MAXDIM OF SOME SIMPLE GROUPS

arXiv:1712.04553v1 [math.GR] 12 Dec 2017

LIU TIANYUE AND R. KEITH DENNIS

1. Introduction
There are various generalizations of the concept of dimension for vector spaces
in finite group theory. In this paper we are primarily concerned with three of them,
namely m(G), M axDim(G) and i(G).
Definition 1.1. A list\
of subgroups
\ {H1 , ..., Hn } are said to be in general position
if for all i ∈ {1, ..., n},
Hj
Hj .
j6=i

j

(i) M axDim(G) of a finite group G is defined as the maximal size of a list of
G’s maximal subgroups in general position.
(ii) m(G) is defined as the maximal size of an irredundant generating sequence
in G
(iii) i(G) is defined as the maximal size of an irredundant sequence in G
The basic relation between those group invariants is captured by the following
theorem.
Theorem 1.2. For a finite group G, m(G) ≤ M axDim(G) ≤ i(G)
M axDim, m and i can also be defined using the subgroup lattice. For a set [n]
with n elements, the power set P ([n]) has a partial order induced by inclusion. We
shall call a poset T a tower with dimension n if it is isomorphic to P ([n]), and call
the pre-images of (n − i)-element sets in P [n] the i-th level of the tower. In this
context, we can see that the following proposition holds.
Proposition 1.
(i) i(G) is the dimension of the largest tower embeddable in
the subgroup lattice of G.
(ii) M axDim(G) is the dimension of the largest tower embeddable in the subgroup lattice of G, so that all first level elements of the tower are maximal
subgroups. That is, for a first level element S, A ≥ S ⇒ A = S or A = G.
(iii) m(G) is the dimension of the largest tower embeddable in the subgroup
lattice of G, so that the join of all (n − 1)-th level elements of the tower is
G, and all (n − 1)-th level elements are the joins of the n-th level element
and cyclic.
Before we proceed to the results on the M axDim of simple groups, we shall
state some useful lemma here.
Lemma 1.3. m(G) ≤ max{i(M )|M is maximal subgroup of G}+1
i(G) = max{m(G), max{i(M )|M is maximal subgroup of G}}
Date: July 2017.
1

2

LIU TIANYUE AND R. KEITH DENNIS

2. The Suzuki Groups
In this section we compute m and MaxDim for some Suzuki groups of Lie type.
The main result was almost implied by a proof in the thesis of Whiston, although
he did not state the claim in his paper.
Proposition 2. If q is a prime power of 2, then Suz(q) has M axDim = m = 3.
Proof. To prove the proposition, we need to use the following theorem of Suzuki
[6]:
Theorem 2.1. Suz(q) acts 2-transitively on q 2 + 1 points. The maximal subgroups
of Suz(q) fall in one of the conjugacy classes listed below:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)

Stabilizers of a point, Eq .Eq : Cq−1
Stabilizers of a two point subset, D2(q−1)
Cq+√2q+1 : C4
Cq−√2q+1 : C4
Suz(q0 ) when q = q0r , r is a prime number and q0 is not 2

The general strategy behind the proof of Prop. 1 is to show on one hand, since
Suzuki groups do not satisfy the B-properties, m ≥ 3; on the other hand, the
structure of the maximal subgroups does not allow M axDim to exceed 3. We
shall prove the upper bound for MaxDim by inspecting the intersections of those
maximal subgroups.
Proposition 3. q is an odd power of 2, A, B are maximal subgroups of Suz(q).
The intersection I := A ∩ B is:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

Both A, B are of type (iii) or (iv), then I is a subgroup of C4
A is of type (ii) and B of type (iii) or (iv), then I is a subgroup of C2
A is of type (i) and B of type (iii) or (iv), then I is a subgroup of C4
Both A, B are of type (ii), then I is a subgroup of C2
Both A, B are of type (i), then I is isomorphic to Cq−1
A is of type (i) and B of type (ii), then I is isomorphic to either Cq−1 or
a subgroup of C2

To prove claim (1) ∼ (4) we need the following lemma:
Proposition 4. If F := Cn oB, G := Cm oB 0 are distinct maximal in simple group
S, gcd(|B|, m) = gcd(|B 0 |, n) = 1, then the intersection I = F ∩ G is isomorphic to
a common subgroup of H and H 0 , where H ∼
= B and H 0 ∼
= B0.
Proof. Assume there is a nontrivial x ∈ Cn lying inside the intersection I, then
x ∈ Cm (and vice versa) because any other element in G would have order dividing
|B 0 |, while as an element of Cn , the order of x cannot divide anything relatively
prime to n.
On one hand, if we assume Cn is not contained in the intersection, then there
must be a nontrivial element z ∈ Cn \I. Since G is maximal in S, S =< G, {z} >.
But z and x lie in the same cyclic group Cn , so z < x > z −1 =< x >. Moreover, by
the cyclicity of Cm , < x > is normal in G. That is to say, g < x > g −1 =< x > for
any finite word g using z and elements in G. Thus < x > must be a proper normal
subgroup of S, which contradicts S being a simple group. If Cm is not contained
in the intersection, we yield the same contradiction.

MAXDIM OF SOME SIMPLE GROUPS

3

On the other hand, if Cn , Cm ⊆ I then the normalizer of K := Cn ∩ Cm must
contain both F and G, so S = NS (K), also contradicting the simplicity of S. Thus
the intersection I must intersect trivially with Cn or Cm .
Write elements in F as ordered pairs. Since I intersects Cn trivially, for any
y ∈ B there is at most 1 element (x, y) ∈ I, so the homomorphism (x, y) 7→ y is
injective. Similarly, the homomorphism (x0 , y 0 ) ∈ G 7→ y 0 ∈ B 0 is also injective. I
is isomorphic to a common subgroup of B and B 0 .

