arXiv:1710.10838v1 [] 30 Oct 2017

PERMUTATION REPRESENTATIONS OF NONSPLIT
EXTENSIONS INVOLVING ALTERNATING GROUPS
ROBERT M. GURALNICK AND MARTIN W. LIEBECK
Abstract. L. Babai has shown that a faithful permutation representation of a nonsplit extension of a group by an alternating group Ak
must have degree at least k2 ( 21 − o(1)), and has asked how sharp this
lower bound is. We prove that Babai’s bound is sharp (up to a constant factor), by showing that there are such nonsplit extensions that
have faithful permutation representations of degree 32 k(k − 1). We also
reprove Babai’s quadratic lower bound with the constant 12 improved to
1 (by completely different methods).

Dedicated to our friend and colleague Alex Lubotzky
1. Introduction
Let Ak and Sk denote the alternating and symmetric groups of degree k.
We consider finite group extensions H of the form
(1)

1 → M → H → Ak → 1,

where M 6= 1 and the extension is nonsplit.
In a November 2016 lecture at the Jerusalem conference “60 Faces to
Groups” in honour of Alex Lubotzky’s 60th birthday, Laci Babai discussed
faithful permutation representations of such groups H, and noted that he
had proved a lower bound of the form k2 ( 21 − o(1)) for the degree of such
a representation; this bound appears in [1]. He asked how close to best
possible his bound is, suggesting (perhaps provocatively) that there might be
an exponential lower bound for the degree of the form C k for some constant
C > 1.
In this note, we show that Babai’s lower bound is in fact sharp (up to
a constant factor), and we also give a different proof of his quadratic lower
bound. Here are our two main results.
Date: October 31, 2017.
Guralnick was partially supported by NSF grant DMS-1600056. This work was started
during the conference Midrasha 20 and the authors wish to thank the Institute for Advanced Studies at Hebrew University for its support. We thank László Babai for discussing
the problem with us. We also thank Eamonn O’Brien for help with some MAGMA
computations.
1

2

ROBERT M. GURALNICK AND MARTIN W. LIEBECK

Theorem 1.1. Let k > 20. If H is a nonsplit extension as in (1), and H
embeds in Sℓ for some ℓ, then ℓ ≥ k(k − 1).
With significantly more work, it is likely that the lower bound k(k − 1)
in this result could be replaced by 23 k(k − 1). This would be best possible,
by the next result (taking p = 3 in part (i)).
Theorem 1.2. Let k ≥ 10 and let p be a prime.
(i) If p is odd and p divides k, then there is a nonsplit extension H as
in (1), with M an elementary abelian p-group, such that H has a
faithful permutation representation of degree 12 pk(k − 1).
(ii) There is a nonsplit extension H as in (1), with M an elementary
abelian 2-group, such that H has a faithful transitive permutation
representation of degree 2k(k − 1).
In §2 we prove Theorem 1.1, and in §3 and §4 we prove the two parts of
Theorem 1.2.
Throughout we shall use the notation of [6] for modules for symmetric
groups Sn : for a field F and a partition λ of n, S λ denotes the Specht
module, and D λ the irreducible module for Sn over F corresponding to λ.
Also, if H is a subgroup of G, and V is an F H-module, then VHG denotes
the corresponding induced module for G.
2. Lower bounds: proof of Theorem 1.1
In this section we prove Theorem 1.1. Let P (H) denote the minimal
degree of a faithful permutation representation of a group H.
Theorem 2.1. Let k > 20, and suppose H is a nonsplit extension
1 → M → H → Ak → 1.
Then P (H) ≥ k(k − 1).
Proof. Suppose false, and let H be a minimal counterexample (for a fixed k).
Write G = Ak , and let π be the projection map H → G. If there is a proper
subgroup H1 of H such that π(H1 ) = G, then H1 is still a nonsplit extension
and so P (H1 ) ≥ k(k − 1) by the minimality of H. This is a contradiction,
since P (H) ≥ P (H1 ). Hence there is no such H1 , and so M ≤ Φ(H), the
Frattini subgroup. In particular, M is nilpotent.
As P (H) < k(k − 1), H has a subgroup H0 such that [H : H0 ] < k(k − 1)
and H0 is maximal subject to not containing M . If H0 is not corefree in H,
its core is a nontrivial normal subgroup N of H; but then H/N is a nonsplit
extension of M/N by Ak , and P (H/N ) ≤ [H/N : H0 /N ] < k(k − 1),
contradicting the minimality of H. Hence H0 is corefree.
We next claim that π(H0 ) = Y ∼
= Ak−1 . For if not, then [Ak : π(H0 )] ≥
1
k(k
−
1)
(see
[9,
1.1]),
and
so
[H
: H0 ] ≥ k(k − 1), a contradiction. Any
2

