K_i of H generated by J_1, …, J_i is the direct product J_1 \times \cdots \times J_i. This is clear for i=1. Assume that i>1 and that K_{i-1}=J_1 \times \cdots \times J_{i-1}. We claim that J_i \cap K_{i-1} = \{1\}. If 1 \neq a \in J_i \cap K_{i-1} we may write a=(a_1, \ldots, a_{i-1}) with each a_h \in J_h, and, without loss of generality, a_1 \neq 1. Taking the commutator with (b,1, \ldots, 1) for arbitrary b \in J_1, we have (b^{-1}a_1^{-1}ba_1,1, \ldots, 1) \in J_i \cap K_{i-1}. Thus b^{-1}a_1^{-1}ba_1 \in J_1 \cap J_i for all b \in J_1. As a_1 is not in the centre of J_1, we have J_1 \cap J_i \neq \{1\}. This is impossible since J_1 and J_i are distinct minimal normal subgroups. Hence J_i \cap K_{i-1} = \{1\} as claimed, and in particular J_i centralises K_{i-1}. It follows that the subgroup of H generated by the normal subgroups K_{i-1} and J_i is their direct product, that is, K_i=J_1 \times \cdots \times J_i.

Clearly the direct product of a subset of \{J_1, \ldots, J_r\} is a normal subgroup of H. For the converse, let K \lhd H and let K_i be the projection of K to the direct factor J_i in H. If suffices to show that, for each i, either K_i=\{1\} or K contains J_i. Suppose that K_i \neq \{1\}. Since K_i \lhd J_i and J is simple, we have K_i = J_i. Let a, b \in J_i be arbitrary. As a \in K_i, there is some \alpha=(a_1, \ldots, a_r)\in K with a_i=a. Let \beta=(1, \ldots, b, 1, \ldots) \in K, with b in the ith factor. Then

Since a, b are arbitrary elements of J_i, it follows that the derived subgroup [J_i,J_i] of J_i is contained in K. But [J_i,J_i]=J_i since J_i is a non-abelian simple group. Hence J_i \subseteq K as required.

Let J be a minimal normal subgroup of G. Then J \lhd K for some minimal characteristic subgroup K of G. As K is characteristically simple, it is the direct product of isomorphic simple groups [Robinson, 3.3.15], say K=T_1 \times \cdots \times T_m. By Corollary 6.6, these simple groups are non-abelian. By Proposition 6.8, a normal subgroup of K is just the direct product of some of the groups T_k, 1 \leq k \leq m. In particular, J has trivial centre. Thus, by Proposition 6.7, S is the direct product of all the minimal normal subgroups of G, each of which is itself a direct product of non-abelian simple groups. Hence S is a direct product of non-abelian simple groups as in (6.9).

The minimal normal subgroups of S are the groups T_k for 1 \leq k \leq r. For any g \in G, the group gT_k g^{-1} is also a minimal normal subgroup of S, so coincides with some T_j. Hence conjugation by G permutes the T_k. Any minimal normal subgroup J of G is also a normal subgroup of S, so, by Proposition 6.8, it must be the direct product of some of the T_k. If it contains T_k it must also contain g T_k g^{-1} for all g \in G. Thus J contains the direct product of all the conjugates of T_k. As this direct product is itself a normal subgroup of G, it coincides with J. Thus the minimal normal subgroups of G correspond to the G-orbits on \{T_1, \ldots, T_r\} as described.

Again let S = \mathrm{soc}(G). As S \lhd G, conjugation gives a homomorphism G \to \mathrm{Aut}(S) whose kernel is the centraliser C of S in G. Thus it suffices to show that C is trivial. Now C is a characteristic subgroup of G. If C \neq \{1\} then C contains a minimal normal subgroup D of G. But then D \leq S, so D is contained in the centre of S. This is a contradiction since S has trivial centre by Lemma 6.9.

