arXiv:1801.00113v1 [] 30 Dec 2017

A GENERALIZATION OF NEUMANN’S QUESTION
N. AHMADKHAH, S. MARZANG AND M. ZARRIN
Abstract. Let G be a group, m ≥ 2 and n ≥ 1. We say that G is an T (m, n)group if for every m subsets X1 , X2 , . . . , Xm of G of cardinality n, there exists
i 6= j and xi ∈ Xi , xj ∈ Xj such that xi xj = xj xi . In this paper, we give
some examples of finite and infinite non-abelian T (m, n)-groups and we discuss finiteness and commutativity of such groups. We also show solvability
length of a solvable T (m, n)-group is bounded in terms of m and n.
Keywords. Linear algebraic group. Rings. Solvable groups.
Mathematics Subject Classification (2010). 20G15; 16U80, 20D10.

1. Introduction
Let m, n be positive integers or infinity (denoted ∞) and X be a class of groups.
We say that a group G satisfies the condition X (m, n) (G is an X (m, n)-group,
or G ∈ X (m, n)), if for every two subsets M and N of cardinalities m and n,
respectively, there exist x ∈ M and y ∈ N such that hx, yi ∈ X . Bernhard H.
Neumann in 2000 [9], put forward the question: Let G be a finite group of order
|G| and assume that however a set M of m elements and a set N of n elements
of the group is chosen, at least one element of M commutes with at least one
element of N , that is G is an C(m, n)-group, where C is the class of abelian groups.
What relations between |G|, m and n guarantee that G is abelian? Even though
the latter question was posed for finite groups, the property introduced therein can
be considered for all groups.
Following Neumann’s question, authors in [1], showed that infinite groups satisfying the condition C(m, n) for some m and n are abelian. They obtained an
upper bound in terms of m and n for the solvability length of a solvable group G.
Also the third author in [13] studied the N (m, n)-groups, where N is the class of
nilpotent groups. Considering the analogous question for rings, Bell and Zarrin in
[3] studied the C(m, n)-rings and they showed that all infinite C(m, n)-rings (like
infinite C(m, n)-groups) are commutative and proved several commutativity results.
As a substantial generalization of C(m, n)-rings, Bell and Zarrin in [4] studied
the T (m, n)-rings. Let m ≥ 2 and n ≥ 1. A ring R (or a semigroup) is said to be a
T (m, n)-ring (or is an T (m, n)-semigroup), if for every m n-subsets A1 , A2 , . . . , Am
of R, there exists i 6= j and xi ∈ Ai , xj ∈ Aj such that xi xj = xj xi . They showed
that torsion-free T (m, n)-rings are commutative. Note that unlike C(m, n)-rings
there are the vast classes of infinite noncommutative T (m, n)-rings. Also they
discussed finiteness and commutativity of such rings.
In this paper, considering the analogous definition for groups, we prove some results for T (m, n)-groups and present some examples of such groups and give several
1