PERMUTATION REPRESENTATIONS OF NONSPLIT EXTENSIONS

3

nontrivial module for Y has dimension at least k − 3 (see [7, 5.3.7]). Hence
if M has no trivial Y -quotient, then [H : H0 ] ≥ k · 2k−3 > k(k − 1), a
contradiction. Thus Y acts trivially on M/M0 , where M0 = M ∩ H0 . By
the maximality of H0 , it follows that M0 has prime index p in M . Since M0
is corefree, this implies that M is an elementary abelian p-group and hence
is an Fp G-module.
There is a surjective Y -homomorphism from M to Fp . By Frobenius
reciprocity and the fact that M0 is corefree, it follows that as an Fp Gmodule, M injects into the induced module (Fp )G
Y.
(k−1,1) . If
∼
Suppose first that p does not divide k. Then (Fp )G
Y = Fp ⊕ S
2
∼ 2
p 6= 2, then H 2 (G, (Fp )G
Y ) = H (Y, Fp ) = 0 and also H (G, Fp ) = 0 (see
2
[8]) whence H (G, M ) = 0, a contradiction. If p = 2, then the same com2
putation shows that H 2 (G, (F2 )G
Y ) is 1-dimensional and similarly H (Y, F2 )
is 1-dimensional (again by [8]), whence H 2 (G, S (k−1,1) ) = 0. Thus, M is
the trivial module and so H is the double cover of G. However, the double
cover of Ak−1 embeds in the double cover of Ak , whence π(H0 ) is not Y , a
contradiction.
Now suppose that p divides k. Then (Fp )G
Y is a uniserial module with
trivial socle and head, and heart equal to the irreducible module D (k−1,1)
of dimension k − 2 (notation of [6, p.39]). If p 6= 2, it follows by [8] that
H 2 (G, M ) = 0 for any submodule M of (Fp )G
Y , a contradiction. Hence
2
(k−1,1)
p = 2. It is still true by [8] that H (G, D
) = 0, whence D (k−1,1) is not
a quotient of M . Thus, either M = F2 or M = (F2 )G
Y . In the first case, we
note as above that π(H0 ) cannot be Y , a contradiction. Hence M = (F2 )G
Y,
of dimension k. Since M is uniserial, it follows that H has a unique minimal
normal subgroup.
Note that [H : H0 ] = 2k. This implies that there is a faithful irreducible
CH-module W of dimension less than 2k. Now any H-orbit on the set of
nontrivial linear characters of M has size 1, k or at least k(k − 1)/2. Since
WM must have a linear constituent that is not fixed by H, by Clifford’s
theorem there are therefore precisely k distinct linear characters of M occurring in W , and since dim W < 2k, each occurs with multiplicity 1. Hence
dim W = k, and so H embeds in GLk (C). Since H is perfect (it is perfect
modulo the Frattini subgroup), in fact, H embeds in SLk (C). But the largest
elementary abelian 2-subgroup of SLk (C) has rank k − 1, whereas M ∼
= Fk2 ,
a contradiction. This completes the proof.

We can obtain a better lower bound in certain cases:
Theorem 2.2. Let k > 22, and let H be a nonsplit extension
1 → M → H → Ak → 1
such that gcd(2k, |M |) = 1. Then P (H) ≥ 21 k(k − 1)(k − 2).