√
√
Thus, since both q−1 and q± 2q+1 are odd,
√ we have that gcd(q± 2q+1, 4) = 1
implies claim (1), gcd(q − 1, 4) = gcd(q ± 2q + 1, 2) = 1 implies claim (2), and
gcd(q − 1, 2) = 1√implies claim (4). Claim (3) follows from Whiston’s result, namely
since gcd(4(q ± 2q + 1), q 2 (q − 1)) = 4, the order of the intersection must divide 4
[6]. However, a Klein four group cannot be embedded into a subgroup of type (iii)
or (iv), so the intersection must be a subgroup of C4 .
The intersection of two distinct point stabilizers, say Stab(a) and Stab(b), is
equivalent to the stabilizer of a in the pair-stabilizer Stab({a, b}). The orbit of
a in Stab({a, b}) is {a, b}, so by the Orbit-Stabilizer Theorem, the intersection of
Stab(a) and Stab(b) has index 2 in dihedral group Stab({a, b}) ∼
= D2(q−1) . Thus
the intersection is cyclic of order q − 1, and claim (5) is proven.
If I is the intersection of Stab(a) and Stab({u, v}), then there are two cases. If
a ∈ {u, v} then I ∼
/ {u, v}, then we need the
= Stab(u) ∩ Stab(v) ∼
= Cq−1 . If a ∈
following lemma of Huppert and Blackburn [1]:
Proposition 5. Any nontrivial element of Suz(q) has at most 2 fixed points.
That is to say, the intersection of any three point stabilizer must be trivial. If
a ∈
/ {u, v}, then since Stab(u) ∩ Stab(v) ∩ Stab(a) has index at most 2 in I :=
Stab(a) ∩ Stab({u, v}), I must be a subgroup of C2 and claim (6) holds.
Since any subgroup of C4 or C2 has i ≤ 1, a length 4 list lof maximal subgroups in
general position must include no subgroup of type (iii) or (iv), at most 1 subgroup
of type (ii), and at most 3 point stabilizers. Since 3-fold intersection of point
stabilizers is trivial, they cannot coexist with another dihedral group in the list, so
there cannot be a such a length 4 list l. That is to say, 3 = m = M axDim = 3. 
3. The Suzuki Tower
The Suzuki tower is a family of five simple groups: P SL2 (7) < P SU3 (3) < J2 <
G2 (4) < Suz. Here J2 is the Hall-Janko group, G2 (4) is an exceptional group of
Lie type, and Suz is the sporadic Suzuki group. Each of them act transitively on
a distance transitive graph, denoted by Γ1 to Γ5 respectively. Moreover, for i =
1, 2, 3, 4, Γi are the local subgraphs of Γi+1 . That is to say, for any vertex v ∈ Γi+1 ,
the subgraph induced by v’s neighbors is Γi . When the groups in the Suzuki tower
acts as automorphisms of these graphs, the vertex stabilizers are isomorphic to
the group one level beneath it in the tower [7]. Using these information and some
knowledge on the structure of Γ1 , we can give an inductive argument to bound the
M axDim of these groups from below.
Proposition 6. The M axDim of P SU3 (3), J2 , G2 (4), and Suz are greater or
equal to 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively.
Proof. As mentioned by Brouwer, Γ1 is the co-Heawood graph on 14 vertices, which
is the point-line non incidence graph of the Fano plane. In other words, it is the

4

LIU TIANYUE AND R. KEITH DENNIS

Figure 1. Heawood Graph
distance-3 graph of the Heawood graph in Figure 1 [3]. P SL2 (7) acts on it with
rank 4, and the stabilizer of a vertex v3 (e.g. the one labeled with a square in Figure
1) is S4 , which has vertex orbit size 1 + 4 + 6 + 3. The 6 orbit corresponds to the
vertices at distance 2 with v3 . Stabilizing another point in v3 ’s neighborhood (those
vertices labeled with circles in Figure 1) gives S3 , and stabilizing a point in the 6
orbit yields the Klein 4 group C2 × C2 . Stabilizing 2 points in v3 ’s neighborhood
would result in C2 , because the one vertex stabilizer S4 acts on the four neighbors
as the permutation group S4 . Notice that v3 ’s neighbors are at distance 2 with
each other in the co-Heawood graph.
Now to bound MaxDim of a Suzuki tower group at level i, i > 1, we can pick an
arbitrary vertex vi+2 first. Then we keep picking vertices in the common neighborhood of previously picked vertices, until the common neighborhood becomes the
co-Heawood graph. Since each time we add a new point the common neighborhood
induces a graph one level beneath the previous graph in the tower, we should have
collected i − 1 vertices so far. Pick a vertex in the co-Heawood graph and denote
it v3 . then pick two more vertices in v3 ’s neighborhood and denote them by v2 , v1 .
I claim that the point stabilizers of {v1 , ..., vi+2 } in Γi are maximal subgroups in
general position. The intersection of all those point stabilizers is the same as the
point-wise stabilizer of v1 , v2 , and v3 in the co-Heawood graph, so it must be C2 .
Meanwhile, the subgraph of Γi induced by {v1 , ..., vi+2 } is a complete i + 2 graph
with one edge removed, and its subgraphs induced on any i+1 vertices are complete
i + 1 graphs with or without an edge removed. If the subgraph on i + 1 vertices is
a complete graph, then the intersection of corresponding stabilizers is isomorphic
to S3 , i.e. the stabilizer of a vertex and one of its neighbor in the co-Heawood
graph. Otherwise, the instersection of point stabilizers must be C2 × C2 , which is
the point-wise stabilizer of two vertices at distance 2 in the co-Heawood graph. In
either case, the i + 1-fold intersections contains the overall intersection properly.
thus by definition the i + 2 point stabilizer are in general position.