By [CR, (7.11)], V_E is a direct sum of irreducible E[G]-modules. Moreover, these modules are all conjugate under the action of \Omega = \mathrm{Gal}(E/\mathbb{F}_p). This follows from the proof of [CR, (7.11)]) since, if k is a subfield of E of degree d over \mathbb{F}_p, then we have an isomorphism E \otimes_{\mathbb{F}_p} k \to E^d of E-algebras given by x \otimes y \mapsto ( x \sigma(y))_{\sigma \in \mathrm{Gal}(k/\mathbb{F}_p)}.

Let W be an irreducible E[G]-submodule of V_E. If g \in G acts trivially on W, then it also acts trivially on all Galois conjugates of W. Thus g acts trivially on V_E. Since G acts faithfully on V, this forces g=1. Hence G acts faithfully on W.

As E splits A and B, the semisimple algebras E[A]/\mathrm{rad}(E[A]) and E[B]/\mathrm{rad}(E[B]) are split. The result now follows from [CR, (10.38)(iii)].

We count in two ways the number of pairs (i,k) such that T_k acts non-trivially on g_i U. Firstly, for each i, the group T_k acts non-trivially on g_i U if and only if g_i^{-1} T_k g_i acts non-trivially on U. Since conjugation by g_i^{-1} permutes the groups T_k, and y(J) of the groups T_k act non-trivially on U, it follows that there are y(J) groups T_k which act non-trivially on g_i U. (This shows that y(J) does not depend on the initial choice i=1.) Thus the number of pairs (i,k) as above is my(J). Secondly, for 1 \leq k \leq r(J) we have T_k=gT_1g^{-1} for some g \in G, so that T_k acts non-trivially on g_i U if and only if T_1 acts non-trivially on g^{-1} g_i U. There are z(J) values of i for which T_1 acts non-trivially on g^{-1} g_i U since the two decompositions of W into irreducible E[S]-modules,

must contain isomorphic summands. Thus there are z(J) values of i for which T_k acts non-trivially on g_i U. (This shows that z(J) does not depend on the initial choice k=1.) There are therefore r(J)z(J) pairs (i,k) such that T_k acts non-trivially on g_i U. Hence (7.3) holds. Moreover, as the non-abelian group T_1 cannot be contained in \mathrm{Trans}(G), its linear action on W is non-trivial. Thus z(J) \geq 1. Hence by (7.3) we also have y(J) \geq 1.

Using Proposition 7.2 repeatedly, we find that the irreducible E[S]-module U decomposes as a tensor product over E:

where each factor U_J is an irreducible E[J]-module. Moreover, from Proposition 7.2 again and (?), we have

where U_{J,k} is an irreducible E[T_k]-module. There are precisely y(J) values of k such that U_{J,k} is a non-trivial E[T_k]-module. (For the remaining values of k, we have that U_{J,k} is the 1-dimensional trivial E[T_k]-module.) Hence we have \dim_E(U_J) \geq d_p(T_J)^{y(J)} for each minimal normal subgroup J. It then follows from (?) and (Proof) that

Let r= \sum_J r(J). Then S is the direct product of r non-abelian simple groups:

Since any automorphism of S must permute the r simple groups in this product, it follows that \prod_J \mathrm{Aut}(T_J)^{r(J)} is a normal subgroup of \mathrm{Aut}(S) with quotient isomorphic some subgroup of S_r. (This subgroup cannot be transitive if G has more than one minimal normal subgroup.) Now G embeds in \mathrm{Aut}(S) by Corollary 6.10, so

On the other hand, since G acts transitively on V, we have

Using (?) and (Proof), we then have (7.4).

(i) follows from Lemma 3.5, Proposition 5.2 and Lemma 6.5; (ii) from Lemma 6.9; (iii) from Corollary 6.10; (iv) from Lemma 6.3(ii); and (v) recapitulates Proposition 7.3 and Lemma 7.4.

We check the cases of Theorem 8.1. The only instance of Theorem 8.1(i) with R soluble is n=5, and the exceptional isomorphism A_5 \cong \mathrm{PSL}_2(4) means that this is included in case (iii) of the Corollary. In cases (iii) and (iv) of Theorem 8.1, R is insoluble. The same holds in case (v) since R has a quotient isomorphic to A_5 (see the proof of [Gural, (3.9)]).

