Dominating Sets in Intersection Graphs
of Finite Groups
Selçuk Kayacan∗

arXiv:1602.03537v2 [] 15 Jul 2017

Department of Mathematics, Istanbul Technical University,
34469 Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey.
e-mail: kayacan.selcuk@gmail.com
Abstract
Let G be a group. The intersection graph Γ(G) of G is an undirected
graph without loops and multiple edges defined as follows: the vertex set is
the set of all proper non-trivial subgroups of G, and there is an edge between
two distinct vertices H and K if and only if H ∩ K 6= 1 where 1 denotes
the trivial subgroup of G. In this paper we studied the dominating sets in
intersection graphs of finite groups. It turns out a subset of the vertex set
is a dominating set if and only if the union of the corresponding subgroups
contains the union of all minimal subgroups. We classified abelian groups
by their domination number and find upper bounds for some specific classes
of groups. Subgroup intersection is related with Burnside rings. We introduce the notion of intersection graph of a G-set (somewhat generalizing the
ordinary definition of intersection graph of a group) and establish a general upper bound for the domination number of Γ(G) in terms of subgroups
satisfying a certain property in Burnside ring. Intersection graph of G is
the 1-skeleton of the simplicial complex whose faces are the sets of proper
subgroups which intersect non-trivially. We call this simplicial complex intersection complex of G and show that it shares the same homotopy type
with the order complex of proper non-trivial subgroups of G. We also prove
that if domination number of Γ(G) is 1, then intersection complex of G is
contractible.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary: 20D99; Secondary: 05C69,
05C25, 20C05, 55U10.
Keywords: Finite groups; subgroup; intersection graph; dominating sets;
domination number; Burnside ring; order complex

1

Introduction

Let F be the set of proper subobjects of an object with an algebraic structure. In
[Yar13] the intersection graph of F is defined in the following way: there is a vertex
for each subobject in F other than the zero object, where the zero object is the object
∗

This work is supported by the TÜBİTAK 2214/A Grant Program: 1059B141401085.

1

having a unique endomorphism, and there is an edge between two vertices whenever
the intersection of the subobjects representing the vertices is not the zero object. In
particular, if F is the set of proper subgroups of a group G, then the zero object is the
trivial subgroup. The intersection graph of (the proper subgroups of) G will be denoted
by Γ(G).
Intersection graphs first defined for semigroups by Bosák in [Bos64]. Let S be a
semigroup. The intersection graph of the semigroup S is defined in the following way:
the vertex set is the set of proper subsemigroups of S and there is an edge between two
distinct vertices A and B if and only if A ∩ B 6= ∅. Interestingly, this definition is not in
the scope of the abstract generalization given in the preceding paragraph. Afterwards,
in [CP69] Csákány and Pollák adapted this definition into groups in the usual way.
Still there are analogous definitions. For example, in [CGMS09] authors studied the
intersection graphs of ideals of a ring. In particular, they determine the values of n
for which the intersection graph of the ideals of Zn is connected, complete, bipartite,
planar or has a cycle. For the corresponding literature the reader may also refer to
[JJR10, JJR11, LQ10, She10, Zel75] and some of the references therein.
As is well-known subgroups of a group G form a lattice L(G) ordered by set inclusion. Some of the structural properties of a group may be inferred by studying its
subgroup structure and those parts of the group theory form a part of the lattice theory. Intersection graphs of groups are natural objects and are intimately related with
subgroup lattices. Actually, given the subgroup lattice one can recover the intersection
graph but not vice versa in general. Intuitively, by passing from L(G) to Γ(G) a certain
amount of knowledge should be lost. In [KY15a] authors show that finite abelian groups
can almost be distinguished by their intersection graphs. The same result was proven
previously for subgroup lattices in [Bae39] (see also [Sch94, 1.2.8 Corollary]). Therefore,
rather surprisingly subgroup lattices and intersection graphs holds the same amount of
information on the subgroup structure if the group is abelian.
By defining intersection graphs we attach a graph to a group, like in the case of
Cayley graphs. So, there are two natural directions we may follow. First, we may study
the graph theoretical properties of intersection graphs by means of group theoretical
arguments. This is straightforward. For example we may ask for which groups their
intersection graphs are planar [KY15b, AT16] or connected [Luc03, She10, Kay17]. And
second, we may study the algebraic properties of groups by means of combinatorial
arguments applied to the intersection graphs though this part seems to require more
ingenuity.
In this paper, we study the dominating sets in intersection graphs. A dominating set
D of a graph Γ is a subset of the vertex set V such that any vertex not in D is adjacent
to some vertex in D. The domination number γ(Γ) of Γ is the smallest cardinal of the
dominating sets for Γ. Vizing’s conjecture from 1968 asserts that for any two graphs
Γ and Γ0 the product γ(Γ)γ(Γ0 ) is at most the domination number of the Cartesian
product of Γ and Γ0 . Despite the efforts of many mathematicians this conjecture is still
open (see [BDG+ 12]). Given a graph Γ and an integer n the dominating set problem
asks whether is there a dominating vertex set of size at most n. It is a classical instance
of a N P -complete decision problem. There are many papers on domination theory
covering algorithmic aspects as well. More can be found on this subject for example in
[BKR07, FGK05, HSH97] and references therein.
It is easy to observe that a subset D of the vertex set V (G) of the intersection graph
of the group G is a dominating set if and only if for any minimal subgroup A of G there
exists a H ∈ D such that A ≤ H. This in turn implies that D is a dominating set if and
only if the union of the subgroups in D contains all minimal subgroups of G as a subset,

2

or equivalently, if and only if the union of the subgroups in D contains all elements of
G of prime order. In particular, the set of minimal subgroups and the set of maximal
subgroups are dominating sets. We denote the domination number of Γ(G) simply by
γ(G) and call this invariant of the group the domination number of G. Let G be a finite
group. We shall note that a dominating set D of minimal size might be assumed to
consist of maximal subgroups as any proper subgroup of a finite group is contained in a
maximal subgroup. In particular, there exist a dominating set D such that each element
of D is a maximal subgroup and the cardinality of D is γ(G).
In [Coh94], Cohn defined a group as an n-sum group if it can be written as the union
of n of its proper subgroups and of no smaller number. Let G be an n-sum group. In the
light of the previous paragraphs it is clear that γ(G) ≤ n. Notice that any non-trivial
finite group can be written as the union of its proper subgroups unless it is not cyclic,
hence it is reasonable to call the cyclic group Cm of order m an ℵ0 -sum group. On
the other hand a cyclic group of order ps with p a prime contains a unique minimal
subgroup, therefore γ(Cps ) = 1 provided s > 1. The intersection graph Γ(G) is the
empty graph whenever G is trivial or isomorphic to a cyclic group of prime order and
in such case we adopt the convention γ(G) = ℵ0 . The reason for this will be justified
when we prove Lemma 2.4. Let G be an n-sum group. It can be easily observed that
γ(G) = n if G is isomorphic to the one of the following groups
Cp ,