Remark 3.1. We actually can prove a stronger result here, namely the lower bounds
for M axDim are the lower bonds form as well. Let {v1 , ..., vi+2 } be picked as

MAXDIM OF SOME SIMPLE GROUPS

5

mentioned above, and denote the two neighbors of v3 not in the list by a and b. Then
there are two elements σ, τ in the point-wise stabilizer Stab({v3 , ..., vi+2 }) ∼
= S4 so
that σ : a 7→ b, b 7→ v1 , v1 7→ a, v2 7→ v2 and τ : a 7→ v2 , v2 7→ a, b 7→ b, v1 7→ v1 . σ
and τ generates an S4 , which is exactly the point-wise
stabilizer
\
\ Stab({v3 , ..., vi+2 }).
Thus if we pick any α3 , ..., αi+2 so that αj ∈
Stab(vk )\ Stab(vk ), then since
k6=j

k

for all j ≥ 2, Stab({vj , ..., vi+2 }) is maximal in Stab({vj+1 , ..., vi+2 }), we know
that l := {σ, τ, α3 , ..., αi+2 } generates the entire group. Since sequence l certifies a
list of maximal subgroups in general position, it must be irredundant, so we know
m ≥ i + 2 for the group at level i. In particular, since the intersection of the point
stabilizers is C2 , applying a lemma of Keith Dennis tells us P SU3 (3) and J2 fails
the replacement property.
Remark 3.2. The lower bounds of M axDim are strict for P SU3 (3) and J2 , which
has been checked computationally.
4. The Mathieu Groups
In this section we give a computer-aided proof for the M axDim of Mathieu
groups.
Proposition 7. The M axDim of M11 , M12 , M22 , M23 , M24 are 5, 6, 6, 6, and 7
respectively.
Proof. M axDim for M11 and M12 has already been calculated by Brooks [2].
M22 , M23 , M24 can be defined as automorphism groups of Steiner systems. A
Steiner system (a, b, v) is a set S on v points with a collection of subsets B called
”blocks”, so that any block in B contains exactly b points and any a points are
contained in exactly one block [7]. In this section We shall utilize the axioms of
Steiner systems to prove our claim on M axDim.
We know that M24 is the automorphism group of the unique Steiner (5,8,24)
system, and is 5-transitive on the 24 points. M23 is the stabilizer of a point in
M24 . As will be shown later, we can find a list of 7 point stabilizers in M24
that are in general position. If {Stab(a1 ), ..., Stab(a7 )} are in general position in
M24 , then {Stab(a1 ) ∩ Stab(a2 ), ..., Stab(a1 ) ∩ Stab(a7 )} are in general position
in Stab(a1 ) ∼
= M23 . Since M23 is 4-transitive on 23 points, point stabilizers are
maximal in M23 . Thus {Stab(a1 ) ∩ Stab(a2 ), ..., Stab(a1 ) ∩ Stab(a7 )} is a list of
maximal subgroups in general position, so M axDim(M23 ) ≥ 6. Applying the same
argument to M22 the point stabilizer in M23 , we know that M axDim(M22 ) ≥ 5.
However, as suggested by Sophie Le’s computational results, for M22 there is a
way to construct a longer list of maximal subgroups in general position. Pick 2
points {a, b} in Steiner (5, 8, 24) system, the 22 points leftover together with the
blocks that contain {a, b} form a Steiner (3, 6, 22) system. Pick 3 points {α1 , α2 , α3 }
in the 22 points, a block O1 of S(5, 8, 24) that contains {a, b, α1 , α2 } , another block
O2 that contains {a, b, α3 } and intersect the first block at only 2 points {a, b}, and
a third block O3 that contains {a, α1 , α2 , α3 } and intersect both B1 and B2 at 4point sets. It turns out that M := Stab(a) ∩ Stab(b) ∼
= M22 and M ∩ Stab(α1 ), M ∩
Stab(α2 ), M ∩ Stab(α3 ), M ∩ Stab(B1 ), M ∩ Stab(B2 ), M ∩ Stab(B3 ) are maximal
in M and are in general position.
Sophie Le has checked computationally that M axDim(M22 ) = M axDim(M23 ) =
6.

6

LIU TIANYUE AND R. KEITH DENNIS

In a Steiner (5,8,24) system, a block is termed as an ”octad”. The stabilizer of
an octad in M24 is C24 : A8 , where A8 permutes the 8 points in the octad and each
involution in C24 moves all 16 points outside the octad and stabilizes the points
inside the octad [5]. Thus we can use point stabilizers again to give a lower bound
of M axDim. Pick an octad in the Steiner system, then pick 6 points a1 , ..., a6
inside the block and one point a7 outside the block. The stabilizers of them are
then in general position. We shall prove this by showing that on one hand, the
point-wise stabilizer of the 7 points is trivial, and on the other hand, point-wise
stabilizers of any 6 points are either C3 or C24 .
Since any five points determine a unique octad, a sixth point can either sit inside
or outside the octad. Let the stabilizer of that octad be denoted O ∼
= E : A, where
E∼
= A8 is alternating on 8 points.
= E16 is elementary abelian of order 16 and A ∼
Let πA : O → A8 be the projection onto the permutation group of points in the
octad, ιE : E16 → O be the injection from the normal subgroup, ιA : A8 → O be
the splitting homomorphism, and the point-wise stabilizer of 6 points be denoted
as I. If the sixth point sits inside the octad, then since any involution in the normal
∼
subgroup E stabilizes the points in the octad, ι−1
E (I) = E16 . Since the nontrivial
permutation on two points is odd, πA (I) must be trivial, thus I ∼
= E16 . If the
sixth point sits outside the octad, then all involutions in E cannot be contained
in I, and there is a permutation p in A8 that shuffles the three points left over in
the octad. Since O is a split extension, ιA (p) is an order 3 element in I. Since
πA (I) ∼
= C3 , ι−1
E (I) is trivial, I must be isomorphic to C3 . In either case, six-fold
intersections of point stabilizers are non-trivial. However, if R is the intersection of
∼
∼
all 7 point stabilizers, then ι−1
E (R) = πA (R) = 1, so R must be trivial. Thus the
point stabilizers are in general position and M axDim(M24 ) ≥ 7.
To obtain an upper bound, we checked computationally that all maximal subgroups of M24 have i ≤ 6 except the dyad groups M22 : 2, the octad groups C24 : A8
and the trio groups C26 : (P SL3 (2) × S3 ), all of which have i = 7. Thus i(M24 ) ≤ 8
and if there is a length 8 list l of maximal subgroups in general position, then only
dyad, octad, and trio subgroups may occur in that list.
The dyad subgroup is the stabilizer of a two point set (i.e. a dyad). Since M24 is
5-transitive, the intersection of two dyad groups falls into two conjugacy classes: if
the dyads intersect, then the intersection is isomorphic to P SL3 (4), and if the dyads
are disjoint, then the intersection is isomorphic to C25 : A5 : C2 : C2 . Both of them
have i ≤ 5, so they cannot be in a length 8 list of Maximal subgroups in general
position. That is, in a length 8 list l, there can be at most 1 dyad stabilizer. In the
following paragraphs, the high transitivity of M24 will be used extensively to show
that beside the potential dyad stabilizer, we can use at most 2 octad stabilizers and
4 trio stabilizers, thus l cannot exist.
Lemma 4.1. Had there been a length 8 list l of maximal subgroups in general
position, then octad stabilizers can appear at most twice in l.
Proof. Two distinct octads in the Steiner (5,8,24) system S(5, 8, 24) may be disjoint
or intersect at a set of size 2 or 4. Any pair of octads that intersect at a 2set are congruent to one another pair under the action of M24 . To see this, we
can denote the 2-point intersections in each pair {a, b} and {a0 , b0 } respectively.
The octads involved in each pair shall be denoted O1 , O2 and O10 , O20 . Then using
the 5-transitivity of M24 we can find an element σ1 that sends a to a0 and b to
b0 . The point-wise stabilizer of a0 and b0 is M22 , a group of automorphisms of

