On groups having the prime graph as alternating and symmetric
groups

arXiv:1804.00922v1 [math.GR] 3 Apr 2018

Ilya Gorshkov and Alexey Staroletov∗
Abstract
The prime graph Γ(G) of a finite group G is the graph whose vertex set is the set of prime divisors
of |G| and in which two distinct vertices r and s are adjacent if and only if there exists an element of G
of order rs. Let An (Sn ) denote the alternating (symmetric) group of degree n. We prove that if G is a
finite group with Γ(G) = Γ(An ) or Γ(G) = Γ(Sn ), where n ≥ 19, then there exists a normal subgroup K
of G and an integer t such that At ≤ G/K ≤ St and |K| is divisible by at most one prime greater than
n/2.

1

Introduction

Let G be a finite group and ω(G) be its spectrum, that is, the set of orders of its elements. The prime graph
Γ(G) of G is defined as follows. The vertex set is the set π(G) of all prime divisors of the order of G. Two
distinct primes r, s ∈ π(G) regarded as vertices of the graph are adjacent if and only if rs ∈ ω(G). The
alternating and symmetric groups of degree n are denoted by An and Sn , respectively.
It is proved in [1] that if L = An , where n ≥ 5 with n 6= 6, 10, and G is a finite group such with
ω(G) = ω(L) then G ≃ L. If L = Sn , then the same conclusion is established for n 6= 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, see [2]
and [3]. Therefore, for almost all n the groups An and Sn are characterized by spectrum in the class of finite
groups. Clearly, if ω(G) = ω(H) then Γ(G) = Γ(H). However, the converse implication is false in general,
for instance, Γ(A5 ) = Γ(A6 ) and 4 ∈ ω(A6 ) \ ω(A5 ). As [4] shows, if An is characterized by its prime graph
in the class of finite groups then n = p or n = p + 1, where p is a prime such that p − 2 is prime as well.
Before those general results for An and Sn were proved, I. Vakula [5] showed that if G is a finite group and
ω(G) = ω(An ), where n > 21, then G has a chief factor isomorphic to At for some t with π(At ) = π(An ). The
main goal of this paper is to prove that the same holds for G provided that Γ(G) = Γ(An ) or Γ(G) = Γ(Sn )
for sufficiently large n.
Theorem 1. Suppose that L ≃ An or L ≃ Sn , where n ≥ 19, and take the largest prime p not greater
than n. If G is a finite group with Γ(G) = Γ(L), then there exists a normal subgroup K of G such that
At ≤ G/K ≤ St , where t ≥ p. Moreover, the number |K| is coprime to p and divisible by at most one prime
greater than n/2.
Observe that in this theorem K can be an arbitrary group. Namely, it was noted in [4] that if r ≤ n − p
for each r ∈ π(K) then the prime graph of every extension of An by K coincides with Γ(An ). For example,
Γ(A5 × A28 ) = Γ(A28 ) = Γ(A5 ≀ A28 ). Nevertheless, if n − p is bounded then K has some restrictions on its
composition structure: [6] shows that if n − p ≤ 3 then K is solvable. As a consequence of our main theorem
we prove that K is solvable even if n − p = 4.
Corollary 1. Suppose that n ≥ 19 and consider a finite group G with Γ(G) = Γ(An ) or Γ(G) = Γ(Sn ). If p
is the largest prime not greater than n and n − p ≤ 4 then At ≤ G/K ≤ St , where K is the solvable radical of
G and t is an integer satisfying p ≤ t ≤ p + 4. In particular, G has a unique nonabelian composition factor.

2

Preliminaries

Lemma 1. [4, Lemma 1] Let N be a normal elementary abelian subgroup of G and H = G/N . Let
G1 = N ⋊ H be the natural semidirect product of N by H. Then Γ(G) = Γ(G1 ).
∗ The work was supported by the program of fundamental scientific researches of the SB RAS №I.1.1., project №0314-20160001