Cp × Cp ,

Cp × Cq ,

Cp o Cq ,

where p and q are some distinct prime numbers. The reader may refer to for example
[Coh94, DL08, GL15] for the literature on n-sum groups.
Classifying groups by their domination number is a difficult problem. Even the
determination of groups with domination number 1 seems to be intractable. In Sections 3, 4, and 5 we determine upper bounds for the domination number of particular
classes of groups. For example, abelian groups can be classified by their domination
number (see Theorem 3.1) and the domination number of a supersolvable group is at
most p + 1 for some prime divisor p of its order (see Proposition 4.4). It turns out
symmetric groups forms an interesting class in our context. In Section 5 we find some
upper bounds for the symmetric groups by their degree (see Theorem 5.3) and show
that those bounds are applicable also for the primitive subgroups containing an odd
permutation (see Corollary 5.4).
In Section 6 we introduce intersection graphs of G-sets. This notion in a sense
generalize the ordinary definition of intersection graphs of groups (see Proposition 6.1).
Subgroup intersection is related with the multiplication operator of Burnside rings and
the ultimate aim in this section is to incorporate the Burnside ring context into our
discussion. We show that the domination number γ(G) can be bounded by the sum of
the indices of the normalizers of some subgroups in G satisfying a certain property as a
collection in the Burnside ring (see Proposition 6.2).
There is an extensive literature on combinatorial objects associated with algebraic
structures. An alternative path in this direction is to introduce order complexes of
subgroups and thereby rendering the use of topological terms possible (see, for example [Bro75, Qui78, HIÖ89, Smi11]). Similar work using subgroup lattices, frames,
coset posets, and quandles has also appeared in literature (see, [SW12, SW16, Fum09,
HSW15]).
A natural construction in which a simplicial complex K(G) is associated with a
group G is the following: the underlying set of K(G) is the vertex set of Γ(G) and for
each vertex H in Γ(G) there is an associated simplex σH in K(G) which is defined as the
set of proper subgroups of G containing H. Clearly, the common face of σH and σK is

3

σhH,Ki . Alternatively, K(G) is the simplicial complex whose faces are the sets of proper
subgroups of G which intersect non-trivially. Observe that Γ(G) is the 1-skeleton of
K(G). By an argument due to Volkmar Welker, K(G) shares the same homotopy type
with the order complex of proper non-trivial subgroups of G (see Proposition 7.1). In
Section 7 we study the intersection complex K(G) and prove that if domination number
of Γ(G) is 1, then intersection complex of G is contractible (see Corollary 7.4).

2

Preliminaries

First we recall some of the basic facts from standard group theory.
Remarks.
1. (Product Formula, see [Rot95, Theorem 2.20]) |XY ||X ∩ Y | = |X||Y | for any two
subgroups X and Y of a finite group.
2. (Sylow’s Theorem, see [Rot95, Theorem 4.12])
(i) If P is a Sylow p-subgroup of a finite group G, then all Sylow p-subgroups
of G are conjugate to P .
(ii) If there are r Sylow p-subgroups, then r is a divisor of |G| and r ≡ 1 (mod p).
3. (Hall’s Theorem, see [Gor80, Theorem 4.1]) If G is a finite solvable group, then
any π-subgroup is contained in a Hall π-subgroup. Moreover, any two Hall πsubgroups are conjugate.
4. (Correspondence Theorem, see [Rot95, Theorem 2.28]) Let N E G and let ν : G →
G/N be the canonical morphism. Then S 7→ ν(S) = S/N is a bijection from the
family of all those subgroups S of G which contain N to the family of all the
subgroups of G/N .
5. (Dedekind’s Lemma, see [Rot95, Exercise 2.49]) Let H, K, and L be subgroups of
G with H ≤ L. Then HK ∩ L = H(K ∩ L).
Let G be a finite group. We denote by NG the subgroup of G generated by its
∼ Cp with p a
minimal subgroups. Obviously, NG is a characteristic subgroup. If G =
prime, then we take NG = G. Adapting the module theoretical parlance we might call
a subgroup of a group essential provided that it contains all minimal subgroups. Thus
NG is the smallest essential subgroup. Notice that if G is abelian and G  Cp , then NG
is the socle of G.
Lemma 2.1. For a finite group G, the following statements are equivalent.
(i) The domination number of Γ(G) is 1.
(ii) NG is a proper (normal) subgroup of G.
(iii) G is a (non-split) extension of NG by a non-trivial group H.
Proof. (i) =⇒ (ii): There must be a proper subgroup H of G such that H ∩ K 6= 1 for
any non-trivial subgroup K of G. In particular, H intersects non-trivially, and hence
contains, any minimal subgroup in NG . That is, H ≥ NG . However, H is a proper
subgroup of G, so is NG .