2

N. AHMADKHAH, S. MARZANG AND M. ZARRIN

commutativity theorems. Note that infinite T (m, n)-groups, unlike infinite C(m, n)groups, need not be commutative. For instance, we can see A5 × A is an infinite
non-Abelian T (22, 1)-group, where A5 is the alternating group of degree 5 and A
is an arbitrary infinite abelian group. However, certain infinite T (m, n)-groups can
be shown to be commutative. Clearly, every finite group is an T (m, n)-group, for
some m and n. It is not necessary that every group is an T (m, n)-group, for some
m ≥ 2, n ≥ 1. For example, if F be a free group, then it is not difficult to see that
F is not an T (m, n)-group, for every m ≥ 2, n ≥ 1.
It is easy to see that every C(m, n)-group is an C(max{m, n}, max{m, n})-group
and every C(max{m, n}, max{m, n})-group is an T (2, max{m, n})-group. Therefore every C(m, n)-group is an T (2, r)-group for some r. Thus a next step might be
to consider T (3, r)-groups. We show solvability length of a solvable T (3, n)-group
is bounded above in terms of n. Also we give a solvability criterion for T (m, n)groups in terms of m and n.
Finally, in view of T (m, n)-groups and X (m, n)-groups, we can give a substantial generalization of X (m, n)-groups. Let m, n be positive integers or infinity
(denoted ∞) and X be a class of groups. We say that a group G satisfies the
condition GX (m, n) (or G ∈ GX (m, n)), if for every m, n-subsets A1 , A2 , . . . , Am
of G, there exists i 6= j and xi ∈ Ai , xj ∈ Aj such that hxi , xj i ∈ X . Also a set
{A1 , A2 , . . . , Am } of n-subsets of a group G is called (m, n)-obstruction if it prevents
G from being an GX (m, n)-group. Therefore, with this definition, T (m, n)-groups
are exactly GC(m, n)-groups. Obviously, every X (m, n)-group is an GX (m + n, 1)group.
2. Some properties of T (m, n)-groups
Here, we use the usual notation, for example An , Sn , SLn (q), P SLn (q) and Sz(q),
respectively, denote the alternating group on n letters, the symmetric group on
n letters, the special linear group of degree n over the finite field of size q, the
projective special linear group of degree n over the finite field of size q and the
Suzuki group over the field of size q.
At first, we give some properties of T (m, n)-groups and then give some examples
of such groups. If 2 ≤ m1 ≤ m2 , n1 ≤ n2 , then every T (m1 , n1 )-group is a
T (m2 , n2 )-group. Therefore every T (m, n)-group is an T (max{m, n}, max{m, n})group.
Lemma 2.1. If G is an T (m, n)-group, H ≤ G and N E G, then two groups H
G
are T (m, n)-group.
and N
Lemma 2.2. Let m+n ≤ 4, then G is an T (m, n)-group if and only if it is abelian.
Proof. It is enough to consider only the groups that belongs to T (3, 1) and T (2, 2).
If G be a non-Abelian T (3, 1)-group, then there exist elements x and y of G, such
that [x, y] 6= 1. Therefore A1 = {x}, A2 = {y}, A3 = {xy} is a (3, 1)-obstruction of
G, a contrary.
If G is a non-Abelian T (2, 2)-group and [x, y] 6= 1. Then we can see that A1 =
{x, y}, A2 = {xy, yx} is a (2, 2)-obstruction of G, a contrary.

We note that the bound 4 in the above Lemma is the best possible. As D8 and
Q8 are T (4, 1)-groups.

A GENERALIZATION OF NEUMANN’S QUESTION

3

Proposition 2.3. Assume that a finite group G is not T (m, n)-group, for two
positive integers m, n. Then mn ≤ |G| − |Z(G)|. Moreover, if mn = |G| − |Z(G)|,
then for every a ∈ G\Z(G), |a| ≤ n + |Z(G)|.
Proof. As G is not an T (m, n)-group,Tthen there exists (m, n)-obstructionTfor G like
{A1 , A2 , . .S
. , Am }. It follows that Ai Aj = Ø for every i 6= j and Z(G) Ai = Ø.
Therefore m
i=1 Ai ⊆ G\Z(G) and so mn ≤ |G| − |Z(G)|.
Now if mn = |G|−|Z(G)|, then we can see that, for every noncentral element a ∈ G,
there exists 1 ≤ i ≤ m such that CG (a)\Z(G) ⊆ Ai . Thus |CG (a)| ≤ n + |Z(G)|
and so |a| ≤ n + |Z(G)|.

Corollary 2.4. S3 is an T (2, 3) and T (3, 2)-group. Also the dihedral group of
order 2n, D2n is an T (2, n). If n is even integer, then D2n is an T (2, n − 1) but
not an T (2, n − 2)-group. For this, if we put D2n = ha, b | an = b2 = 1, ab =
S n2 −1
CG (baj )\Z(D2n ). Then we can see that
a−1 i, A1 = hai\Z(D2n ) and A2 = j=1
{A1 , A2 } is a (2, n − 2)-obstruction. Moreover it is easy to see that, if n is even
integer, then D2n is an T ( n2 + 2, 1)-group. Also, if n is odd integer, then D2n is an
T (n + 2, 1)-group. Finally, every finite p-group of order pn is an T (pn−1 , p) and
also an T (p, pn−1 )-group.
Example 2.5. Let G = S4 . It is not difficult to see that, according to the centralizers of G, G is an T (14, 1), T (11, 2), T (6, 3), T (4, 5) and T (3, 7)-group.
|G|
Lemma 2.6. Every finite group G is an T (m, ⌈ |G|
m ⌉) and so is an T (m, ⌈ 2 ⌉), for
every m ≥ 2.