1

Lemma 2. [5, Lemma 14] Let S be a finite simple group. Then each odd prime divisor of Out(S) either
divides |S| or is less than or equal to m/2, where m = maxp∈π(S) p.
Lemma 3. [7, Lemma 3.6] For distinct primes s and r, consider a semidirect product H of a normal
r-subgroup T and a cyclic subgroup C = hgi of order s with [T, g] 6= 1. Suppose that H acts faithfully on a
vector space V of positive characteristic t not equal to r. If the minimal polynomial of g on V does not equal
xs − 1 then
(i) CT (g) 6= 1;
(ii) T is nonabelian;
(iii) r = 2 and s is a Fermat prime.
For a positive integer n, we denote the set of prime divisors of n by π(n).
If n is a nonzero integer and r is an odd prime with (r, n) = 1 then e(r, n) denotes the multiplicative
order of n modulo r. Given an odd integer n, we put e(2, n) = 1 if n ≡ 1 (mod 4), and e(2, n) = 2 otherwise.
Fix an integer a with |a| > 1. A prime r is said to be a primitive prime divisor of ai − 1 whenever
e(r, a) = i. Denote by ri (a) some primitive prime divisor of ai − 1, if exists, and by Ri (a) the set of all these
divisors. Zsigmondy proved [8] that primitive prime divisors exist for almost all pairs (a, i).
Lemma 4. (Zsigmondy [8]) Given an integer a with |a| > 1, for every positive integer i the set Ri (a) is
nonempty except for the pairs (a, i) ∈ {(2, 1), (2, 6), (−2, 2), (−2, 3), (3, 1), (−3, 2)}.
For a classical group S, we denote by prk(S) its dimension if S is a linear or unitary group and its Lie
rank if S is a symplectic or orthogonal group.
Lemma 5. [7, Lemma 3.8] For a
prk(S) = m ≥ 4, put


m
j = 2m − 2


2m

simple classical group S over a field of order u and characteristic v with

if S ≃ Lm (u),
+
if either S ≃ O2m
(u) or S ≃ Um (u) and m is even,
otherwise.

Then (rj (u), |P |) = 1 for every proper parabolic subgroup P of S. If i 6= j and a primitive prime divisor
ri (u) lies in π(L) then there is a proper parabolic subgroup P of S such that ri (u) lies in ω(P ). In particular,
if two distinct primes r, s ∈ π(S) do not divide the order of any proper parabolic subgroup of S then r and s
are adjacent in Γ(S).
Lemma 6. [7, Lemma 3.7] Let S be a simple classical group over a field of order u and characteristic
v with prk(S) > 4. Suppose that a prime s divides the order of a proper parabolic subgroup of S and
(s, v(u2 − 1)) = 1. Then S includes a subgroup H which is a semidirect product of a normal v-subgroup T
and a cyclic subgroup C = hgi of order s with [T, g] 6= 1 and at least one of three assertions in Lemma 3
fails for H.
Recall that a subset of vertices of a graph is called a coclique if no pair of its vertices are adjacent. Denote
by t(G) the greatest size of a coclique in Γ(G). We refer to a coclique containing r as an {r}-coclique. If
r ∈ π(G) then t(r, G) denotes the greatest size of {r}-cocliques.
Lemma 7. [4, Lemma 15] Consider a simple classical group S and put m = prk(S). If t(S) ≥ 15 then
there exist r1 , r2 , r3 , r4 ∈ π(S) \ {v} such that the following claims hold:
(i) r1 is adjacent to r2 and not adjacent to r4 in Γ(S),
(ii) r3 is adjacent to r4 and not adjacent to r2 in Γ(S),
(iii) if S is unitary then e(ri , −u) ≥ max(7, (m − 5)/3) for 1 ≤ i ≤ 4 and otherwise e(ri , u) ≥ max(7, (m −
5)/3) for 1 ≤ i ≤ 4.
Lemma 8. Consider integers a and i with |a| > 1 and i > 0. The the following claims hold:
(i) if i is odd then Ri (−a) = R2i (a), and if i is a multiple of 4 then Ri (−a) = Ri (a);
(ii) if r ∈ Ri (a) and r > 2 then r − 1 is divisible by i.
Proof. The first assertion is a consequence of [7, Lemma 1.3]. Now we prove (ii). If a > 0 then by Fermat
little theorem we know that ar−1 − 1 is divisible by r. Since i = e(r, a), we conclude that i divides r − 1. Let
a < 0. If i is odd or i is divisible by 4 then (i) implies that either e(r, −a) = i or e(r, −a) = 2i and hence
r − 1 is divisible by i. It remains to consider the case i = 4k + 2 with an integer k. Then (i) implies that
e(r, −a) = i/2 and hence r − 1 is divisible by 2k + 1. However, we know that r − 1 is even. Therefore, 4k + 2
divides r − 1, as required.
2