4

(ii) =⇒ (iii): Since NG is a proper normal subgroup, G is an extension of NG by a nontrivial group U . Notice that this extension cannot split, as otherwise, there would be a
subgroup of G isomorphic to H which intersects NG trivially. However, this contradicts
with the definition of NG .
(iii) =⇒ (i): Clearly NG is a proper subgroup intersecting any subgroup non-trivially;
hence {NG } is a dominating set for Γ(G).
Corollary 2.2. If G is a finite simple group, then γ(G) > 1.
In general, there is no relation between the domination number of a group and its
subgroups. As a simple example consider the dihedral group D8 = ha, b a4 = b2 =
1, bab = a3 i of order 8. It has three maximal subgroups ha2 , bi, ha2 , abi, hai and the
first two of them dominates Γ(D8 ). Moreover, as D8 = hab, bi, we have γ(D8 ) = 2 by
Lemma 2.1. On the other hand, ha2 , bi ∼
= C2 ×C2 and since its intersection graph consists
of isolated vertices, we have γ(ha2 , bi) = 3; whereas γ(hai) = 1 as it is isomorphic to the
cyclic group of order four. However, by imposing some conditions on the subgroup H
of G, it is easy to prove that γ(H) ≤ γ(G) holds.
Lemma 2.3. Let G be a group and D be a dominating set of Γ(G). Then γ(H) ≤ |D|
provided that none of the elements of D contains H. In particular, γ(H) ≤ γ(G) if there
is such a dominating set with cardinality γ(G).
Proof. Observe that if none of the elements of D contains H, then the set DH :=
{D ∩ H : D ∈ D} is a dominating set for Γ(H).
The following result will be very useful in our later arguments.
Lemma 2.4. Let N be a normal subgroup of G. If G/N  Cp , then γ(G) ≤ γ(G/N ).
Moreover, the condition G/N  Cp can be removed if G is a finite group.
Proof. Let D be a dominating set for Γ(G/N ) and set D := {N < W < G : W /N ∈ D}.
By the Correspondence Theorem, |D| = |D|. We want to show that D is a dominating
set for Γ(G). Let H be a proper non-trivial subgroup of G. If H ∩ N 6= 1, then any
element of D intersects H non-trivially. Suppose that H ∩N = 1. Take W ∈ D such that
(N H/N ) ∩ W := Y 6= 1. If Y = N H/N , then clearly W contains H where W ∈ D such
that W /N = W . Suppose Y 6= N H/N and let Y /N = Y . Obviously Y < W . Moreover,
By the Dedekind’s Lemma Y = N K, where K := Y ∩ H. That is W ∩ H ≥ K 6= 1.
Since H is an arbitrary subgroup, we see that D dominates Γ(G). This proves the first
part. The second part follows from the convention γ(Cp ) = ℵ0 .
Corollary 2.5. Let G ∼
= H × K be a finite group. Then γ(G) ≤ min{γ(H), γ(K)}.
Let S be a subset of the vertex set V (G) of Γ(G). It is natural to define the
intersection graph Γ(S) of the vertex set S in the following way. There is an edge between
two vertices H, K ∈ S if and only if H ∩ K ∈ S. We denote the domination number
of Γ(S) simply by γ(S). Let V (G)>N be the set of proper subgroups of G containing
∼
the normal subgroup N of G strictly. By the Correspondence Theorem Γ(V (G)>N ) =
Γ(G/N ), hence γ(V (G)>N ) = γ(G/N ). Moreover, by the proof of Lemma 2.4, a (nonempty) subset of V (G)>N dominates Γ(G) provided that it dominates Γ(V (G)>N ).
Let ϕN : V (G) ∪ {1, G} → V (G)>N ∪ {N, G} be the map taking H to N H; and let
D be a dominating set of Γ(G) consisting of maximal subgroups. Notice that even if
ϕN (D) ⊆ V (G)>N , the image set ϕN (D) might not be a dominating set for Γ(V (G)>N ).

5

Let Sp (G) be the set of all proper non-trivial p-subgroups of G. Observe that if
G is a p-group, Γ(G) and Γ(Sp (G)) coincides. It is also true in general that there is
an edge between two vertices of Γ(Sp (G)) if and only if there is an edge between the
corresponding vertices in Γ(G).
Lemma 2.6. Let G be a finite group and let N be a normal p-subgroup of G such that
the set Sp (G)>N is non-empty. Then
γ(Sp (G)) ≤ γ(Sp (G)>N ).
Proof. Let D be a dominating set of Sp (G)>N . As in the proof of Lemma 2.4, we want
to show that D dominates Γ(Sp (G)). Let H ∈ Sp (G). If H ∩ N 6= 1, then clearly
H ∩ W 6= 1 for any W ∈ D. Suppose H ∩ N = 1. Then N H ∈ Sp (G)>N . Let Y
be a minimal subgroup in Sp (G)>N contained by N H; and let W ∈ D contains Y . If
Y = N H, then H < W . Suppose Y 6= N H. Since N < Y < N H and N ∩ H = 1,
Y ∩ H ∈ Sp (G) by the Product Formula; hence, W ∩ H ∈ Sp (G) as well.

3

Abelian groups

In this section we classify finite abelian groups by their domination number. Recall
that the exponent of a group G, denoted by exp(G), is the least common multiple of
the orders of elements of G. Let G be a finite group and consider the function f from
the set of non-empty subsets of G to the set of positive integers taking X ⊆ G to the
lowest common multiple of the orders of elements of X. Clearly, the image of the whole
group G is exp(G). By a celebrated theorem of Frobenius if X is a maximal subset of
G satisfying the condition xk = 1 for all x ∈ X with k is a fixed integer dividing |G|,
then k divides |X|. Let g be the function taking the integer k to the maximal subset
Xk := {x ∈ G : xk = 1}. Then, f and g define a Galois connection between the poset of
non-empty subsets of G and the poset of positive integers ordered by divisibility relation.
In general such a maximal subset may not be a subgroup. For example, if the Sylow
p-subgroup P of G is not a normal subgroup of G, then the union of conjugates of P
cannot be a subgroup. However, if G is an abelian group then for any integer k the
subset Xk is actually a subgroup.
For a finite group G we denote by sfp(G) the square-free part of |G|, i.e. sfp(G) is
the product of distinct primes dividing |G|. Notice that a collection of proper subgroups
dominates to the intersection graph if and only if their union contains Xt , where t =
sfp(G).
Theorem 3.1. Let G be a finite abelian group with proper non-trivial subgroups. Then
1. γ(G) = 1 if and only if sfp(G) < exp(G).
2. γ(G) = 2 if and only if sfp(G) = exp(G) and sfp(G) is not a prime number.
3. γ(G) = p + 1 if and only if p = sfp(G) = exp(G) is a prime number.
Proof. Let t be the square-free part of |G| and m be the exponent of G.
Assertion 1. Observe that NG = {x ∈ G : xt = 1}. By Lemma 2.1, γ(G) = 1 if and
only if NG is a proper subgroup which is the case if and only if t < m.
For Assertion 2 and Assertion 3 it is enough to prove the sufficiency conditions, as
2 6= t + 1 for any prime number t.

6

Assertion 2. Suppose that t = m and t is not a prime number. Then there exist two
distinct primes p and q dividing t. Clearly, the subgroups H = {h ∈ G : ht/p = 1} and
K = {k ∈ G : k t/p = 1} dominates Γ(G). As there is no dominating set of cardinality
one (by virtue of Assertion 1), γ(G) = 2.
Assertion 3. Suppose that t = m and t is a prime number. We consider G as a
vector space over the field Ft of t elements of dimension d ≥ 2 and fix a basis for this
vector space in canonical way. Let Hi = hhi i, 1 ≤ i ≤ t + 1 where hi = (1, 0, . . . , 0, i)
for i ≤ t and ht+1 = (0, . . . , 0, 1). Then {Ki := Hi⊥ : 1 ≤ i ≤ t + 1} is a dominating
set for Γ(G). To see this first observe that for any g ∈ G there exists an hi such that
g ·hi = 0, i.e. g ∈ Ki for some 1 ≤ i ≤ t+1. Next, suppose that there exist a dominating
set D = {M1 , . . . , Ms } with cardinality s < t + 1. We want to derive a contradiction.
Without loss of generality elements of D can be taken as maximal subgroups. Let
Aj = Mj⊥ , 1 ≤ j ≤ s. Suppose Aj are generated by linearly independent vectors (if not,
we may take a maximal subset of {A1 , . . . , As } with this property and apply the same
arguments). By a change of basis if necessary, we may take Aj = Hj . However, that
means g = (1, 0, . . . , 0) is not contained in any Mi ∈ D as g · hj 6= 0 for 1 ≤ j ≤ s. This
contradiction completes the proof.
Remark. We may prove the first and second assertions by regarding G as a Z-module
(compare with [Yar13, Theorem 4.4]). Also for the third assertion we may argue as
follows. By Lemma 2.4, γ(G) ≤ t + 1 as γ(Cp × Cp ) = t + 1 and the rank of G, say
r, is greater than or equal to two. On the other hand, any non-identity element of G
belongs to exactly one minimal subgroup and there are tr − 1 of them. Any maximal
subgroup of G contains tr−1 − 1 non-identity elements and t maximal subgroups may
cover at most tr − t elements; hence, there is no dominating set for G of size < t + 1.
By the fundamental theorem of finite abelian groups any finite abelian group can
be written as the direct product of cyclic groups of prime power orders, thus we may
restate Theorem 3.1 as