Proof. The result follows from Proposition 2.3.



Remark 2.7. Assume that G1 is an T (m1 , n1 )-group and G2 is an T (m2 , n2 )group. Then the group G1 × G2 need not to be an T (m, n)-group, where m =
max{m1 , m2 } and n = max{n1 , n2 }. For example, S3 is an T (3, 2)-group but
S3 ×S3 is not an T (3, 2)-group (note that S3 ×S3 is an T (7, 3)-group). In particular,
the group G1 × G2 need not to be even an T (m1 m2 , n1 n2 )-group. For example, it
is easy to see that the quaternion group Q8 is an T (4, 1)-group, but Q8 × S3 is not
an T (12, 2)-group (in fact, Q8 × S3 is an T (13, 2)-group). For, if we consider the
subsets of Q8 × S3 as follows:
A1 = {(i, (1, 2)), (−i, (1, 2))}, A2 = {(i, (1, 3)), (−i, (1, 3))},
A3 = {(i, (2, 3)), (−i, (2, 3))}, A4 = {(i, (1, 2, 3)), (−i, (1, 2, 3))},
A5 = {(j, (1, 2)), (−j, (1, 2))}, A6 = {(j, (1, 3)), (−j, (1, 3))},
A7 = {(j, (2, 3)), (−j, (2, 3))}, A8 = {(j, (1, 2, 3)), (−j, (1, 2, 3))},
A9 = {(k, (1, 2)), (−k, (1, 2))}, A10 = {(k, (1, 3)), (−k, (1, 3))},
A11 = {(k, (2, 3)), (−k, (2, 3))}, A12 = {(k, (1, 2, 3)), (−k, (1, 2, 3))}.
Then it is easy to see that the subsets {A1 , A2 , . . . , A12 } is a (12, 2)-obstruction
for the group Q8 × S3 .

4

N. AHMADKHAH, S. MARZANG AND M. ZARRIN

Lemma 2.8. Let G1 be an T (m, 1)-group, G2 be an abelian group, then G1 × G2
is an T (m, 1)-group.
Remark 2.9. Clearly every finite group is an T (m, n)-group for some m, n. But it
is not true that every infinite group is an T (m, n)-group. For instance, every group
which contain a free subgroup, is not an T (m, n)-group, for every m ≥ 2, n ≥ 1.
Moreover, it is well-known that every free group is a residually finite group (even
though the converse in not necessarily true). But there exist some residually finite
groups that are not again an T (m, n)-group, for every m ≥ 2, n ≥ 1. For example,
the group SL2 (Z) is a residually
finite
The subgroup of SL2 (Z) generated

 group.

1 2
1 0
by matrixes a =
and b =
is a free group of rank 2. So SL2 (Z) is
0 1
2 1
not an T (m, n)-group, for every m ≥ 2 and n ≥ 1.
For any nonempty set X, |X| denotes the cardinality of X. Let A be a subset of
a group G. Then a subset X of A is a set of pairwise non-commuting elements if
xy 6= yx for any two distinct elements x and y in X. If |X| ≥ |Y | for any other set
of pairwise non-commuting elements Y in A, then the cardinality of X (if it exists)
is denoted by w(A) and is called the clique number of A (for more information
concerning the clique number of groups, see for example [12] and [2]).
Lemma 2.10. Let G is not an T (m, n)-group and {A1 , A2 , . . . , Am } be a (m, n)obstruction for G. Then
m + max{w(Ai ) | 1 ≤ i ≤ m} ≤ w(G).
Proof. Clearly.



Lemma 2.11. Let G be an T (m, n)-group. Then w(G) < mn and G is center-byfinite.
Proof. We show that for any set X of pairwise non-commuting elements of G, we
have |X| < mn. Suppose that |X| ≥ mn, then we can take m n-subsets of X that
is a (m, n)-obstruction for G. It is a contradiction. By the famous theorem of B.
H. Neumann [8], since every set of non-commuting elements of T (m, n)-group G is
finite, therefore it is center-by-finite.