Lemma 9. [6, Lemma 1.1] Consider a finite group G with a normal series of subgroups 1 ≤ K ≤ M ≤ G.
Then three primes p, q and r such that p divides |K|, q divides |M/K|, and r divides |G/M | cannot be
pairwise nonadjacent in Γ(G).
Lemma 10. For a finite group G take a coclique ρ in Γ(G) with |ρ| ≥ 3. Then the following claims hold:
(i) there exists a nonabelian composition factor S of G and a normal subgroup K of G such that S ≤
G = G/K ≤ Aut(S) and |π(S) ∩ ρ| ≥ 2.
(ii) If ρ′ is a coclique in Γ(G) with |ρ′ | ≥ 3 and |π(S) ∩ ρ′ | ≥ 1 then |G|/|S| is divisible by at most
one element of ρ′ . In particular, |π(S) ∩ ρ| ≥ |ρ′ | − 1 and S is a unique composition factor of G with
|π(S) ∩ ρ′ | ≥ 2.
Proof. Consider a chief series 1 = N0 ≤ N1 ≤ ... ≤ Nt = G for G. Lemma 9 implies that for some i ≥ 1 at
least two elements of ρ divide |Ni : Ni−1 |. Put G = G/Ni−1 and Ni = Ni /Ni−1 . Since Ni is a direct product
of isomorphic simple groups and t(Ni ) ≥ 2, it follows that Ni is isomorphic to a nonabelian simple group S.
Since CG (Ni ) ⊳ G and CG (Ni ) ∩ Ni = 1, we may assume that there exists a normal subgroup K of G such
that S is normal in G/K and CG/K (S) = 1. Then G/K is isomorphic to a subgroup of Aut(S). Therefore,
S and K are the required groups for assertion (i).
Take a coclique ρ′ in Γ(G) with |ρ′ | ≥ 3 and |π(S) ∩ ρ′ | ≥ 1. Suppose that |G|/|S| is divisible by two
distinct primes lying in ρ′ . We claim that there exist distinct primes t, r, s ∈ ρ′ such that t ∈ π(S) and
r, s ∈ π(|G|/|S|). We have |π(S) ∩ ρ′ | ≥ 1. Assume that |π(S) ∩ ρ′ | ≥ 3. Let r, s be distinct primes from
π(|G|/|S|) ∩ ρ′ and t ∈ π(S) ∩ ρ′ be a prime different from r and s. If |π(S) ∩ ρ′ | = 2 then there exist
r ∈ ρ′ \ π(S) and s ∈ π(|G|/|S|) such that s 6= r. Since both primes of π(S) ∩ ρ′ are different from r, there
exists t ∈ π(S) ∩ ρ′ with t 6= r and t 6= s. Finally, assume that |π(S) ∩ ρ′ | = 1. Then take t ∈ π(S) ∩ ρ′
and distinct primes r, s in ρ′ \ π(S). In all cases, we find the required numbers. Since Out(S) is solvable,
Lemma 9 implies that |G|/|S| is divisible by at most one number in {r, s}. If |G|/|S| is divisible by r or s
then the other prime divides |K|, again we arrive at a contradiction with Lemma 9. Therefore, r, s ∈ π(K).
Consider the socle series 1 = T0 ⊳ T1 ... ⊳ Tm = K for K, where Tj /Tj−1 = Soc(K/Tj ) for j ≥ 1. By Lemma 9,
the primes r and s divide |Tj /Tj−1 | for some j. Since Tj /Tj−1 is a direct product of simple groups, there
exists a nonabelian simple subgroup L in Tj /Tj−1 with r, s ∈ π(L). Clearly, L is a characteristic subgroup in
e = G/Tj−1 . Then N e (L) = G.
e Since S is a composition factor of
Tj /Tj−1 , so L is normal in G/Tj−1 . Put G
G
e can
G/K, it follows that S is a composition factor of NGe (L)/L. The normal series 1 ≤ CGe (L) ≤ NGe (L) = G
be refined to a composition series. Since NGe (L)/CGe (L) is isomorphic to a subgroup of Aut(L), we infer that
the composition factors of NGe (L)/CGe (L) are abelian, in particular, not isomorphic to S. By the JordanHölder theorem, S is a composition factor of CGe (L), whence t and r are adjacent in Γ(G); a contradiction.
So |G|/|S| is divisible by at most one element of ρ′ and hence S is a unique composition factor of G with
|π(S) ∩ ρ| ≥ 2. The lemma is proved.
Lemma 11. Consider a finite group G and a normal subgroup K of G. If r divides the order of a nonabelian
composition factor S of K, then r is adjacent to every s ∈ π(G/K) \ π(Aut S) in Γ(G).
Proof. Assume the contrary and take s ∈ π(G/K) \ π(Aut S) with rs 6∈ ω(G). Consider the socle series
1 = N0 < N1 ... < Nk = K for K, so Ni /Ni−1 = Soc(K/Ni−1 ) for i > 0. We may assume that S ⊳ N1 .
Take an order-s-element g of NG (N1 ). Then g acts by conjugation on the set {S h | h ∈ G}. Then the
length of the orbit of g equals either 1 or s. If g normalizes S then g centralizes S because s does not divide
| Aut S|; a contradiction with rs 6∈ ω(G). So the length equals s. Then g normalizes a group isomorphic to
s−1
S s = S × S... × S. If h ∈ S is an element of order r then g centralizes h · hg · ... · hg
and hence rs ∈ ω(G);
a contradiction.
For two real numbers a < b, denote by π(a, b) the number of primes s satisfying a < s ≤ b.
Lemma 12. [9, Corollary 3] If x ≥ 20 21 then π(x, 2x) > 3x/(5 ln x) and if x > 1 then π(x, 2x) < 7x/(5 ln x).
Lemma 13. [10, Proposition 5.4] For all x ≥ 89693, there exists a prime p such that x < p ≤ x(1 +