MAXDIM OF SOME SIMPLE GROUPS

7

the Steiner (3,6,22) system induced by fixing a0 , b0 in S(5, 8, 24). As Brouwer
mentioned, if we construct a M22 graph by connecting the 6-point blocks a Steiner
(3,6,22) system when they are disjoint, then M22 would act edge-transitively on
the graph [3]. That is to say, since the 6-point blocks are constructed by removing
{a0 , b0 } from the 77 octads in S(5, 8, 24) containing {a0 , b0 }, there is an element σ2
in the point-wise stabilizer of a0 and b0 that maps σ1 (O1 ) to O10 and σ1 (O2 ) to O20 .
Thus σ1 σ2 maps one pair of octad to the other pair, and it implies that Stab(O1 )
(resp.Stab(O2 )) can be mapped to Stab(O10 ) (resp.Stab(O20 )) under conjugation by
σ1 σ2 . As a consequence, we only need to check one pair of octad stabilizers to know
the intersection of any pair (Stab(O1 ), Stab(O2 )) where |O1 ∩ O2 |=2. It turns out
that the intersection is isomorphic to S6 , which has i = 5. Thus in l two octad
stabilizers must have their octads either disjoint or intersecting at a 4-point set.
Moreover, if an octad is split into a 4+2+2 partition by the blocks of a trio
(i.e. a partition of the 24 points into 3 octads), then the intersection of the octad
stabilizer with the trio stabilizer is (C2 × C2 × A4 ) : 2, which has i = 4, so they
cannot coexist in l. As in the previous case, by using transitivity we only need to
check one example in order to cover the entire case. Indeed, every octad-trio pair
with this pattern of intersection are congruent to each other under the action of
M24 , so the intersections of their stabilizers are all isomorphic. This claimed can
be inferred from the 2+1+1 transitivity of the trio group [5]. To prove the claim,
denote the octad-trio pairs as (O, T ) (resp. O0 , T 0 ) and the 3 octad blocks in T as
O1 , O2 , O3 (resp. O10 through O30 ), where |O1 ∩ O| = 4. Let {a1 , a2 } (resp. a01 , a02 )
be the two points in O ∩ O2 (resp. O ∩ O20 ) and a3 (resp. a03 ) be in O ∩ O1 (resp.
O ∩ O10 ), a4 (resp. a04 ) be in O ∩ O3 (resp. O ∩ O30 ). Since all trio groups are
conjugate to each other, there is a σ1 that maps trio T to T 0 . Since a trio group
acts as S3 on its three octads, there is an element σ2 that maps octad σ1 (O1 ) to O10
and σ1 (O2 ) to O20 . Since the trio group is 2+1+1 transitive after stabilizing each
octad in the trio individually, there is a σ3 that takes σ2 σ1 ({ai }) to {a0i }. Now we
have σ3 σ2 σ1 (O ∩ O2 ) = O0 ∩ O20 = {a01 , a02 }. If σ3 σ2 σ1 (O ∩ O3 ) = O0 ∩ O30 , then since
(O0 ∩ (O20 ∪ O30 )) ∪ {a03 } determines a unique octad, we have σ3 σ2 σ1 (O) = O0 . If
not, then I := σ3 σ2 σ1 (O ∩ O3 ) ∩ (O0 ∩ O30 ) must have only 1 element to ensure that
|O0 ∩ σ3 σ2 σ1 (O)| is less than 5. But in that case, the symmetric difference octad
O0 O10 would intersect σ3 σ2 σ1 (O) in a 6 point set (σ3 σ2 σ1 (O)\{a3 }) ∪ {a1 , a2 , a4 },
contradiction. Thus σ3 σ2 σ1 (O) = O0 and σ3 σ2 σ1 maps the first octad-trio pair to
the second.
If three octad stabilizers are in general position then their octads cannot be
mutually disjoint, for by stabilizing two disjoint octads we automatically stabilize
the third one. Thus there must be a pair of octad stabilizers intersecting at a tetrad
(i.e. 4-point set). They will be denoted O1 and O2 . In S(5, 8, 24), stabilizing a
tetrad implies stabilizing a sextet (i.e. a partition of the 24 points into 6 tetrads).
The tetrads in the sextet would be denoted as T et1 , ..., T et6 , where T et1 := O1 ∩O2 ,
T et2 := O1 − O2 , and T et3 := O2 − O1 . Adding a third octad stabilizer into the list
either preserves the tetrads in the sextet or refines them. However, the third octad
O3 must not intersect any tetrad in odd number of points. If |O3 ∩ T eti | = 1 for
some i, then since whenever i 6= j, T eti ∪ T etj is octad and the intersection of any
two distinct octads cannot have size other than 0, 2, or 4, |O3 ∩ T etj | = 1 or 3 for
all i 6= j. Because of the pigeon hole principal, we can then consider only the case
where |O3 ∩ T eti | = 3 for some i without loss of generality. If |O3 ∩ T eti | = 3 for