γ(Cpα1 × · · · × Cpαk ) =
1

1



1




2







p+1

if αi ≥ 2 for some 1 ≤ i ≤ k
if αi = 1 for all 1 ≤ i ≤ k
and pj1 6= pj2 for some j1 6= j2
if αi = 1 and pi = p for all 1 ≤ i ≤ k

where p1 , . . . , pk are prime numbers and α1 , . . . , αk are positive integers with k = 1
implies α1 > 1.

4

Solvable groups

Though finite abelian groups can be classified by their domination number, it seems this
is not possible in general. Nevertheless, we may use the structural results to find upper
bounds for the domination number of groups belonging to larger families.
Proposition 4.1. Let G be a finite nilpotent group and p be a prime number. Suppose
G  Cp . Then
1. γ(G) ≤ p + 1 if G is a p-group.
2. γ(G) ≤ 2 if G is not a p-group.

7

Proof. Assertion 1. There is a normal subgroup N of G of index p2 which is isomorphic
to either Cp2 or Cp × Cp . The assertion follows from Lemma 2.4.
Assertion 2. Let G be the internal direct product of P , Q and N , where P and Q
are the non-trivial Sylow p- and Sylow q- subgroups of G. Clearly, N P and N Q form a
dominating set of Γ(G).
Let G be a finite group. We denote by RG the intersection of the subgroups in the
lower central series of G. This subgroup is the smallest subgroup of G in which the
quotient group G/RG is nilpotent. Obviously, the nilpotent residual RG is a proper
subgroup whenever G is a solvable group.
Corollary 4.2. Let G be a finite group such that G/RG has proper non-trivial subgroups.
Then
1. γ(G) ≤ p + 1 if G/RG is a p-group.
2. γ(G) ≤ 2 if G/RG is not a p-group.

Notice that the condition given in Corollary 4.2 is not restrictive for solvable groups.
One important family of groups that is not comprised is dihedral groups. Let D2n
0 ∼ C and so the quotient
denotes the dihedral group of order 2n. Then RD2n = D2n
= n
D2n /RD2n has no proper non-trivial subgroups. Nevertheless, the structure of those
groups are fairly specific allowing us to determine exact formulas for their domination
number depending on the order 2n.
Lemma 4.3. Let p be the smallest prime dividing n. Then
(

γ(D2n ) =

p,
p + 1,

if p2 n
otherwise

Proof. Let D2n := ha, b an = b2 = 1, bab = a−1 i. Elements of D2n can be listed as
{1, a, a2 , . . . , an−1 , b, ab, a2 b, . . . , an−1 b}.
It can be easily observed that the latter half of those elements are all of order two;
and hence, the minimal subgroups of D2n consists of subgroups of hai that are of prime
order and subgroups haj bi, where j ∈ {0, 1, . . . , n − 1}. And the maximal subgroups of
D2n consists of hai and subgroups of the form hat , ar bi, where t n is a prime number.
Fix a prime t n. Observe that any element of the form aj b is contained exactly
one of the maximal subgroups Tr := hat , ar bi with r ∈ {0, 1, . . . , t − 1}. Let p be the
smallest prime dividing n. Obviously, the union of the subgroups Pr := hap , ar bi with
r ∈ {0, 1, . . . , p−1} contains all minimal subgroups of the form haj bi, j ∈ {0, 1, . . . , n−1},
and there are no possible way to cover them with fewer than p subgroups. Finally, if
p2 n, those subgroups contains all minimal subgroups of hai; and if p2 - n, we must
take Pr , r ∈ {0, 1, . . . , p − 1}, together with a subgroup containing han/p i to form a
dominating set with least cardinality.
Remark. It is difficult to find an n-sum group G such that γ(G) = n and sfp(G) <
exp(G). One example satisfying those conditions is the dihedral group of order 36. By
Lemma 4.3, γ(D36 ) = 3. Moreover, any cyclic subgroup of D36 is contained by those
three subgroups that are of index two; and hence, D36 is a 3-sum group.

8

Consider the normal series of subgroups
G = G0 ≥ G1 ≥ · · · ≥ Gk = 1.
0 /G2
By the third isomorphism theorem and Lemma 2.4, γ( G
G1 /G2 ) = γ(G0 /G1 ) ≥ γ(G0 /G2 ).
And, by a repeated application, we have

γ(G) ≤ γ(G/Gk−1 ) ≤ · · · ≤ γ(G/G1 ).
Proposition 4.4. Let G be a finite supersolvable group with proper non-trivial subgroups. Then γ(G) ≤ p + 1 for some prime divisor p of |G|.
Proof. Since G is a finite supersolvable group, it has a normal subgroup N of index m
where m is either a prime square or a product of two distinct primes. In the first case,
√
γ(G/N ) is at most p + 1 where p = m, and in the latter case γ(G/N ) is at most 2.
The proof follows from Lemma 2.4.
At this stage it is tempting to conjecture that the assertion of Proposition 4.4 holds
more generally for solvable groups. However, we may construct a counterexample in the
following way. Let G = N H be a Frobenius group with complement H such that the
kernel N is a minimal normal subgroup of G. Further, suppose that H ∼
= Cq for some
prime q. Notice that since Frobenius kernels are nilpotent, G must be a solvable group.
On the other hand, since N is a minimal normal subgroup, N has no characteristic
subgroup and in particular N ∼
= Cp × · · · × Cp for some prime p. Suppose that the rank
r of N is greater than 1. Now, since NG (H) = H and N is a minimal normal subgroup,
each conjugate of H is a maximal subgroup. That means there are totally |G : H| = pr
isolated vertices in Γ(G) which, in turn, implies that γ(G) = pr + 1. As pr = 1 + kq for
some integer k by Sylow’s Theorem, the domination number γ(G) is greater than both
p + 1 and q + 1.
Proposition 4.5. Let G be a finite solvable group and H, K be a pair of maximal
subgroups such that (|G : H|, |G : K|) = 1. Then, γ(G) ≤ |G : NG (H)| + |G : NG (K)|.
Notice that Hall’s Theorem guarantees the existence of such a pair of maximal
subgroups provided G is not a p-group. Notice also that one of the summands in the
stated inequality can always be taken 1.
Proof. Take a minimal subgroup A. If |A| |G : H|, then by Hall’s Theorem a conjugate
of K contains A. And if |A| - |G : H|, then clearly a conjugate of H contains A.