4

ROBERT M. GURALNICK AND MARTIN W. LIEBECK

Proof. Suppose false, and let H be a minimal counterexample. We copy the
previous proof. In particular, we deduce that M ≤ Φ(H), M is nilpotent
and H has a corefree subgroup H0 of index less than 12 k(k − 1)(k − 2). By [9,
1.1], H0 M/M must contain X := Ak−2 . As in the previous result, H0 must
normalize a subgroup of prime index r in M . Hence M is an elementary
abelian r-group for some odd prime r with r not dividing k. It follows that
k
M embeds in (Fr )A
X . In particular, the composition factors of M are among
(k)
(k−1,1)
(k−2,2)
D ,D
,D
and D (k−2,1,1) . By [10, Thm. 2] and [4, Thm 4.1,
Prop. 5.4], it follows that H 2 (Ak , M ) = 0, a contradiction.

Remark One can construct examples with M a 3-group such that H
has a faithful permutation representation of degree 23 k(k − 1)(k − 2). The
construction is very similar to those given in the next section.
3. Proof of Theorem 1.2 – the odd case
In this section we prove Theorem 1.2(i). Let p be an odd prime and
assume that k ≥ 10 and p divides k. Let G = Ak and let Y ∼
= Sk−2 be a
Young subgroup stabilizing a subset of size 2.
Let S = S (k−2,1,1) be the Specht module, and D = D (k−2,1,1) and L =
(k−1,1)
D
be irreducible modules for G over Fp (the restrictions to G = Ak
of the corresponding irreducibles for Sk , using the notation of [6]). We need
the following relatively easy results about these modules. The first follows
from [10, Theorem 2].
Lemma 3.1.
(i) dim S = 12 (k − 1)(k − 2), dim L = k − 2 and dim D =
1
2 (k − 2)(k − 3).
(ii) S is indecomposable with socle isomorphic to L and head isomorphic
to D.
Let θ be the nontrivial 1-dimensional Fp Y -module.
Lemma 3.2.
(i) The induced module θYG has socle and head isomorphic
to L, and the maximal submodule modulo the socle is isomorphic to
Fp ⊕ D.
(ii) Let M be the submodule of θYG with composition factors D and L.
Then
(a) H 2 (G, M ) 6= 0, and
(b) the restriction MY ∼
= θ ⊕ M0 for some Fp Y -module M0 .
Proof. (i) In characteristic 0, the Littlewood-Richardson rule shows that θYG
has composition factors S (k−2,1,1) and S (k−1,1) . Hence using Lemma 3.1(ii),
we see that in characteristic p, the composition factors are D, Fp and L
(twice).
Let V be the Fp G-module θYG . We now compute the socle of V . By
Frobenius Reciprocity, Hom(Fp , V ) = 0. Also LY = θ ⊕ L0 with L0 irreducible, so Hom(L, V ) ∼
= Hom(LY , θ) is 1-dimensional. Finally, D ∼
= ∧2 L,

PERMUTATION REPRESENTATIONS OF NONSPLIT EXTENSIONS

5

so DY ∼
= (θ ⊗ L0 ) ⊕ ∧2 L0 , and both summands are irreducible. Hence
Hom(D, V ) ∼
= Hom(DY , θ) = 0. It follows that soc(V ) ∼
= L. Now the
conclusion of (i) follows from the fact that V is self-dual.
(ii) By the previous paragraph, θ is the only 1-dimensional composition
factor of MY , and it appears in the socle. On the other hand, M ⊆ V = θYG ,
so by Frobenius reciprocity MY surjects onto θ. Hence MY = θ ⊕ M0 as
claimed.
It remains to show that H 2 (G, M ) 6= 0. First note that for i = 1, 2 we
have
(2)

H i (G, V ) = H i (G, θYG ) = H i (Y, θ) = 0

(here we are using the assumptions that p is not 2 and k > 9). Consider
0 → M → V → V /M → 0.
Then (2), together with the long exact sequence in cohomology, gives
H 2 (G, M ) ∼
= H 1 (G, V /M ). Since V /M is isomorphic to the codimension
1 submodule of the k-dimensional permutation module for G which is uniserial, H 1 (G, V /M ) 6= 0. This completes the proof.