8

LIU TIANYUE AND R. KEITH DENNIS

some i, then |O3 ∩ T etj | = 1 for all i 6= j. Since we need |O3 ∩ O1 | = |O3 ∩ O2 | = 4,
i must be 1. But then we have stabilized 2 points inside and 1 point outside O1 ,
namely we have stabilized T et1 −O3 , T et2 ∩O3 , and T et3 ∩O3 . Thus the intersection
of such three octad stabilizers must be isomorphic to a subgroup of A6 , and by the
flatness of alternating groups it has i ≤ 4 [4]. If we want the list l to have length
8, any three elements of it must have an intersection with i ≥ 5, so |O3 ∩ T eti | = 2
or 4 for all i.
If the third octad O3 splits one of the tetrads into two dyads, then it must
split T et1 , ..., T et3 as well as one more tetrad T et4 into dyads. This is because
the 8 points in O3 must be split into 4 dyads, so it must intersect with O1 ∪
O2 . Since it must not intersect O1 or O2 in only 2 points, its intersection with
T et1 , ..., T et3 must all have size 2. Moreover, the sextet induced by |O3 ∩O1 | consists
of tetrads that their intersection with T et1 , ..., T et6 could only have size 0 or 2. Let
the tetrads in this sextet be denoted as T et01 , ..., T et06 , where T et01 := O1 ∩ O3 ,
T et02 := O1 − O3 , and T et03 := O3 − O1 . The tetrad containing T et3 − O3 shall
be denoted as T et04 . We know T et04 = T et3 − O3 ∪ T et4 − O3 , because otherwise
since there is an i that T et0i ⊂ T et5 ∪ T et6 , (T et04 ∪ T et0i ) ∩ (T et5 ∪ T et6 ) would
have cardinality 6, which is impossible. Therefore, T et5 ∪ T et6 = T et05 ∪ T et06 . Now
we shall show that |Stab(O1 ) ∩ Stab(O2 ) ∩ Stab(O3 )| ≤ 16 using those information.
Pick a point p in T et5 ∩ T et05 and another point q in T et4 ∩ T et04 and denote
Stab(p) ∩ Stab(q) ∩ Stab(O1 ) ∩ Stab(O2 ) ∩ Stab(O3 ) by I. Under the action of
Stab(O1 )∩Stab(O2 )∩Stab(O3 ), q can only be map to the other point in T et4 ∩T et04
and p can only be mapped to points in the octad T et5 ∪ T et6 , so I must have
index less than 16 in Stab(O1 ) ∩ Stab(O2 ) ∩ Stab(O3 ). But I must be trivial, for by
stabilizing p we have stabilized all 12 dyads that are the intersections of T eti ∩T et0j ,
therefore every nontrivial element in I must be involutions. Since we have stabilized
an octad T et5 ∪ T et6 , I must act as an even permutation on the octad. If there is a
nontrivial element σ in I, then it must permute the two points in T et5 − T et05 or the
two points in T et05 − T et5 . In fact, they must permute both of them simultaneously
to ensure that σ is an even permutation on both T et4 ∪ T et5 and T et4 ∪ T et6 . As
a result σ must stabilize the two points in T et6 ∩ T et06 and T et3 ∩ T et03 and move
the points in T et4 ∩ T et03 . But an involution in M24 moves either 16 or 24 points
[5], so σ must move every point in O1 , thus its action on T et1 ∪ T et4 is an odd
permutation, contradiction. Since i(I) is less than the number of prime factors in
I, i(I) ≤ 4, so we must avoid this pattern as well.
As a consequence, if three octad stabilizers are in general position, then their
pairwise intersections must have cardinality 4, so O3 is the union of two tetrads
in {T et1 , ..., T et6 }. We can add at most one more octad stabilizer into the list,
for four octad stabilizers in general position would have stabilized all six tetrads
individually. Meanwhile, we can add at most one trio stabilizer into the list. This
is because on one hand, if the octads inside the trio are all unions of tetrads in
{T et1 , ..., T et6 }, then T et5 , T et6 must be in different octads, so adding that trio
stabilizer stabilizes all the 6 tetrads, and no more such trio stabilizers can be added.
On the other hand, we can consider the case where one of the three octads in
trio Õ1 , Õ2 , Õ3 , say Õ1 , intersect with a tetrad at a set of cardinality 2, or 3.
Intersecting with a tetrad at one point implies intersecting with another one at a
set of cardinality 3, so without loss of generality we can omit the discussion of that
case. If |Õ1 ∩ T eti | = 3, then to ensure the intersection of Õ1 with O1 , O2 , O3 all

MAXDIM OF SOME SIMPLE GROUPS

9

have cardinality 0 or 4, we must have i = 1 and T et1 ⊂ O3 . But if we denote the
octad containing T et1 − Õ1 as Õ2 , then Õ2 ∩ T et2 and Õ2 ∩ T et3 must all have
cardinality 3 to ensure that |Õ2 ∩ O1 | = |Õ2 ∩ O2 | = 4, so |Õ2 ∩ (T et2 ∪ T et3 )| = 6,
contradiction. If |Õ1 ∩ T eti | = 2, then again using the same pigeon hole argument
we can infer that |Õ1 ∩ T eti | = |Õ2 ∩ T eti | = 2 for i = 1, 2, 3, 4, where T et4 ⊂ O3 .
But then an arbitrary element σ in the intersection of Stab(O1 ), Stab(O2 ) and the
trio stabilizer would not be able to move an element in O3 outside, so the three
octad stabilizers and the trio stabilizer are not in general position. Therefore, the
only trio stabilizers that can be added in consist of octads that are unions of tetrads
in {T et1 , ..., T et6 }. Thus if there are three octad stabilizers in the list l, then we can
add at most 1 dyad stabilizer, 1 octad stabilizer and 1 trio stabilizer into the list
(Actually, at most 1 octad stabilizer or 1 trio stabilizer along with a potential dyad
stabilizer), which means the list has size less than 8. It then follows immediately
that we can use at most two octad stabilizers in l.