This leaves only case (ii) of Theorem 8.1. We first consider n \geq 3. Then the stabiliser of a line or a hyperplane contains \mathrm{PSL}_{n-1}(q) as a subquotient, and this is a non-abelian simple group unless n=3 and q=2 or 3. If n=3 and q=2, we have T=\mathrm{PSL}_3(2) with a subgroup of index 7, giving (i) of the Corollary. If n=3 and q=3, we have T=\mathrm{PSL}_3(3) with a subgroup of index 13, giving (ii).

Now let n=2, so T=\mathrm{PSL}_2(q) where q = \ell^s \geq 4 is a power of some prime \ell, and q+1=p^a is also a prime power. Either \ell=2 or p=2.

If \ell=2, we have q=2^s=p^a-1 for an odd prime p and some a \geq 1. If a=1 then p is a Fermat prime and we have (iii). The case p=3 is omitted as \mathrm{PSL}_2(2) \cong S_3 is not a simple group. If a>1 then (p-1)(p^{a-1}+ \cdots + 1)=p^a-1=2^s so that p-1=2^u and p^{a-1}+\cdots + 1 =2^v with 1 \leq u <v. Then p \equiv 1 \pmod{2^u} and so a \equiv p^{a-1}+ \cdots +1 \equiv 0 \pmod{2^u}. Thus a is even, say a=2b. But then (p^b-1)(p^b+1)=2^s. As both factors must be powers of 2, we have p^b=3. This gives (iv).

Finally, if p=2 then \ell^s=2^a-1 for some a \geq 2. Thus \ell^s \equiv -1 \pmod{4}, so s and \ell are odd. If s>1 we have

Then 2^a has an odd factor \ell^{s-1}-\ell^{s-2}+ \cdots - \ell +1>1, giving a contradiction. Hence s=1 and q=\ell is prime with q=2^a-1. This says that q is a Mersenne prime, giving (v). We have q \geq 7 since q=3 gives \mathrm{PSL}_2(3) \cong A_4 which is not a simple group.

By Theorem 7.5(iv), each T_J has a soluble subgroup of index p^a for some a \geq 1. The triple (T_J,p,a) must therefore be one of those listed in Corollary 8.2. In the sequel, we will use the fact that, for q prime and s \geq 1,

We first consider the cases where p>2. Since d_p(T_J)^{y(J)} \geq 2 for each J, we may replace the product in (7.4) by a sum. Using (7.3), we then have

As z(J) \geq 1, it follows that there must be at least one J for which

In cases (i)–(iii) of Corollary 8.2 we have v_p(|\mathrm{Out}(T_J)|)=0 and
v_p(|\mathrm{Aut}(T_J)|)=v_p(|T_J|)=1. As d_p(T_J) \geq 2, (Proof) cannot be satisfied for any integer y(J) \geq 1. In case (iv), p=3 and we have v_3(|T_J|)=2 and v_3(|\mathrm{Out}(T_J)|)=1, so that v_3(|\mathrm{Aut}(T_J)|)=3, but from [online-atlas] we have d_3(T_J)=7 and again (Proof) cannot hold. Thus at least one of the T_J must be as in Corollary 8.2(v). Hence p=2, and, for each J, the group T=T_J has the form T=\mathrm{PSL}_2(q) for some Mersenne prime q=2^a-1 with a \geq 3. Then |T|=q(q+1)(q-1)/2, so v_2(|T|)=a and v_2(|\mathrm{Aut}(T)|)=a+1. From [Burkhardt, § VIII] we have d_2(T)=(q-1)/2 = 2^{a-1}-1. Writing T_J=\mathrm{PSL}_2(q(J)) with q(J) =2^{a(J)}-1, we find from (Proof) that

This holds only for a(J)=3 and y(J)=1 or 2.