5

Permutation groups

We denote by SX the group of the permutations of the elements of X. If X =
{1, 2, . . . , n}, we simply write Sn ; and An will be the group of even permutations on
∼ C2 .
n letters. Notice that Sn /RSn = Sn /An =
Lemma 5.1. γ(Sn ) 6= 1 and γ(An ) 6= 1.
Proof. As S2 ∼
= C2 , we see that γ(S2 ) 6= 1. For n ≥ 3, since any transposition generates
a minimal subgroup of the symmetric group and since adjacent transpositions generate
the whole group, γ(Sn ) 6= 1 by Lemma 2.1. Similarly, γ(A3 ) 6= 1; and for n ≥ 4, since
3-cycles generate An , γ(An ) 6= 1 by the same lemma.

9

Let G be a permutation group acting faithfully on X = {1, 2, . . . , n}. An element
g ∈ G is called homogeneous if the associated permutation has cycle type is (pk , 1n−pk )
with p a prime. Since any minimal subgroup of G is a cyclic group of prime order, in
order for D ⊆ V (G) to be a dominating set of Γ(G), the union of the elements of D
must contain every homogeneous element of G and vice versa. The following standard
result will be used in the proof of Theorem 5.3.
Lemma 5.2 (see [DM96, Theorem 3.3A]). If G is a primitive subgroup of Sn containing
a transposition, then G = Sn .
Theorem 5.3. Let ϑ : N → N be the function given by

ϑ(n) =


n,





 n + 1,







if
if
n+
1
,
if
n
if
2 ,
n
+
1
,
if
2

n = 2k + 1 and n is not a prime
n = 2k + 1 and n is a prime
n = 2k and k is even
n = 2k, k is odd and n − 1 is not a prime
n = 2k, k is odd and n − 1 is a prime

(∗)

(∗∗)

Then γ(Sn ) ≤ ϑ(n).
Proof. Let D be a dominating set for Γ(Sn ) of minimal size. Without loss of generality
we may assume that the elements of D are maximal subgroups of Sn . We know that every
homogeneous element of Sn must belong to some subgroup in D, in particular, every
involution (elements of order 2) must be covered by D. By Lemma 5.2, proper primitive
subgroups do not contain transpositions. Therefore, to cover transpositions the only
candidates are imprimitive maximal subgroups. The imprimitive maximal subgroups of
the symmetric group fall into two classes: (i) the intransitive maximal subgroups which
are isomorphic to Sk × Sn−k with k > 1 and k 6= n − k; or (ii) transitive imprimitive
maximal groups which are isomorphic to Sk o Sm with k, m > 1 and n = km. For
the classification of maximal subgroups of the symmetric group the reader may refer to
[Wil09, Chapter 2.5] or [DM96, Chapter 8.5].
Observe that if some collection of subgroups covers all involutions of type (2l , 1n−2l ),
with l is odd, but not all homogeneous elements, then by adding An to this collection
we would get a dominating set for Γ(Sn ), for An contains all cycles of prime length > 2.
Moreover, if the given set has the minimum cardinality, say δ, then since An does not
contain involutions of type (2l , 1n−2l ), l is odd, δ + 1 would be the domination number
of Γ(Sn ). For the rest, we try to form a collection of (as few as possible) maximal
imprimitive subgroups of Sn containing all involutions of type (2l , 1n−2l ) with l is an
odd number.
For n = 2k + 1, any involution must fix a point, hence must belong to some point
stabilizer. Moreover, those point stabilizers contain all homogeneous elements, unless n
is a prime number. In that case, γ(Sn ) ≤ n. If n is a prime number, then together with
An we have a dominating set of cardinality n + 1.
For n = 2k, k is even, point stabilizers contain all involutions of type (2l , 1n−2l ),
with l is odd; hence, together with An we have a dominating set of cardinality n + 1.
That is, γ(Sn ) ≤ n + 1. If k is odd, involutions of type (2k ) are contained neither in any
point stabilizer nor in An . Consider the maximal imprimitive subgroup S{1,2} × S{3,...,n} .
This subgroup and conjugates
of it contains all homogeneous
element, unless n − 1 is a


prime. Since there are n2 conjugates of it, γ(Sn ) ≤ n2 in that case. If n −1 is a prime
number, then together with An we have a dominating set of cardinality n2 + 1.
Remark. For S6 , Theorem 5.3 gives the upper bound 16. Since the exceptional outer
automorphism of S6 maps transpositions to triple transpositions, we may construct a

10

dominating set consisting of 7 elements. Namely, An together with the three point
stabilizers (which cover all transpositions) and the (non-inner) automorphic images of
them form a dominating set for Γ(G). A final note, those 3 subgroups containing all
triple transpositions are maximal primitive 2-transitive subgroups of S6 and they are
isomorphic to S5 (see [Hup67, Satz 5.5]).
Corollary 5.4. Let G be a primitive subgroup of Sn containing an odd permutation,
and let ϑ be the function defined in Theorem 5.3. Then, the inequality γ(G) ≤ ϑ(n)
holds. Moreover, the inequality is valid in cases (∗) and (∗∗) for all primitive subgroups.
Proof. Since G is a primitive subgroup, it is not contained by any imprimitive subgroup.
The proof follows from the fact that the only primitive subgroup used to form dominating
sets in the proof of Theorem 5.3 is An , and from Lemma 2.3.