Now we show that for T (m, n)-groups with |Z(G)| ≥ n, we get even w(G) < m.
In fact, we have
Proposition 2.12. If G is an T (m, n)-group, then |Z(G)| < n or w(G) < m.
Proof. Let G be an T (m, n)-group and |Z(G)| ≥ n. We may assume Z1 ⊆ Z(G) and
|Z1 | = n. Now if w(G) ≥ m and {x1 , x2 , . . . , xm } be a pairwise non-commuting
set of G, then {x1 Z1 , x2 Z1 , . . . , xm Z1 } is a (m, n)-obstruction for G, which is a
contradiction.

It is easy to see that a group G is an T (m, 1)-group, if and only if w(G) < m.
Corollary 2.13. Assume that G is a nilpotent finite T (m, n)-group and p is a
prime divisor of |G| such that n ≤ p. Then G is an T (m, 1)-group. In particular,
every nilpotent T (m, 2)-group is an T (m, 1)-group.
If G is a non-Abelian group, then G is not an T (3, z), which z = |Z(G)|, since
w(G) ≥ 3.
If G is an T (w(G), 2)-group, then Z(G) = 1.

A GENERALIZATION OF NEUMANN’S QUESTION

5

Corollary 2.14. Let G be a non-Abelian T (m, n)-group with at least m pairwise
non-commuting elements, then G is a finite group.
Lemma 2.15. Let G be a non-Abelian T (2, n) or T (3, n)-group and N be a normal
subgroup of G such that G/N is non-Abelian. Then |N | < n.
Proof. Suppose that N = {a1 , a2 , . . . , at } and t ≥ n. It is enough to prove the
theorem for non-Abelian T (3, n)-groups. We chose elements x, y in G \ N , and we
consider three subsets of G, as follows:
and

A1 = {xa1 , xa2 , . . . , xat }, A2 = {ya1 , ya2 , . . . , yat }

A3 = {xya1 , xya2 , . . . , xyat }.
Now as G is an T (3, n)-group, we can follow that [x, y] ∈ N , that is G/N is abelian,
which is a contradiction.

Theorem 2.16. Let G be a non-Abelian group and its clique number is finite. Then
there exist a natural number m such that G is an T (m, n)-group for all n ∈ N .
Proof. As the clique number of G is finite, so according to the famous Theorem
of B. H. Neumann [8], G is center-by-finite. So we put [G : Z(G)] = m. We
claim that for every n ∈ N , G is an T (m, n)-group. There exists m − 1 elements
g1 , g2 , . . . , gm−1 in G, such that Z(G), g1 Z(G), g2 Z(G), . . . , gm−1 Z(G) are distinct
cosets of Z(G) in G and
G = Z(G)

[
[ m−1
(gj Z(G))).
(
j=1

Let {A1 , A2 , . . . , Am } be anT(m, n)-obstruction of G. Now as every gi Z(G) is
abelian, therefore
if gi Z(G) Ar 6= ∅ for some 1 ≤ i ≤ m − 1Tand 1 ≤ r ≤ m,
T
then gi Z(G) Aj = ∅ for every j 6= r. On the other hand Z(G) Ai = ∅ for every
Sm−1
1 ≤ i ≤ m, thus Ai ⊆ j=1 (gj Z(G)) for every 1 ≤ i ≤ m. From this one can
follow that there exist two subsets like Ar and As such that Ar ∪ As ⊆ gj Z(G)
for some 1 ≤ j ≤ m − 1, a contradiction. Therefore G is an T (m, n)-group, for all
n ∈ N.

Remark 2.17. In the above Theorem, the finiteness of clique number is necessary.
For example, it should be borne in mind that infinite p-groups can easily have
trivial center. The group G = Cp ≀ Cp∞ , the regular wreath product Cp by Cp∞ , is
an infinite centerless p-group, where Cp is a cyclic group of order p and Cp∞ is a
quasi-cyclic (or Prüfer) group. So [G : Z(G)] is infinite and so w(G) is infinite and
G is not an T (m, n)-group.
B. H. Neumann [8] showed that if every set of non-commuting elements of group
G is finite, then G is center-by-finite. Moreover, it is not difficult to see that every
center-by-finite group has finite clique number. Here, by using the above Theorem,
we will obtain the following result.
Corollary 2.18. If G be a group and [G : Z(G)] = m. Then w(G) < m.
Proof. As [G : Z(G)] = m and G is an T (m, 1)-group, if and only if w(G) < m, the
result follows by Theorem 2.16.