We have now shown that, for at least one of the minimal normal subgroups J of G, we have a(J)=3 and thus T_J \cong \mathrm{PSL}_2(7) \cong \mathrm{GL}_3(2). We next show that in fact T_J \cong \mathrm{PSL}_2(7) for all J. To do so, we return to (7.4), which now becomes

Dividing by m and using (7.3), we then have

Since each z(J) \geq 1, it follows that

To proceed further, we collect together the minimal normal subgroups J with isomorphic simple components T_J. Let a_1=3, \ldots, a_h be the distinct values occurring among the a(J). For 1 \leq f \leq h, let T^{(f)} = \mathrm{PSL}_2(2^{a_f}-1) and let y_f=\sum_{J: a(J)=a_f} y(J). Then the previous inequality becomes

Since y_f(a_f+2) \geq 5 for each f, we may replace the sum by a product. We then have

where

For f=1, we calculate b_1(1)= \frac{3}{5}, b_1(2)=\frac{9}{10} and b_1(k) \geq \frac{9}{5} for k \geq 3. Moreover, for f>1 we have a_f \geq 5 and b_f(k) \geq \frac{15}{7} for all k \geq 1. Thus (Proof) can only hold if h=1 and y_1=1 or 2. Hence T_J \cong \mathrm{PSL}_2(7) for every J. Moreover, as y(J) \geq 1 for each J, there can be at most two minimal normal subgroups J of G: either there are two minimal normal subgroups J_1, J_2 with y(J_1)=y(J_2)=1, or there is a unique minimal normal subgroup J and y(J) \leq 2. As (Proof) now becomes

we must have z(J)=1 in each of these cases. Using (7.3) to find r(J) in terms of m, we obtain (i)–(iii) as in the statement.

In case (i) we have S=J_1 \times J_2. Noting that r=m, we write J_1=T_1 \times \cdots \times T_m and J_2 = T_{m+1} \times \cdots \times T_{2m}, where each T_k \cong T. Using Proposition 7.2 to decompose U as in the proof of Lemma 7.4, we have U=U_{J_1} \otimes_{\mathbb{F}_2} U_{J_2}, where U_{J_h} is an irreducible \mathbb{F}_2[J_h]-module for h=1, 2. Taking first h=1, we can further decompose U_{J_1} as

where U_{J_1,k} is an irreducible \mathbb{F}_p[T_k]-module for 1\leq k \leq m. Recall that, for each i, there are y(J_1) indices k such that the linear action of T_k on g_i U is not trivial. Since y(J_1)=1, we may choose the numbering of the factors T_k in J_1 so that only T_i acts non-trivially on g_i U. In particular, taking i=1 and recalling that U=g_1 U, it follows that U_{J_1,1} is a non-trivial irreducible \mathbb{F}_2[T_1]-module, and, for 2 \leq j \leq m, that U_{J_1,j}=\mathbb{F}_2 (the irreducible \mathbb{F}_2[T_j]-module with trivial action). Hence \dim U_{J_1}=\dim U_{J_1,1}=3 or 8. Similarly, for h=2 we decompose U_{J_2} as

where U_{J_2,k} is an irreducible \mathbb{F}_2[T_{m+k}]-module for 1 \leq k \leq m. We choose the numbering of the factors in J_2 so that T_{m+i} acts non-trivially on g_i U for each i. Then \dim U_{J_2}=\dim U_{J_2,1}=3 or 8. We therefore have \dim U=9 or 24 or 64.

In case (ii) we have S=J=T_1 \times \cdots \times T_{2m} and, applying Proposition 7.2 again, we have

where exactly two of the groups T_k act non-trivially on each summand g_i U of V. We choose the numbering of the factors in J so that again these are T_i and T_{m+i}. As before \dim U_j=1 if j \neq 1, m+1, and \dim U=9 or 24 or 64.

For the rest of the proof, we treat (i) and (ii) simultaneously. Since S \cong T^{2m} and G embeds in \mathrm{Aut}(S) \cong \mathrm{Aut}(T)^{2m} \rtimes S_{2m} by Theorem 7.5(iii), we have

so \dim U =9. Hence U=U_1 \otimes_{\mathbb{F}_2} U_{m+1} where U_1 and U_{m+1} are 3-dimensional irreducible modules over \mathbb{F}_2[T_1] and \mathbb{F}_2[T_{m+1}] respectively. In particular, T_1 = \mathrm{Aut}(U_1) and T_{m+1}=\mathrm{Aut}(U_{m+1}).