Lemma 4.2. Had there been a length 8 list l of maximal subgroups in general
position, then trio stabilizers can appear at most 4 times in l.
Proof. Let us pick a trio {Õ1 , Õ2 , Õ3 } in the Steiner system. A second trio {Q̃1 , Q̃2 , Q̃3 }
may intersect with the first trio in one of the following four ways:
(i) All of Q̃1 , Q̃2 , Q̃3 are split into 4+2+2 partitions.
(ii) Q̃1 , Q̃2 are split into 4+2+2 partitions, and Q̃3 is split into two tetrads.
(iii) All of Q̃1 , Q̃2 , Q̃3 are split into tetrads.
(iv) Q̃1 overlaps with Õ1 , and Q̃2 , Q̃3 are split into tetrads.
In this section we shall denote a pair of trios as T rio1 = {Õ1 , Õ2 , Õ3 }, T rio2 =
{Q̃1 , Q̃2 , Q̃3 } and in the case we are discussing more than one pairs, the second
pair as T rio01 = {Õ10 , Õ20 , Õ30 }, T rio02 = {Q̃01 , Q̃02 , Q̃03 }. The intersection of the two
trio stabilizers shall be denoted as I(T rio1 , T rio2 ).
Let the type (i) pairs be considered the first. Assume without loss of generality
that |Õi ∩ Q̃i | = |Õi0 ∩ Q̃0i | = 4 for i = 1, 2, 3. Since Õi ∩ Q̃i can only be mapped
to Õj ∩ Q̃j for i, j = 1, 2, 3, I(T rio1 , T rio2 ) acts as a subgroup of S3 on {Õi ∩
Q̃i |i = 1, 2, 3}. (Õi ∩ Q̃i ) ∪ (Õj ∩ Q̃j ) cannot be octads in order to ensure that
(Q̃i − Õi ) ∪ (Õj ∩ Q̃j ) ∩ Õj has order less than 5, so if we find the stabilizers
Stab(Sex1 ) (resp.Stab(Sex2 )) of the sextet containing Õ1 ∩ Q̃1 (resp.Õ2 ∩ Q̃2 ), then
Stab(Sex1 ) ∩ Stab(Sex2 ) ∩ I(T rio1 , T rio2 ), which is the stabilizer of each Õi ∩ Q̃i ,
must have index less than 6 in I(T rio1 , T rio2 ). Let the tetrads in Sex1 be denoted
as T et1 , ..., T et6 . We know that |T eti ∩ (Õ2 ∩ Q̃2 )| can only be 0, 1, or 2 to ensure
|((Q̃1 − Õ1 ) ∪ T eti ) ∩ Õ2 |=2 or 4. But if there is no i that |T eti ∩ (Õ2 ∩ Q̃2 )| = 1,
then there must be two tetrads so that T eti ∪ T etj = (Õ2 ∩ Q̃2 ) ∪ (Õ3 ∩ Q̃3 ) in
order to ensure that |((Õ1 − Q̃1 ) ∪ T eti ) ∩ Q̃2 | = |((Õ1 − Q̃1 ) ∪ T etj ) ∩ Q̃2 | = 4.
In that case, (Õ2 ∩ Q̃2 ) ∪ (Õ3 ∩ Q̃3 ) forms an octad, which is impossible. Thus
both Õ2 ∩ Q̃2 and Õ3 ∩ Q̃3 are split into blocks of size 2+1+1 by tetrads in Sex1 .
In particular, there is a tetrad T et4 that intersect both Õ2 ∩ Q̃2 and Õ3 ∩ Q̃3
at 2-sets and two tetrads T et5 , T et6 that intersect both Õ2 ∩ Q̃2 and Õ3 ∩ Q̃3
at a single point. Pick one point p ∈ T et4 ∩ Õ2 ∩ Q̃2 and another point q ∈
T et5 ∩ Õ2 ∩ Q̃2 , then Stab(p) ∩ Stab(q) ∩ Stab(Sex1 ) ∩ Stab(Sex2 ) ∩ I(T rio1 , T rio2 )
must be trivial, for by doing so we have stabilized an octad Õ2 , 6 points inside
({p}, {q}, Õ2 ∩ T et4 − {p}, Õ2 ∩ Q̃2 ∩ T et6 , Õ2 ∩ T et5 − {q}, Õ2 ∩ T et6 − Q̃2 ) and