Corollary 2.19. Every infinite T (m, n)-group with m ≤ 3, is an abelian group.

6

N. AHMADKHAH, S. MARZANG AND M. ZARRIN

Proof. If G is non-Abelian group, then there exists x, y such that xy 6= yx.
{x, y, xy} is a subset of pairwise non-commuting elements of G. Therefore
Proposition 2.12, |Z(G)| < n and by Lemma 2.11 G is center-by-finite and
G is a finite group, a contradiction.

So
by
so


Theorem 2.20. Let G be a finite T (m, n)-group, m ≤ 4, n > 1 and (p, |G|) = 1,
for every prime number p ≤ n. Then G is abelian.
Proof. It is enough to prove the theorem for the case m = 4. Suppose, a contrary,
that G is a non-Abelian T (4, n)-group. Then there exists elements x and y in G,
such that xy 6= yx. Now we consider four subsets of G as follows:
A1 = {x, x2 , . . . , xn }, A2 = {y, y 2 , . . . , y n },

A3 = {xy, (xy)2 , . . . , (xy)n } and A4 = {xy, xy 2 , . . . , xy n−1 , x2 y}.
Then it is not difficult to see that {A1 , A2 , A3 , A4 } is a (4, n)-obstruction for G, a
contradiction (note that if a ∈ G and (i, |a|) = 1, then CG (ai ) = CG (a)).

As a corollary, for p > 2 every finite p-group, G ∈ T (4, p − 1) is abelian.
Note that the group D8 is a non-Abelian T (4, 1)-group. This example suggests
that it may be necessary to restrict ourselves to T (m, n)-groups with n > 1 in the
above Theorem.
Proposition 2.21. Assume that G is a non-Abelian group. Then
(1) If there exist a positive integer n such that (p, |G|) = 1, for every prime
number p ≤ n. Then w(G) ≥ n + 2.
(2) If p is the smallest prime divisor of |G|. Then w(G) ≥ p + 1. Moreover, if
G is a finite p-group and G ∈ T (m, p − 1), then p + 1 ≤ w(G) < m.
Proof. (1) Since G is non-Abelian group, there exists elements x, y in G, such that
xy 6= yx. Now X = {x, y, xy, xy 2 , . . . , xy n } is a set of pairwise non-commuting
elements of G of cardinality n + 2.
(2) For every prime number q ≤ p − 1, (q, |G|) = 1, then by part (1), w(G) ≥
(p − 1) + 2. Thus w(G) ≥ p + 1.

Lemma 2.22. Let G be a finite T (m, n)-group where Z(G) 6= 1 and p be smallest
prime divisor of |G|. Then
(1) p ≤ max{m − 2, n − 1}.
√
(2) If G is a nilpotent, then p ≤ max{m − 2, t n − 1}, where t is the number of
prime divisors of order G, |π(G)|.
Proof. (1) As G is an T (m, n)-group, by Proposition 2.12, p ≤ |Z(G)| < n or
p + 1 ≤ w(G) < m. Therefore p ≤ n − 1 or p ≤ m − 2 and so p ≤ max{m − 2, n − 1}.
(2) In this case it is enough to note that the set of prime divisors of √
the center
Qt
of G is equal to π(G), so pt ≤ i=1 pi ≤ |Z(G)| < n. Thus p ≤ t n − 1 or
p ≤ m − 2.

Corollary 2.23. (1) If G is a finite p-group and G ∈ T (p, p), then G is abelian.
(2) Every finite non-Abelian nilpotent T (m, n)-group with 3 ≤ n ≤ 6 and m ≤ 3 is
a p-group.
(3) If G is a finite nilpotent T (4, n)-group with n ≤ 3 and odd order, then G is an
abelian group.
(4) Every finite nilpotent T (4, n)-group with n ≤ 3, is an abelian-by-2-group.

A GENERALIZATION OF NEUMANN’S QUESTION

7

Theorem 2.24. Let G be a non-Abelian nilpotent T (3, n)-group. Then
|π(G)| ≤ log3 (n + 2).