1
ln3 x ).

Lemma 14. For every integer n ≥ 167, we have t(Sn ) ≥ t(An ) ≥ 16.
Proof. Put x = ⌊n/2⌋. If r and s are distinct primes with r ≥ x and s ≥ x then r + s > n. Therefore,
t(Sn ) ≥ t(An ) ≥ π(x, 2x). Suppose that n ≥ 400. Then x ≥ 200. Lemma 12 implies that t(An ) > 16. If
167 ≤ p < 400 then the inequality t(An ) ≥ 16 can be verified using a table of primes, see [11] for instance.

3

Lemma 15. Suppose that n ≥ 17. Take the largest prime p less than or equal to n and the largest prime s
less than p. Then there exists a prime r ≤ s/2 such that p + r > n.
Proof. Lemma 1.9 of [7] shows that if m ≥ 30 then the interval (5m/6, m) contains a prime. Assume that
n ≥ 87. Consider the primes p and s from the hypothesis. Observe that p > 5n/6 ≥ 72, hence s > 5p/6 ≥ 60.
Put s′ = ⌊s/2⌋ and observe that there exists a prime r in (5s′ /6, s′ ). We claim that r is the required prime.
Since s′ ≥ (s − 1)/2 and s ≥ 25n/36, we infer that s′ ≥ (25n/36 − 1)/2 = 25n/72 − 1/2. Therefore,
r > (5/6)(25n/72 − 1/2) = 125n/432 − 5/12 and hence p + r > 5n/6 + 125n/432 − 5/12 = 485n/432 − 5/12.
Since n ≥ 87, it follows that 485n/432 − 5/12 > n + 1 − 5/12 > n. Thus, p + r > n. If 17 ≤ n ≤ 87 then the
existence of r can be verified directly.
Lemma 16. Consider a finite group G satisfying Γ(G) = Γ(An ) or Γ(G) = Γ(Sn ), where n ≥ 17. Suppose
that At ≤ G/K ≤ St for a normal subgroup K of G and an integer t such that π(At ) contains at least two
primes greater than n/2. Then π(At ) = π(An ) and |K| is coprime to p and divisible by at most one prime
greater than n/2.
Proof. Put Ω = {p ∈ P | n/2 < p ≤ n}. Applying Lemma 12, we see that |Ω| ≥ 3. Clearly, the set Ω is a
coclique in Γ(G). Denote the largest prime less than or equal to n by p, and the largest prime less than p
by s. Lemma 10 yields t ≥ s and |K| is divisible by at most one prime greater than n/2. It suffices to prove
that t ≥ p and p 6∈ π(K). Assume on the contrary that t < p. Then p ∈ π(K). Take a Sylow p-subgroup
P of K. The Frattini argument implies that NG (P )/NK (P ) ≃ G/K. By Lemma 15, there exists a prime
r ∈ π(At ) such that r ≤ s/2 and p + r > n. Since r ≤ t/2, we conclude that At contains an elementary
abelian subgroup of order r2 , in particular, the Sylow r-subgroups of At are noncyclic. Therefore, the Sylow
r-subgroups of NG (P ) are also noncyclic, whence pr ∈ ω(NG (P )) ⊆ ω(G). Since p + r > n, we arrive at a
contradiction. This reasoning also shows that p 6∈ π(K).