Proof of Theorem 1.2(i) Let M be as in the previous lemma, and consider
the group H defined by a nonsplit extension as follows:
1 → M → H → Ak → 1.
(such a nonsplit extension exists, by Lemma 3.2(ii)(a)). Since M is uniserial
and H 2 (G, L) = 0, M is contained in the Frattini subgroup of H. Let M0 the
Y -invariant hyperplane of M , as in Lemma 3.2(ii)(b), and let E = NG (M0 ).
Then E/M = Y . This gives rise to the sequence
1 → M/M0 → E/M0 → Y.
As observed in (2), H 2 (Y, M/M0 ) = H 2 (Y, θ) = 0, and so the above sequence
splits. Thus E contains a subgroup E0 of index p. The action of H on the
cosets of E0 maps H into the symmetric group of degree 21 pk(k − 1). Since
the core of E0 is trivial, this is an embedding of H. This proves Theorem
1.2(i).
4. Proof of Theorem 1.2 – the even case
In this section we prove Theorem 1.2(ii), the case where p = 2. In this
case, unlike part (i) of the theorem, there is no restriction on residue of k
modulo p. . Let k ≥ 10, let G = Ak acting on Ω = {1, . . . , k}, and let
Y ∼
= Sk−2 be the stabilizer in G of the subset {1, 2}. Write F = F2 , and
define P = (F )G
Y , the permutation module over F of G acting on the set of
pairs in Ω. Define the fixed point space CP (Y ) = {v ∈ P : vy = v ∀y ∈ Y }.
Lemma 4.1.
(i) The fixed point space CP (Y ) has dimension 3.
(ii) dim H 2 (G, P ) = 2.

6

ROBERT M. GURALNICK AND MARTIN W. LIEBECK

Proof. The first statement holds since the action of G on pairs has rank
3. The second follows by the Eckmann–Shapiro Lemma [5, Theorem 4]:
2
dim H 2 (G, P ) = dim H 2 (G, (F )G

Y ) = dim H (Y, F ) = 2.
Let eij denote a basis element of P corresponding to the subset {i, j} of
Ω, where i < j. Note that this is an orthonormal basis with respect to the
standard inner product ( , ) on P (which is preserved by G). Now define the
following elements of P :
P
xi = j eij (1 ≤ i ≤ k)
P
f = i,j eij
P
u = 2<i<j eij .
Note that a basis for the fixed point space CP (Y ) is {u, f, y}, where y =
x1 + x2 . Since P is self dual, it follows also that P/[Y, P ] is 3-dimensional,
i.e. there is a 3-dimensional trivial quotient of P as an F Y -module.
Assume now that k ≡ 3 (mod 4). Then P = P1 ⊕P2 ⊕P3 ∼
= F ⊕S (k−1,1) ⊕
S (k−2,2) with each summand irreducible (where we identify each S (k−i,i) with
its reduction modulo 2) . We can identify P1 = F f , P2 = F x1 + . . . + F xk
(of dimension k − 1) and P3 = (P1 + P2 )⊥ . By Frobenius reciprocity, CPi (Y )
has dimension 1 for each i.
Now u is orthogonal to P1 + P2 , since (u, u) = 0 (as k ≡ 3 (mod 4)),
whence (u, f ) = 0 and (u, xi ) = k − 3 = 0 for i > 2 and (u, xi ) = 0 for
i = 1, 2. Let P0 = (F u)⊥ . Then P0 is a Y -invariant hyperplane containing
P1 + P2 .
Since H 2 (As , F ) is 1-dimensional for s ≥ 4, it follows by Frobenius
reciprocity that dim H 2 (G, P1 ) = 1. Also H 2 (G, P2 ) = 0 by [8], and so
dim H 2 (G, P3 ) = 1 by Lemma 4.1(ii).
Define the following two elements in G:
g1 = (1 2)(3 4), g2 = (3 4)(5 6),
so that g1 ∈ Y ∼
= Sk−2 and g2 ∈ X, where X := G12 ∼
= Ak−2 .
We now consider 2-cocycles. We assume that all 2-cocycles δ are normalized so that δ(1, h) = δ(h, 1) = 1 for all h.
By the Eckmann-Shapiro Lemma, as we noted, we have an isomorphism
from H 2 (Y, F ) to H 2 (G, P ) and these have dimension 2. For each of the
four elements in H 2 (Y, F ), we can choose a 2-cocycle ǫ representing that
element, and ǫ is completely determined (up to a coboundary) by ǫ(g1 , g1 )
and ǫ(g2 , g2 ).
Let δ be a 2-cocyle representing an element of H 2 (G, P ) which is nontrivial
in H 2 (G, P3 ). Let ǫ ∈ H 2 (Y, F ) correspond to δ via the isomorphism given
by the Eckmann-Shapiro Lemma. Choose coset representatives gij for Y in