10

LIU TIANYUE AND R. KEITH DENNIS

one point outside (say, Õ3 ∩ Q̃2 ∩ T et5 ) the octad. Since p can only possibly be
mapped to the other point in Õ2 ∩T et4 −{p} and q can only be mapped to the point
in Õ2 ∩ Q̃2 ∩ T et6 by elements in Stab(Sex1 ) ∩ Stab(Sex2 ) ∩ I(T rio1 , T rio2 ), the
trivial group must have index less than or equal to 24 in I(T rio1 , T rio2 ). But then
I(T rio1 , T rio2 ) cannot have more than 4 prime factors, so i(I(T rio1 , T rio2 )) ≤ 4,
such a pair of trios stabilizers cannot appear in a list of length 8.
A pair of trio stabilizers of type (ii) cannot appear either. In fact, if {T rio1 , T rio2 }
and {T rio01 , T rio02 } are such trio pairs, then we can show that I(T rio1 , T rio2 )
is conjugate to I(T rio01 , T rio02 ). Assume without loss of generality that Õ1 , Q̃3
(resp.Õ10 , Q̃3 ’) are split into two tetrads. DenoteÕ1 ∩ Q̃1 , Õ1 − Q̃1 , Q̃1 − Õ1 , Q̃2 − Õ1
as T et1 , ..., T et4 . and their counterparts in the other pair of trios as T et01 , ..., T et04 .
Those tetrads must be in the same sextet. Moreover, the two tetrads left over in
T et1 , ..., T et6 must split both Õ2 ∩ Q̃3 and Õ3 ∩ Q̃3 in to dyads. Pick p1 , ..., p4 so
that p1 ∈ Q̃1 − Õ1 = T et3 , p2 , p3 ∈ Q̃3 ∩ Õ2 ∩ T et5 and p4 ∈ Q̃3 ∩ Õ2 ∩ T et6 .
Pick p01 , ..., p04 in a similar way for the other pair of trios. Since all sextet stabilizers
are conjugate to each other and a sextet stabilizer is transitive on the 6 tetrads,
there is in element σ ∈ M24 that maps T eti to T et0i . Since as Conway mentioned
the stabilizer of every tetrad in a sextet stabilizer is still 2+1+1+0+0+0 transitive
[5], there must be a τ that fixes each tetrad and maps pi to p0i . Now we have
τ σ(Q̃i ) = Q̃0i and τ σ(Õ1 ) = Õ10 . If τ σ(Õ2 ) 6= Õ20 then τ σ(Õ2 ) ∩ Õ20 = {p1 , ..., p4 },
therefore |τ σ(Õ2 ) ∩ Õ30 ∩ Q̃03 | = 1. But if we consider the sextet induced by Õ30 ∩ Q̃03
then we know there is an octad consisting of 4 points in Õ10 and the 4 points in
Õ30 ∩ Q̃03 . That octad would then intersect τ σ(Õ2 ) at a single point, which is not
possible. Thus τ σ(Õ2 ) = Õ20 and τ σ maps the first pair of trios to the second pair.
Checking an instance, we know that in this case I(T rio1 , T rio2 ) must be isomorphic to D8 × D8 , which has i = 4, and we can therefore eliminate all trio stabilizer
pairs of this type.
For type (iii) pairs, we know that {Õ1 , Õ2 , Õ3 , Q̃1 , Q̃2 , Q̃3 } are all unions of
tetrads in a particular sextet. A third trio may either consist of unions of tetrads
in that particular sextet, or contain an octad intersecting one of the tetrads at a
2-point set. Otherwise, if there is an octad intersecting a tetrad in a 1-point set or
3 point set, then that octad must be partitioned into blocks of size 3+1+1+1+1+1,
thus it must intersect one of the octads in T rio1 or T rio2 in a 2-point set, therefore
we can no longer obtain a length 8 list in the end. But if the third trio contains an
octad intersecting one of the tetrads at a 2-point set, say T et1 := Õ1 ∩ Q̃1 , then it
must intersect T et2 := Õ1 − Q̃1 , T et3 := Q̃1 − Õ1 at 2-point sets. Let Õ2 be the
octad containing T et3 and Q̃2 be the octad containing T et2 . Then the octad in
the third trio must intersect both T et4 := Q̃2 − T et2 , T et5 := Õ2 − T et3 at 2-point
sets, which is impossible-we only have 8 points in an octad. Thus the third trio
must consist of unions of tetrads in the sextet induced by T eti . That is to say,
the intersection of all trio stabilizers in the current list must contain the stabilizer
of each individual tetrads in {T eti }, which is proven by Conway to be isomorphic
to C26 : C3 . If we take Õi as vertices and Q̃i as edges, then we can construct
a triangle by attaching an edge to two vertices if their corresponding structures
satisfies Q̃i ⊂ Õj ∪ Õk . To say that the action of I(T rio1 , T rio2 ) on the 6 tetrads
preserves the octads is just saying that it acts as automorphisms of that triangle,
therefore we can see that I(T rio1 , T rio2 ) acts as s subgroup of D6 ∼
= S3 on those
tetrads, and it implies that the index of C26 : C3 in I(T rio1 , T rio2 ) has less than

MAXDIM OF SOME SIMPLE GROUPS

11

or equal to 2 prime factors. Thus if in our list of length 8 there are T rio1 , T rio2
of type (iii) then besides them we can add at most 2 more trio stabilizers into our
list.
Now we shall consider the last case that each pair of trio stabilizers in our list is of
type (iv). Let T rio1 , T rio2 be one of such a pair, Õ3 = Q̃3 , and the sextet induced
by Õ1 ∩ Q̃1 be denoted as {T eti }. If we introduce a third trio T rio3 = {R̃1 , R̃2 , R̃3 },
then there are two cases: in the first one, all octads in T rio3 are unions of tetrads in
{T eti }; in the second case, there is an octad in T rio3 that intersect one of the tetrads
at a 2-point set. Using the same argument as before we can ignore the case where
an octad in T rio3 intersect one of the tetrads at a 1-point or 3-point set. To finish
our proof we shall start with the first case. If Õ3 = Q̃3 = R̃3 then I(T rio1 , T rio2 )
would be contained in the intersection of three trio stabilizers. To see this we
can use T et1 := Õ1 ∩ Q̃1 , T et2 := Õ1 ∩ Q̃2 , T et3 := Õ2 ∩ Q̃1 , T et4 := Õ2 ∩ Q̃2 as
vertices and construct an edge-colored rectangle, where the edges correspond to the
octads containing a pair of tetrads in T et1 , ..., T et4 and they are colored according
to whether they belong to T rio1 or T rio2 . Elements in I(T rio1 , T rio2 ) are exactly
those elements in M2 3 that act as automorphisms of the rectangle, and Elements in
I(T rio1 , T rio2 , T rio3 ) are those elements preserving the diagonals as well. But an
automorphism of that colored triangle would automatically preserve the diagonals,
soI(T rio1 , T rio2 ) ⊂ I(T rio1 , T rio2 , T rio3 ), the trio stabilizers are not in general
position. Therefore the octad shared by T rio1 , T rio3 must be either Õ1 or Õ2 . On
the other hand, the octad shared by T rio2 , T rio3 must be either Q̃1 or Q̃2 , so T rio3
contains one of Õ1 , Õ2 and one of Q̃1 , Q̃2 at the same time, which is impossible.
Thus we cannot add in a T rio3 that has type (iv) intersections with both T rio1 and
T rio2 while keeping the stabilizers in general position without letting the octads in
T rio3 split the tetrads. But in the second case, if there is an octad R̃1 intersecting
one of the tetrads at a 2-point set, then that octad must split one of T et1 , .., T et4
into dyads. Since that octad is not equal to any octad in T rio1 , T rio2 , all of its
intersections with octads in T rio1 , T rio2 need to have 4 points, so that octad must
be split into 4 dyads by the 4 tetrads T et1 , .., T et4 . As a consequence R̃3 = Õ3 =
Q̃3 . If we want to introduce a fourth trio {P̃1 , P̃2 , P̃3 } that follows this pattern,
then P̃1 , P̃2 must split all the dyads outside P̃3 = Õ3 = Q̃3 = R̃3 , for otherwise
by observing the action of three-fold intersections on dyads we know that the 4fold intersection is the same as a 3-fold intersection. Using the same argument of
inspecting the action of 4-fold intersection on the intersection of those dyads again,
we can show that there is no hope to introduce a T rio5 with its stabilizer in general
position with the first 4 stabilizers in this case, therefore we can use at most 4 trio
stabilizers in the list.