6

Intersection graphs of G-sets

As is well-known any transitive G-set Ω is equivalent to a (left) coset space G/Gx , where
Gx is the stabilizer of a point x ∈ Ω. So, for example if Ω is a regular G-set, then it can
be represented with G/1; and if Ω is the trivial G-set, it is represented with G/G. Since
any G-set is the disjoint union of transitive G-sets, given a G-set Ω it can be represented
as the sum of coset spaces. For a subgroup H of G we denote by (H) the conjugacy
class of H in G, and by [G/H] the isomorphism class of the transitive G-set G/H. It is
well-known that [G/H] = [G/K] if and only if H = gK for some g ∈ G.
The Burnside ring B(G) of G is the ring generated by the isomorphism classes of
G-sets, where addition is the disjoint union and product is the Cartesian product of
G-sets. Therefore a typical element of B(G) is of the form
X

aj [G/Hj ]

j

where aj are integers and Hj are the representatives of the conjugacy classes of subgroups
of G. Let A and B be normal subgroups of a group G. Then the canonical map
gA ∩ B 7→ (gA, gB) from G/A ∩ B to G/A × G/B is an injective group homomorphism.
Now, let us consider two arbitrary subgroups (not necessarily normal) H1 , H2 of G. In
this case, G/H1 and G/H2 are still G-sets and the diagonal action of G on the Cartesian
product G/H1 × G/H2 yields the map
φ : G/H1 ∩ H2 −→ G/H1 × G/H2
gH1 ∩ H2 7−→ (gH1 , gH2 )
which is an injective G-equivariant map. That is to say, subgroup intersection is related
with the multiplication operator of the Burnside ring.
Let Ω1 and Ω2 be two G-sets and let R(Ω1 ,Ω2 ) be a set of representative elements
for the orbits of Ω1 × Ω2 . The Cartesian product Ω1 × Ω2 decomposes into the disjoint
union of transitive G-sets in a non-trivial fashion. More precisely,
Ω1 × Ω2 ∼
=

G

G/Gx ∩ Gy

(x,y)∈R(Ω1 ,Ω2 )

where Gx and Gy are the stabilizers of the points x ∈ Ω1 and y ∈ Ω2 respectively. Let
R(H,K) be a set of representatives for the equivalence classes of (H, K)-double cosets.

11

Setting Ω1 = G/H, Ω2 = G/K and using sigma notation for disjoint union, we may
write
X
[G/H][G/K] =
[G/H ∩ gK]
g∈R(H,K)

as the orbits of G/H × G/K are parametrized by the (H, K)-double cosets. For more
information the reader may refer to [tD79, Chapter I].
Let G be a fixed finite group. The following definition is suggested to me by Ergün
Yaraneri. The intersection graph Γ[Ω] of a G-set Ω is the simple graph with vertex
set the proper non-trivial stabilizers of points in Ω and there is an edge between two
distinct stabilizers if and only if their intersection is non-trivial. We used in this notation
“brackets” instead of “parentheses” to emphasize that the argument is a G-set. Observe
that since G is a finite group, there are at most finitely many intersection graphs Γ[Ω]
that can be associated with G-sets. Notice that both Γ[G/1] and Γ[G/G] are empty
graphs by definition.
Example. Take Ω := {1, 2, . . . , n} as the vertex set of a regular n-gon on plane. Since the
automorphism group of this polygon is isomorphic to the dihedral group D2n , considered
as a D2n -set a stabilizer of a point of Ω is corresponding to a unique involution of D2n .
Those involutions form a single conjugacy class if n is odd and form two conjugacy
classes otherwise. In both cases Γ[Ω] consists of n isolated vertices. Let G be a finite
group and H be a subgroup of G. As a general fact Γ[G/H] consists of |G : H| isolated
vertices if and only if G is a Frobenius group with complement H.
We denote by C(G) the set of conjugacy classes of subgroups of G. By the following
Proposition, intersection graphs of groups can be seen as particular cases of intersection
graphs of G-sets.
Proposition 6.1. Let G be a finite group and Σ :=

F

(H)∈C(G) [G/H].

Then

Γ[Σ] = Γ(G).
Proof. Since there is an edge between two vertices of Γ[Σ] if and only if their intersection
is non-trivial, it is enough to show that the vertex set of Γ[Σ] is V (G). However, this
is obvious as the set of subgroups of G can be partitioned into the conjugacy classes of
subgroups:
V (G) ∪ {1, G} = { gH : (H) ∈ C(G), g ∈ G}.
Notice that no vertices associated with 1 and G in Γ[Σ] by its definition.
Let G be a finite group. We denote by A(G) the set of minimal subgroups of G and
by M(G) the set of maximal subgroups. The following characterizations are easy to
deduce:
• N / G ⇐⇒ [G/K][G/N ] = |G : N K|[G/N ∩ K] for any K ≤ G.
• A ∈ A(G) ⇐⇒ [G/K][G/A] = |G : K|[G/A] unless K = 1.
• H ∈ M(G) ⇐⇒ [G/K][G/H] does not contain [G/H] as a summand unless
K = G or K ∈ (H).
Let A be a minimal subgroup, and H be a maximal subgroup of G. Observe that
(

[G/H][G/A] =

|G : H|[G/A] if A ≤ H
[G/1]
if A  H

in case G is abelian. We may restate Theorem 3.1 in the following way:

12

1. γ(G) = 1 if and only if (∗) there exists an H ∈ M(G) such that |G : H| |[G/A]|
for every A ∈ A(G).
2. γ(G) = 2 if and only if (∗∗) for any H ∈ M(G) there exists an A ∈ A(G) such
that |G : H| - |[G/A]|.
3. γ(G) = p + 1 if and only if neither (∗) nor (∗∗) holds and p = |G : H| = |A|, where
H ∈ M(G) and A ∈ A(G).
Proposition 6.2. Let G be a finite group and let H = {Hi ∈ V (G) : 1 ≤ i ≤ s} be
a set having the property that for any K ∈ V (G) there exists an Hi ∈ H such that
[G/K][G/Hi ] 6= k[G/1] for any positive integer k. Then
γ(G) ≤

s
X

|G : NG (Hi )|.

i=1

Moreover, γ(G) = 1 if and only if there exists H / G such that [G/K][G/H] 6= k[G/1]
for any K ∈ V (G).
Proof. Let H be a set as in the statement of the Proposition. We want to show that
D := { gHi : Hi ∈ H, g ∈ G} is a dominating set for Γ(G). However this is obvious,
since for any K ∈ V (G), [G/K][G/Hi ] 6= k[G/1] implies that K ∩ gHi 6= 1 for some
g ∈ G. This completes the first part of the proof.
Now, suppose that γ(G) = 1. Let L < G such that L ∩ K 6= 1 for any K ∈ V (G).
P
P
−1
Obviously, [G/K][G/L] = [G/K ∩ gL] = [G/ g K ∩ L] does not contain a regular
summand, as L intersects any conjugate of K non-trivially. Take a conjugate aL of L.
P
−1
Since aL also forms a dominating set, [G/K][G/L ∩ aL] = [G/( g K ∩ L) ∩ aL] does
Tg
not contain a regular summand either. Let H :=
L. By a repeated application of
the above argument we see that [G/K][G/H] has no regular summand. However, H is
a normal subgroup which means [G/K][G/H] 6= k[G/1].
Conversely, suppose that there exists an H / G such that [G/K][G/H] 6= k[G/1] for
any K ∈ V (G). Since H is normal, this means [G/K][G/H] has no regular summand
which, in turn, implies that {H} is a dominating set for Γ(G). This completes the
proof.
Remark. Clearly, the elements of the set H in the statement of Proposition 6.2 can be
taken as maximal subgroups. Then, Proposition 4.5 tells us that there exists such a
2-element set if G is a solvable group but not a p-group.