We claim that U is a fixed-point free \mathbb{F}_2[T_1 \times T_{m+1}]-module in the sense of Proposition 5.3. Take bases e_1, e_2, e_3 for U_1 and f_1, f_2, f_3 for U_{m+1}. If x = \sum_{j,s} x_{js} e_j \otimes f_s is a fixed point, then applying the element of T_1 which permutes e_1, e_2, e_3 cyclically, we see that \sum_{j,s} x_{js} e_{j+1} \otimes f_s = \sum_{j,s} x_{js} e_j \otimes f_s, so x_{js} is independent of j for each s. Similarly, x_{js} is independent of s, so x=x_{11} \sum_{j,s} e_j \otimes f_s. However, this element must also be fixed by the element of T_1 with e_1 \mapsto e_1+e_2, e_2 \mapsto e_2, e_3 \mapsto e_3, so that x_{11}=0. Thus x=0, proving the claim. Similarly, g_i U is a fixed-point free \mathbb{F}_2[T_i \times T_{i+m}]-module for each i.

Applying Proposition 5.3 repeatedly, we may view T_1 \times T_{m+1} as a subgroup of \mathrm{Aff}(U). As T_1 \times T_{m+1} is subnormal in G, it follows from Lemma 6.3(i) that the stabiliser of 0_U=0_V in T_1 \times T_{m+1} is a soluble subgroup of 2-power index. Any such subgroup has the form T'_1 \times T'_{m+1}, where T'_1, T'_{m+1} are subgroups of order 21 in T_1, T_{m+1}. In particular, T'_1 contains an element conjugate to the matrix A in (?), and, since A-I is invertible, we may apply Proposition 5.4 to conclude that T_{m+1} \cdot 0_V=\{0_V\}. This is a contradiction since T_{m+1} is insoluble.

In this case we have r=m and S=J=T_1 \times \cdots \times T_m. Since y(J)=1, we may assume that the T_i are numbered so that T_k acts non-trivially on g_i U if and only if k=i. Arguing as in the proof of Lemma 9.1, we have \dim U =3 or 8. Moreover,

so \dim U=3. By Lemma 6.3(i), the stabiliser J' of 0_V in J is a soluble subgroup of 2-power index, so J'=T'_1 \times \cdots \times T'_r where each T'_i has index 8 in T_i. It follows that the orbit of 0_V under J has cardinality 8^r=|V|, so that J acts transitively on V.

Since any irreducible \mathbb{F}_2[T_i]-module of dimension 3 is fixed-point free, it follows from Proposition 5.3 that

Conjugating G by an element of \mathrm{Aut}(V), we may assume the standard basis of V is obtained by concatenating bases of g_1 U, …, g_r U. Thus J consists of block matrices in \mathrm{GL}_{3r+1}(2) of the form

with v_i \in g_i U. Moreover, we may suppose that the basis of each g_i U is chosen so that the stabiliser T'_i of 0_V in T_i is generated by the matrices in T_i with M_i=A and M_i=B, where A and B are as in (?). Then, by Lemma 4.1, v_i=\psi(M_i), so the elements of J are as in (Proof).

We embed the symmetric group S_r into \mathrm{Aut}(V) by taking each \pi \in S_r to the block permutation matrix P(\pi) as in the proof of Theorem 3.6 in §?. Then S_r normalises J, and we can form the semidirect product J' \rtimes S_r inside \mathrm{Aff}(V).

Since J acts transitively on V, we have JG'=G and G/J \cong G'/J', where G' is the stabiliser of 0_V in G. As G' \cdot 0_V=\{0_V\} and G' normalises J, it follows from Proposition 9.3 below that G' \leq J' \rtimes S_r. Thus G'=J' \rtimes H for some subgroup H of S_r. This subgroup is uniquely determined by G once we have fixed the basis of V and therefore fixed the embedding of S_r into \mathrm{Aut}(V). Then G=JG'=J \rtimes H. Also, H must be soluble since G' is soluble. As G acts transitively on \{T_1, \ldots, T_r\}, but J acts trivially on this set, it follows that H is transitive as a subgroup of S_r. Hence H satisfies the conditions in Theorem 3.6, and G is exactly the subgroup T^r \rtimes H of \mathrm{Aff}(V) constructed from H there. In particular, the group G in the statement of Theorem 3.6 is uniquely determined, up to conjugation by \mathrm{Aut}(V), by the given subgroup H of S_r.