PERMUTATION REPRESENTATIONS OF NONSPLIT EXTENSIONS

7

G as follows:
gij = (1 i)(2 j), if 2 < i < j,
g1j = (2 1 j) if j > 2,
g2j = (1 2 j) if j > 2,
g12 = 1.
Note that gij sends {1, 2} → {i, j} for all i, j.
We need some information about δ(gi , gi ) for i = 1, 2.
Lemma 4.2.
(i) δ(g1 , g1 ) is not contained in P0 .
(ii) δ(g2 , g2 ) is contained in P0 .
Proof. We proceed by induction on k (assuming as above that k ≡ 3 (mod 4)).
If k = 7 or 11, the conclusion follows by direct computation using Magma
[3]. So assume that k ≥ 15.
Let Ω0 = {1, . . . , k−4}, and let G(Ω0 ) ∼
= Ak−4 be the subgroup of G acting
trivially on the complement of Ω0 . Note that the permutation module P (Ω0 )
for G(Ω0 ) acting on pairs in Ω0 is a G(Ω0 )-summand of P .
P
Let ms = δ(gs , gs ) for s = 1, 2 and write ms =
αij eij . By the isomorphism given in the Eckmann-Shapiro Lemma (cf. [5, p. 488] or [2, p. 43]),
the determination of αij depends only on ǫ(gs , gs ) and the coset representatives gij given above that take {1, 2} to {i, j}. Note that if i, j ∈ Ω0 , then gij
is in G(Ω0 ). Thus, in computing αij for i, j ∈ Ω0 , we can work in G(Ω0 ). It
follows that the projection of δ(gs , gs ) in P (Ω0 ) is precisely δ′ (gs , gs ), where
δ′ is the 2-cocycle corresponding to δ, viewed as a function on G(Ω0 )×G(Ω0 )
with values in P (Ω0 ) (i.e. δ′ corresponds to ǫ in the isomorphism given by
the Eckmann-Shapiro Lemma for the smaller group).
Now define a collection of subsets of Ω, as follows. Write D = {1, 2, . . . , k−
8}, and let
Ω0 = D ∪ {k − 7, k − 6, k − 5, k − 4},
Ω1 = D ∪ {k − 3, k − 2, k − 1, k},
Ω2 = D ∪ {k − 7, k − 6, k − 3, k − 2},
Ω3 = D ∪ {k − 5, k − 4, k − 3, k − 2},
Ω4 = D ∪ {k − 7, k − 6, k − 1, k},
Ω5 = D ∪ {k − 5, k − 4, k − 1, k},
Ω6 = D.
P6
P
Then u = 0 u(Ωi ), where u(Ωi ) = 2<r,s∈Ωi ers .
Let mj = δ(gj , gj ) for j = 1, 2. By induction we have (m1 , u(Ωi )) = 1,
(m2 , u(Ωi )) = 0 for all i, and hence (m1 , u) = 1 and (m2 , u) = 0. Both
conclusions of the lemma follow.

Corollary 4.3. Let k ≥ 7 be an integer such that k ≡ 3 (mod 4), and let
M be the F2 Ak -module that is the reduction modulo 2 of the Specht module
S (k−2,2) . Let H be a nonsplit extension
1 → M → H → Ak → 1.