7

Intersection complexes

Recall that a (abstract) simplicial complex is a collection S of finite non-empty sets,
such that if σ is an element of S, so is every non-empty subset of σ. The element σ of
S is called a simplex of S and each non-empty subset of σ is called a face of σ. The
underlying set of S is the union of one-point elements (singletons) of S. The k-skeleton
of S is the subcollection of elements of S having cardinality at most k + 1. For a group
G, we define the intersection complex K(G) of G as the simplicial complex whose faces
are the sets of proper subgroups of G which intersect non-trivially. As a graph the 1skeleton of K(G) is isomorphic to the intersection graph Γ(G). This notion is somewhat
between the two other notions in literature, namely the order complex and the clique
complex. In the first case, we begin with a poset (poset of proper non-trivial subgroups

13

of a group in our case) and construct its order complex by declaring chains of the poset
as the simplices. And, in the latter case, we take a graph (i.e. the intersection graph of
a group) and the underlying set of the corresponding clique complex is the vertex set of
the graph with simplices being the cliques.
Examples.
1. The quaternion group Q8 has three maximal subgroups, say hii, hji, and hki, of
order four intersecting at the unique minimal subgroup {−1, 1}. Thus, Γ(Q8 ) is
a complete graph K4 depicted in Figure 1a. Moreover, K(Q8 ) is a tetrahedron
as those four vertices form a simplex. However, the order complex of the poset
of proper non-trivial subgroups of Q8 is isomorphic to the star graph K1,3 as a
graph. Hence, order complexes and intersection complexes are different in general.
Notice that the clique complex of Γ(Q8 ) is same with K(Q8 ).
2. The intersection graph of the elementary abelian group of order eight is represented in Figure 1b. Here the vertices on the outer circle represents the minimal
subgroups and the vertices on the inner circle are the maximal subgroups. By the
Product Formula any two maximal subgroups intersects at a subgroup of order 2.
Therefore, the vertices in the inner circle form a complete subgraph and those vertices form a simplex in the clique complex whereas they do not in K(C2 ×C2 ×C2 ).
Thus, intersection complexes and clique complexes are not the same in general.
Notice that Γ(C2 × C2 × C2 ) is symmetrical enough to reflect the vector space
structure of the group.

(a) Γ(Q8 )
(b) Γ(C2 × C2 × C2 )

Figure 1: Intersection graphs of some groups of order 8
In Example 1, we remarked that order complexes and intersection complexes are
different in general. However, they are equivalent up to homotopy. The proof of the
following Proposition is due to Volkmar Welker.
Proposition 7.1. For a group G the intersection complex K(G) and the order complex
of the poset of proper non-trivial subgroups of G are homotopy equivalent.
Proof. Consider the face poset of K(G), i.e. the poset of simplices ordered by inclusion.
By the identification H 7→ σH , the poset of proper non-trivial subgroups of G becomes
a subposet (after reversing the order relation) of the face poset of K(G). The order
complex of the face poset of a simplicial complex is the barycentric subdivision of the
simplicial complex and therefore they are homeomorphic. We want to show that the

14

poset of the proper non-trivial subgroups of G and the face poset of K(G) are of the
same homotopy type as order complexes. Let f be the map taking σH to σK , where K
is the intersection of all maximal subgroups containing H. Then f is a closure operator
on the face poset of K(G). Let g be the map taking H to K, where K is the intersection
of all maximal subgroups containing H. Then g is a closure operator on the poset
of proper non-trivial subgroups of G. Since closure operations on posets preserve the
homotopy type of the order complex and since the images of f and g are isomorphic by
the identification K 7→ σK , the proof is completed.
Remark. Let S be a subposet of the poset of proper non-trivial subgroups of G. Recall
that in Section 2 we defined the intersection graph Γ(S) of S in the obvious way. We may
also define the intersection complex K(S) and then the above proof applies verbatim.
In particular, K(Sp (G)) and the order complex of Sp (G) are same up to homotopy.
An important result on the subject for our purposes (see Lemma 7.2 below) uses the
definitions of algebraic topology adapted to ‘poset’ context. By a covering C of a finite
poset P we mean a finite collection {Ci }i∈I of subsets of P, such that P = ∪i∈I Ci . The
nerve N (C) of C is the simplicial complex whose underlying set is I and the simplices
are the J ⊆ I such that CJ := ∩i∈J Ci 6= ∅. The covering C is called contractible if each
CJ is contractible considered as an order complex, where J is a simplex in N (C). We
say C is a downward closed covering if each Ci , i ∈ I, is a closed subset of P, i.e. for
each Ci if the condition
whenever x ∈ Ci and x0 ≤P x, then x0 ∈ Ci
is satisfied. Of course, we may define upward closed coverings dually.
Lemma 7.2 (see [Smi11, Theorem 4.5.2]). If C is a (upward or downward) closed
contractible covering of a poset P, then P is homotopy equivalent to nerve N (C) of C.
Let G be a finite group. For a proper non-trivial subgroup H of G, we denote by
V (G)≥H the set of proper subgroups of G containing H. Similarly, V (G)≤H is the set
non-trivial subgroups of G contained by H. In poset terminology V (G)≥H and V (G)≤H
are called cones and it is a standard fact that they are contractible. Consider the
following collections:
A := {V (G)≥H : H is a minimal subgroup of G}
M := {V (G)≤H : H is a maximal subgroup of G}
Observe that A is an upward closed contractible covering of V (G) considered as a poset
under set theoretical inclusion and M is a downward closed contractible covering. Therefore, by Lemma 7.2 N (A), N (M ), and the order complex of proper non-trivial subgroups
of G share the same homotopy type. Recall that the Frattini subgroup Φ(G) of G is the
intersection of all maximal subgroups of G.
Theorem 7.3. Let G be a finite group. Then
(i) Φ(G) 6= 1 if and only if N (M ) is a simplex.
(ii) γ(G) = 1 if and only if N (A) is a simplex.
Proof. Assertion 1. Clearly, N (M ) is a simplex if and only if for any subset S of
N (M ) intersection of the subgroups in S is non-trivial which is the case if and only if
intersection of all maximal subgroups of G is non-trivial.
Assertion 2. Similar to the previous case N (A) is a simplex if and only if NG is a
proper subgroup of G. The assertion follows from Lemma 2.1.