We first claim that the linear span of the invertible block diagonal matrices in \mathrm{GL}_{3r}(2) is the full algebra of block diagonal matrices. Let E^{(1)}, E^{(2)}, E^{(3)} be three (invertible) matrices in \mathrm{GL}_3(2) whose sum is the zero matrix. One possible choice is

Given 1 \leq i \leq r and M \in \mathrm{GL}_3(2), let K^{(1)}, K^{(2)}, K^{(3)} be the invertible block diagonal matrices in \mathrm{GL}_{3r}(2) such that K^{(j)} has M in the ith block and E^{(j)} in each of the other blocks. Then K^{(1)}+K^{(2)}+K^{(3)} has 3M=M in the ith block and 0 in all other blocks. It therefore suffices to observe that the full ring of 3 \times 3 matrices over \mathbb{F}_2 is spanned by its unit group T=\mathrm{GL}_3(2). Indeed, it is easy to see that the 6 elementary matrices and the 6 permutation matrices in T span the matrix ring. This proves the claim.

Clearly J' \rtimes S_r fixes 0_V and normalises J. Conversely, suppose that X \cdot 0_V=0_V and XJX^{-1}=J. Write X as a block matrix

Similarly, let X^{-1} be written as a block matrix with the matrix Q_{ij} in row i and column j. Thus we have the equalities of 3\times 3 matrices

Now let Y \in J have diagonal blocks M_1, … M_r as in (Proof). As XYX^{-1} \in J, we have

for some N_1, …, N_r \in \mathrm{GL}_3(2). It follows that

and

Let us write \overline{X} for the projection of X into \mathrm{Aut}(V)=\mathrm{GL}_{3r}(2). Then (Proof) shows that conjugating an invertible block diagonal matrix in \mathrm{GL}_{3r}(2) by \overline{X} gives another invertible block diagonal matrix. It then follows from the claim at the start of the proof that conjugating any block diagonal matrix (not necessarily invertible) by \overline{X} gives a block diagonal matrix. Thus, given any 3 \times 3 matrices M_1, …, M_r over \mathbb{F}_2, there exist matrices N_1, …, N_r so that (Proof) holds.

Let i \in \{1, 2, \ldots, r\}. Since X is invertible, there must be some h with P_{ih} \neq 0. Consider the block diagonal matrix M with an arbitrary matrix M_h in the h-th position, and all other blocks 0. Then the ij-th block of PMQ is P_{ih} M_h Q_{hj}. This must be 0 if j \neq i. Since this holds for arbitrary M_h, it follows that Q_{hj}=0 for all j \neq i. Since \sum_j Q_{hj} P_{jh}=I, we find that Q_{hi}P_{ih}=I, so Q_{hi} and P_{ih} are invertible. As Q_{hi} \neq 0, a similar argument shows that P_{ij}=0 for all j \neq h. Thus for each i, there is a unique h with P_{ih} \neq 0. Similarly, for each h, there is a unique i with P_{hi} \neq 0. Thus there is a permutation \pi \in S_r such that P_{ij} \neq 0 if and only if i= \pi(j). Setting Z_j=P_{\pi(j)j} \in \mathrm{GL}_3(2), we find that

Thus

Then (Proof) and (Proof) simplify to

If we now take M to be in J', so M_j \in T' and \psi(M_j)=0 for all j, then we have \psi(N_i)=0 and N_i \in T' for all i. Hence each Z_j lies in the normaliser of T' in T. Since T' is itself the normaliser of a Sylow 7-subgroup of T, this gives Z_j \in T'. The block diagonal matrix Z with blocks Z_j then lies in J', so X= Z^{-1} P(\pi) \in J' \rtimes S_r.