Proof. Use induction on |π(G)|, the case 3 ≤ n ≤ 6 being clear by Case (2) of
Corollary 2.23. Assume that n ≥ 7 and the result holds for |π(G)| − 1. Since G
is finite non-Abelian nilpotent, then there exist a Sylow subgroup P of G, such
G
G
that G
P is non-Abelian and P ∈ T (3, n − t)-group, for every 2t ≤ n. So |π( P )| ≤
log3 (n − t + 2), therefore |π(G)| − 1 ≤ log3 (n − t + 2) < log3 (n + 2) and hence
|π(G)| ≤ log3 (n + 2), as wanted.

Remark 2.25. By argument similar to the one in the proof of Theorem 2.24, we
can follow that if G is a non-Abelian nilpotent T (4, n)-group with odd order, then
|π(G)| ≤ log4 (n + 6) (in this case note that if 4 ≤ n ≤ 9, then G is a p-group, for
some prime number p).
3. On solvable T (m, n)-groups
In this section we investigate solvable T (m, n)-groups. At first we obtain the
derived length of a solvable T (m, n)-group in terms n, for m = 3 or 4 and then give
a solvability criterion for T (m, n)-groups in terms m and n. To prove our results
it is necessary to establish a technical lemma.
Lemma 3.1. Let G be an T (m, n)-group for some integers m ≥ 2, n > 1 and N be
G
a proper non-trivial normal subgroup of G, then N
is an T (m, n − t)-group, where
n ≥ 2t.

G
is not an T (m, n−t)Proof. Suppose that G is an T (m, n)-group and N ⊳G, but N
G
of
group. We can take m subsets Xi = {xi1 N, xi2 N, . . . , xin−t N }, 1 ≤ i ≤ m of N
cardinality n − t, such that for every 1 ≤ i, j ≤ m and 1 ≤ k, l ≤ n − t, [xik , xjl ]
is not belongs to N . Let a be a nontrivial element of N , then we can obtain m
n-subsets Yi = {axi1 , axi2 , . . . , axin−t , xi1 , xi2 , . . . , xit } of G, for some 2t ≤ n. Thus
{Y1 , Y2 , . . . , Ym } is a (m, n)-obstruction for G, a contrary.


Corollary 3.2. Let G be a non-simple T (w(G), 2)-group. Then for proper nonG
G
trivial normal subgroup N of G, N
is an T (w(G), 1)-group and so w( N
) < w(G).
Theorem 3.3. Let G be a solvable T (3, n)-group (or T (4, n)-group and the order
of G is odd). Then the derived length of G, d is at most log2 (2n).
Proof. We argue by induction on d. The case d = 1 being obvious. Assume that
G
d ≥ 2 and so, by Lemma 3.1, the group G(d−1)
, has solvability length d − 1, is an
T (3, n − t)-group, where 2t ≤ n. Therefore d − 1 ≤ log2 (2(n − t)) < log2 (2(n)).
Thus d − 1 < log2 (2n), so d ≤ log2 (2n), as wanted. (We note that the bound
log2 (2n) is the best possible, as S3 is an T (3, 2)-group and d(S3 ) = 2 = log2 (4).)
Now if G is T (4, n)-group and the order of G is odd, then by argument similar,
the result follows (for proof it is enough to note that T (4, 1)-group of odd order is
abelian).

Note that the group D8 is a solvable T (4, 1)-group with solvability length 2, but
2  log2 (2). This example suggests that it may be necessary to restrict ourselves
to groups with odd order in the above Theorem.
If G is a finite group, then for each prime divisor p of |G|, we denote by vp (G)
the number of Sylow p-subgroups of G.

8

N. AHMADKHAH, S. MARZANG AND M. ZARRIN

Lemma 3.4. Let G be a finite T (m, n)-group and p be a prime number dividing
|G| such that every two distinct Sylow p-subgroups of G have trivial intersection,
then vp (G) ≤ mn − 1.
Proof. Since G is an T (m, n)-group, we have w(G) < mn. Now Lemma 3 of [6]
completes the proof.