15

Remark. Using Theorem 3.1, one may conclude that for abelian groups γ(G) = 1 if and
only if Φ(G) 6= 1. Let P be a p-group with p being a prime number. It is also true that
γ(G) = 1 implies Φ(G) 6= 1; for if P is a non-cyclic p-group and γ(P ) = 1, then P/Φ(P )
is elementary abelian of rank > 1 and γ(P/Φ(P )) = p + 1 in that case. However,
the converse statement is not true even for p-groups. For example, Φ(D8 ) ∼
= C2 but
γ(D8 ) = 2.
Since N (A) and K(G) are of the same homotopy type by Proposition 7.1 and
Lemma 7.2, as a consequence of Theorem 7.3 we have the following
Corollary 7.4. Let G be a finite group. If γ(G) = 1, then K(G) is contractible.

References
[AT16]

H. Ahmadi and B. Taeri, Planarity of the intersection graph of subgroups of
a finite group, Journal of Algebra and Its Applications 15 (2016), no. 03,
1650040.

[Bae39]

R. Baer, The Significance of the System of Subgroups for the Structure of the
Group, Amer. J. Math. 61 (1939), no. 1, 1–44.

[BDG+ 12] B. Brešar, P. Dorbec, W. Goddard, B. L. Hartnell, M. A. Henning,
S. Klavžar, and D. F. Rall, Vizing’s conjecture: a survey and recent results,
Journal of Graph Theory 69 (2012), no. 1, 46–76.
[BKR07]

B. Brešar, S. Klavžar, and D. F. Rall, Dominating direct products of graphs,
Discrete Mathematics 307 (2007), no. 13, 1636 – 1642.

[Bos64]

J. Bosák, The graphs of semigroups, Theory of Graphs and its Applications (Proc. Sympos. Smolenice, 1963), Publ. House Czechoslovak Acad.
Sci., Prague, 1964, pp. 119–125.

[Bro75]

K. S. Brown, Euler characteristics of groups: the p-fractional part, Invent.
Math. 29 (1975), no. 1, 1–5.

[CGMS09] I. Chakrabarty, S. Ghosh, T. K. Mukherjee, and M. K. Sen, Intersection
graphs of ideals of rings, Discrete Math. 309 (2009), no. 17, 5381–5392.
[Coh94]

J. H. E. Cohn, On n-sum groups, Math. Scand. 75 (1994), no. 1, 44–58.

[CP69]

B. Csákány and G. Pollák, The graph of subgroups of a finite group,
Czechoslovak Math. J. 19 (94) (1969), 241–247.

[DL08]

E. Detomi and A. Lucchini, On the structure of primitive n-sum groups,
Cubo 10 (2008), no. 3, 195–210.

[DM96]

J. D. Dixon and B. Mortimer, Permutation groups, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 163, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1996.

[FGK05]

F. V. Fomin, F. Grandoni, and D. Kratsch, Measure and conquer: Domination – a case study, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2005.

[Fum09]

F. Fumagalli, A characterization of solvability for finite groups in terms of
their frame, Journal of Algebra 322 (2009), no. 6, 1919 – 1945.

16

[GL15]

M. Garonzi and A. Lucchini, Covers and normal covers of finite groups,
Journal of Algebra 422 (2015), 148 – 165.

[Gor80]

D. Gorenstein, Finite groups, second ed., Chelsea Publishing Co., New York,
1980.

[HIÖ89]

T. Hawkes, I. M. Isaacs, and M. Özaydin, On the Möbius function of a finite
group, Rocky Mountain J. Math. 19 (1989), no. 4, 1003–1034.

[HSH97]

T. W. Haynes, P. J. Slater, and S. T. Hedetniemi, Domination in graphs :
advanced topics, New York : Marcel Dekker, 1997.

[HSW15]

I. Heckenberger, J. Shareshian, and V. Welker, On the lattice of subracks of
the rack of a finite group, ArXiv e-prints (2015).

[Hup67]

B. Huppert, Endliche Gruppen. I, Die Grundlehren der Mathematischen
Wissenschaften, Band 134, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1967.

[JJR10]

S. H. Jafari and N. Jafari Rad, Planarity of intersection graphs of ideals of
rings, Int. Electron. J. Algebra 8 (2010), 161–166.

[JJR11]

, Domination in the intersection graphs of rings and modules, Ital. J.
Pure Appl. Math. (2011), no. 28, 19–22.

[Kay17]

S. Kayacan, Connectivity of intersection graphs of finite groups, Communications in Algebra, to appear (2017).

[KY15a]

S. Kayacan and E. Yaraneri, Abelian groups with isomorphic intersection
graphs, Acta Math. Hungar. 146 (2015), no. 1, 107–127.

[KY15b]

Selçuk Kayacan and Ergün Yaraneri, Finite groups whose intersection graphs
are planar, J. Korean Math. Soc. 52 (2015), no. 1, 81–96.

[LQ10]

J. D. Laison and Y. Qing, Subspace intersection graphs, Discrete Math. 310
(2010), no. 23, 3413–3416.

[Luc03]

Maria Silvia Lucido, On the poset of non-trivial proper subgroups of a finite
group, J. Algebra Appl. 2 (2003), no. 2, 165–168.

[Qui78]

D. Quillen, Homotopy properties of the poset of nontrivial p-subgroups of a
group, Adv. in Math. 28 (1978), no. 2, 101–128.

[Rot95]

Joseph J. Rotman, An introduction to the theory of groups, fourth ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 148, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995.

[Sch94]

R. Schmidt, Subgroup lattices of groups, de Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics, vol. 14, Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1994.

[She10]

R. Shen, Intersection graphs of subgroups of finite groups, Czechoslovak
Math. J. 60(135) (2010), no. 4, 945–950.

[Smi11]

S. D. Smith, Subgroup complexes, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs,
vol. 179, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2011.

[SW12]

J. Shareshian and R. Woodroofe, A new subgroup lattice characterization of
finite solvable groups, Journal of Algebra 351 (2012), no. 1, 448 – 458.

17

[SW16]

, Order complexes of coset posets of finite groups are not contractible,
Advances in Mathematics 291 (2016), 758 – 773.

[tD79]

T. tom Dieck, Transformation groups and representation theory, Lecture
Notes in Mathematics, vol. 766, Springer, Berlin, 1979.

[Wil09]

R. A. Wilson, The finite simple groups, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol.
251, Springer-Verlag London, Ltd., London, 2009.

[Yar13]

E. Yaraneri, Intersection graph of a module, J. Algebra Appl. 12 (2013),
no. 5, 1250218, 30.

[Zel75]

B. Zelinka, Intersection graphs of finite abelian groups, Czechoslovak Math.
J. 25(100) (1975), 171–174.

18