8

ROBERT M. GURALNICK AND MARTIN W. LIEBECK

Then H has a faithful transitive permutation representation of degree 2k(k −
1).
Proof. Identify M with P/(P1 + P2 ), and define M0 to be the Y -invariant
hyperplane P0 /(P1 + P2 ). Let π : H → Ak be the canonical map with kernel
M , and set J = π −1 (Y ) and L = π −1 (X).
We have J = NH (M0 ). Consider the group L/M0 . By Lemma 4.2,
L/M0 ∼
= Z/2 × Ak−2 . It follows that H contains a subgroup L0 containing
M0 with L0 /M0 ∼
= Ak−2 . Thus, [H : L0 ] = 2k(k − 1). Since M is the unique
minimal normal subgroup of H, it follows that L0 is corefree in H. Hence H
has a faithful transitive permutation representation of degree 2k(k − 1). 
We can now prove Theorem 1.2(ii).
Theorem 4.4. Let k ≥ 7. Then there is a nonsplit extension
1 → M → H → Ak → 1,
with M an elementary abelian 2-group, such that H has a faithful transitive
permutation representation of degree at most 2k(k − 1).
Proof. If k ≡ 3 (mod 4), the conclusion follows from the previous result, so
assume this is not the case. Write k = j − i, where 0 < i ≤ 3 and j ≡ 3
(mod 4). Let
1 → M → H → Aj → 1.
be the nonsplit extension constructed in Corollary 4.3, and let L0 be a
corefree subgroup of H of index 2j(j − 1), with coset space Γ = (H : L0 ).
Define J to be the subgroup of H containing M with J/M = Ak .
Observe that J is a nonsplit extension of M by Ak , since the coset xM
for x = (1 2)(3 4) ∈ H/M = Aj consists of elements of order 4 by Lemma
4.2. Also, the orbits of J on Γ have size 2, 2k or 2k(k − 1). Let J0 be
a minimal subgroup of J with J = J0 M . Since J is a nonsplit extension,
N := J0 ∩ M 6= 1. So J0 is a nonsplit extension of N by Ak . Some orbit
of J must be nontrivial for N and so the image of J on this orbit must be
nonsplit. The conclusion follows.

Remark It is not hard to see that in fact J0 is faithful only on the orbit
of size 2k(k − 1) (for k sufficiently large, this follows by Theorem 1.1).
References
[1] L. Babai, On the degrees of non-split extensions by an alternating group, preprint.
[2] D. J. Benson, Representations and cohomology. I. Basic representation theory of
finite groups and associative algebras, Second edition, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics 30 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.
[3] W. Bosma, J. Cannon and C. Playoust, The Magma algebra system. I. The user
language, J. Symbolic Comput. 24 (1997), 235–265.
[4] V. P. Burichenko, A. S. Kleshchev and S. Martin, On cohomology of dual Specht
modules, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 112 (1996), 157–180.

PERMUTATION REPRESENTATIONS OF NONSPLIT EXTENSIONS

9

[5] B. Eckmann, Cohomology of groups and transfer, Ann. of Math. 58 (1953), 481–
493.
[6] G.D. James, The Representation Theory of the Symmetric Groups, Lecture Notes
in Math. 682, Springer, Berlin, 1978.
[7] P.B. Kleidman and M.W. Liebeck, The Subgroup Structure of the Finite Classical
Groups, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Series, vol. 129, Cambridge University
Press, 1990.
[8] A. Kleshchev and A. Premet, On second degree cohomology of symmetric and
alternating groups, Comm. Algebra 21 (1993), 583–600.
[9] M.W. Liebeck, On graphs whose full automorphism group is an alternating group
or a finite classical group, Proc. London Math. Soc. 47 (1983), 337–362.
[10] M.H. Peel, Hook representations of the symmetric groups, Glasgow Math. J. 12
(1971), 136–149.
Department of Mathematics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA
E-mail address: guralnic@usc.edu
Department of Mathematics, Imperial College, London SW7 2AZ, UK
E-mail address: m.liebeck@imperial.ac.uk