Now we obtain a solvability criteria for T (m, n)-groups in terms of m and n.
Theorem 3.5. Let G be an T (m, n)-group. Then we have
(i) If mn ≤ 21, then G (not necessarily finite) is solvable and this estimate is sharp.
(ii) If mn ≤ 60 and G is non-solvable finite group, then G = A5 (in fact, A5 is the
only non-solvable T (m, n)-group, which mn ≤ 60).
Proof. (i) Since G is an T (m, n)-group, we have w(G) < mn. Then by Theorem
1.2 of [12], G is solvable. This estimate is sharp, because A5 is an T (22, 1)-group.
(ii) We know that the alternating group A5 has five Sylow 2-subgroups of order 4,
ten Sylow 3-subgroups of order 3 and six Sylow 5-subgroups of order 5, that their
intersections are trivial. From this we can follow that A5 is an T (22, 1), T (22, 2),
T (17, 3) and T (14, 4)-group. For uniqueness, suppose, on the contrary, that there
exists a non-Abelian finite simple group not isomorphic to A5 and of least possible
order which is an T (m, n)-group, which mn ≤ 60. Then by Proposition 3 of [5],
Lemma 3.4 and by argument similar to the one in the proof of Theorem 1.3 of [1]
gives a contradiction in each case.

Corollary 3.6. Every arbitrary T (21, i)-group G with i ≤ z is solvable, where
z = |Z(G)|.
In the follow we show that the influence the value of n for the solvability of
T (m, n)-groups is more important than the value of m.
Corollary 3.7. Let G be an T (m, n)-group. Each of the following conditions implies that G is solvable.
(a) n = 2 and m ≤ 21. (b) n = 3 and m ≤ 16. (c) n = 4 and m ≤ 13. (d) n = 5
and m ≤ 8. (e) n = 6 and m ≤ 8. (f ) n = 7 and m ≤ 7. (g) n = 8 and m ≤ 7.
Proof. Suppose, on the contrary, that G is a non-solvable group. By Theorem
3.5, G ∼
= A5 . This is a contradiction, since A5 is an T (22, 2)-group but is not an
T (21, 2)-group.
By similar argument of Case (a) the rest Cases would be proved, since
\
\
\
\
\
A5 ∈ T (17, 3) T (14, 4) T (9, 5) T (9, 6) T (8, 7) T (8, 8) but
[
[
[
A5 6∈ T (16, 3) T (13, 4) T (8, 6) T (7, 8).


References
[1] A. Abdollahi, A. Azad, A.Mohammadi Hassanabadi and M. Zarrin, B. H. Neumann’s question
on ensuring commutativity of finite groups, Bull. Austral Math. Soc. 74 (2006) 121-132.
[2] A. Abdollahi, A. Azad, A.Mohammadi Hassanabadi and M. Zarrin, On the clique numbers
of noncommuting graphs of certain groups, Algebra Colloq. 17 (2010), 611-620.
[3] H. E. Bell and M. Zarrin, A commutativity property for rings, J. Algebra Appl. 14(4) (2015)
1550058, pp 8.

A GENERALIZATION OF NEUMANN’S QUESTION

9

[4] H. E. Bell and M. Zarrin, A commutativity condition on subsets of rings, J. Algebra Appl.
16(5) (2017) 1750092, pp 6.
[5] R.D. Blyth and D.J.S. Robinson, ’Insoluble groups with the rewriting property P8’, J. Pure
Appl. Algebra 72 (1991), 251-263.
[6] G. Endimioni, ’Groupes finis satisfaisant la condition (N, n)’, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Ser. I
Math. 319 (1994), 1245-1247.
[7] B. Huppert and N. Blackburn, Finite groups, III(Springer-Verlag, New York,1982).
[8] B. H. Neumann, A problem of Paul Erdos on groups, J. Aust. Math. Soc. Ser. A 21 (1976),
467-472.
[9] B. H. Neumann, Ensuring commutativity of finite groups, J. Aust. Math. Soc. 71 (2001),
233-234.
[10] L. Pyber, The number of pairwise non-commuting elements and the index of the centre in a
finite group, J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 35(2) (1987), 287-295.
[11] J. G. Thompson, Nonsolvable finite groups all of whose local subgroups are soluble, Bull.
Amer. Math. Soc. 74 (1968), 383-437.
[12] M. Zarrin, On noncommuting sets and centralizers in infinite groups, Bull. Aust. Math. Soc.
93 (2016), 42-46.
[13] M. Zarrin, Ensuring a group is weakly nilpotent, Comm. Algebra 40 (2012), 4739-4752.
Department of Mathematics, University of Kurdistan, P.O. Box: 416, Sanandaj, Iran
E-mail address: N.ahmadkhah@sci.uok.ac.ir, S.marzang@sci.uok.ac.ir and M.zarrin@uok.ac.ir