Since in our list we can use at most 1 dyad stabilizer, 2 octad stabilizers and 4
trio stabilizers, the length of our list cannot be 8, so M axDim(M24 ) = 7.

5. The Higman-Sims Group and McLaughlin Group
In this section, we utilize the fact that M axDim(M22 ) = 6 to give a lower bound
for the M axDim of two sporadic simple groups, HS and M cL.
Proposition 8. M axDim(HS) ≥ 6, and M axDim(M cL) ≥ 6
Proof. Both the Higman-Sims group and the McLaughlin group can be defined in
terms of automorphisms of strongly regular graphs. As mentioned by Brouwer,

12

LIU TIANYUE AND R. KEITH DENNIS

the Higman-Sims graph has a 1+22+77 construction. Take the points and blocks
in S(3, 6, 22) as vertices and add in an extra vertex v. Connect v to all points
of S(3, 6, 22), connect a point to a block if the point is in the block, connect two
blocks if they are mutually disjoint, and keep points mutually unconnected, then
we get a strongly regular graph of parameter (100, 22, 0, 6) which is the HigmanSims graph [3]. A stabilizer M of vertices in HS is isomorphic toM22 . Each point
(resp. block) stabilizer in M22 then correspond to vertex stabilizers from the 22orbit (resp. 77-orbit) of M . It turns out that if we construct S(3, 6, 22) from
S(5, 8, 24) by stabilizing 2 points, then all stabilizers in M22 of those structures on
S(3, 6, 22) induced by octads containing only one of the 2 points correspond to the
intersections of M with the maximal subgroups in one of the conjugacy classes of
P SU3 (5) in HS[3]. Thus we can pick 6 maximal subgroups in general position in
M as described before and lift them to 5 vertex stabilizers and a P SU3 (5) in HS,
and the result list would be a length 6 list of maximal subgroups in general position
for HS.
This is not the only way to find 6 maximal subgroups in general position in HS.
In particular, if we pick 5 vertices in Higman-Sims graph that induces a pentagon
and another vertex not adjacent to any of them, then their point stabilizers are in
general position.
As mentioned by Brouwer again, the McLaughlin graph has a 22+77+176 construction. Pick 2 points {a, b} in Steiner (5, 8, 24) system, there are 22 points {p}
leftover, 77 octads {O} incident to both {a, b} and 176 octads {Q} incident to a
but not b. Take {p, O, Q} as vertices, connect p to O if p is not in O, connect
p to Q if p is in Q, connect O to O0 if their intersection is {a, b}, connect Q to
Q0 if their intersection has 2 points, and connect O to Q if their intersection has
size 4, then we get a strongly regular graph of parameter (275, 112, 30, 56) which is
the McLaughlin graph [3]. The stabilizer of a 22+77+176 partition is a maximal
subgroup M of M cL isomorphic to M22 . By the construction of the graph, we can
pick 3 vertices from the 22-orbit, 2 vertices from the 77 orbit, and 1 point from the
176 orbit such that the relation between their corresponding structures are exactly
the same as those corresponding to the length 6 general position sequence in M2 2
described above. Their stabilizers in M are therefore in general position. Since
each vertex stabilizer in M can be lifted to a maximal subgroup in M cL, we have
found a list of maximal subgroups in general position, so M axDim(M cL) ≥ 6.
Remark 5.1. The 176 octads {Q} incident to a but not b (resp. to b but not a) are
the points (resp. quadrics) in Higman geometry [3].

6. Remarks
Remark 6.1. By looking at intersections of point stabilizers, we can show that
M axDim(Spn (q)) ≥ n and M axDim(Un (q)) ≥ n. As Brouwer pointed out, the
symplectic groups and unitary groups act on strongly regular graphs. However,
this lower bound is usually not idealistic.
Every group with M axDim > m observed so far has i > M axDim as well. Is it
necessarily true for all groups with M axDim > m? In particular, does it contradict
the following conjecture of Shareshian?

MAXDIM OF SOME SIMPLE GROUPS

13

Conjecture 1. (Shareshian) Any open interval of a subgroup lattice of some finite
group is has the same homotopy as a wedge of spheres.
References
1. N. Blackburn B. Huppert, Finite groups, vol. III, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, no. ISBN: 978-3-642-67999-5, Springer-Verlag Berlin, 1982.
2. T. Brooks, Generating sets of mathieus groups, Senior Thesis for Bachelor at Cornell, May
2013.
3. A. E. Brouwer, A. M. Cohen, and A. Neumaier, Distance-regular graphs, 1 ed., vol. 18, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, no. ISBN: 978-3-642-74343-6, Springer-Verlag
Berlin, July 1989.
4. P. J. Cameron and P. Cara, Independent generating sets and geometries for symmetric groups,
Journal of Algebra 258 (2002), no. 2, 641–650.
5. J. H. Conway and N. J. A. Sloane, Sphere packings, lattices and groups, 1 ed., vol. 290,
Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, no. ISBN 978-1-4757-2018-1, SpringerVerlag New York Inc., 1988.
6. J. Whiston, The minimal generating sets of maximal size of selected groups, Ph.D. thesis,
Cambridge University, 2001.
7. R. A. Wilson, Finite simple groups, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, no. ISBN 978-1-84800987-5, Springer-Verlag London, 2009.