3

Proof of the Theorem: the case n ≥ 1000

Suppose that G is a finite group such that Γ(G) = Γ(L), where L ≃ An or L ≃ Sn with n ≥ 1000.
Put ΩL = {p ∈ P | n/2 ≤ p ≤ n}. By Lemma 10, there exists a normal subgroup K of G such that
S ≤ G = G/K ≤ Aut(S) for a nonabelian simple group S and |π(S)∩ΩL | ≥ |ΩL |− 1. Then ΩS = π(S)∩Ω is
a coclique in Γ(S). Lemma 12 shows that t(L) ≥ |ΩL | ≥ π(500, 1000) > 48. Therefore, |ΩS | ≥ |ΩL | − 1 ≥ 48.
According to Tables 1, 4 of [15], we have t(S) ≤ 12 when S is a sporadic simple group or a simple exceptional
group of Lie type. Therefore, S is an alternating group or a simple classical group. If S is an alternating
group, then the theorem holds by Lemma 16. It suffices to prove that S cannot be isomorphic to a simple
classical group.
Proposition 1. S is not a simple classical group.
Proof. Assume on the contrary that S is a simple classical group of Lie type over a field of order u. Let
m = prk(S) and u = v k , where v is a prime and k is a positive integer. Put ε = − if S is a unitary group
and ε = + otherwise.
Lemma 17. If i ≥ max((m − 5)/3, 7) and Ri (εu) ⊂ π(S) then there exists r ∈ Ri (εu) such that r does not
divide | Out S|.
Proof. Since i ≥ 7, we have Ri (εu) 6= ∅. Let ε = −. Lemma 8 yields Ri (−u) = Ri′ (u), where i′ ∈ {i/2, i, 2i}.
If ε = + we put i′ = i. Since i ≥ 7, we obtain i′ ≥ 4. If k 6= 1 then the claim is clear. If k ≥ 2 then
′
i′ k ≥ 8 and there exists r ∈ Ri′ k (v). Therefore, r divides ui − 1 and does not divide uj − 1 for j < i′ .
Hence, r ∈ Ri′ (u). By Lemma 8, r − 1 is divisible by i′ k. In particular, r > 3 and (r, k) = 1. Whence
(r, | Out S|) = 1 and so r is the required prime.
Lemma 18. Let {r, p1 , p2 } be a coclique in Γ(G) such that p1 and p2 are elements of π(S) which are not
Fermat primes and (p1 p2 , v(u2 − 1)) = 1. Then |K| is not divisible by r.
Proof. Assume on the contrary that r divides |K|. Lemma 10 yields p1 , p2 ∈ π(S). Lemma 5 implies that at
least one number of p1 and p2 divides the order of some parabolic subgroup P of S. Let p1 be this number.
To get a contradiction, we verify that p1 r ∈ ω(G). Take a Sylow r-subgroup R of K. Applying Frattini’s
argument, we may assume that R is a normal elementary abelian subgroup in G. Then CG (R) is a normal

4

subgroup of G and, since S is simple and rp1 6∈ ω(G), we infer that CG (R) ≤ K. By the Schur–Zassenhaus
theorem, CG (R) is a direct product of R and some r′ -subgroup. Therefore we may assume that CG (R) ≤ R.
By Lemma 6, there exists a subgroup H = T ⋊ C of S, where T is a v-group and C is a cyclic group of
order p1 such that [T, C] 6= 1. Denote by G1 and K1 the preimages of H and T in G. Now we prove that
there exists a group with the properties of H in G1 . Since p1 does not divide the order of K, there exists
a subgroup C1 of order p1 in G1 whose image in G/K is C. Then G1 = K1 ⋊ C1 . Denote by T1 a Sylow
v-subgroup in K1 whose image in G1 /K is T . Frattini’s argument implies that NG1 (T1 )K1 = G1 , and so
NG1 (T1 ) includes a subgroup C2 of order p1 . We claim that H1 = T1 ⋊ C2 is the required group. Suppose
that [T1 , C2 ] = 1. Then the same must hold for the images of T1 and C2 in G1 /K, hence [T, C] = 1; a
contradiction. Since CG (R) ≤ R, it follows that H1 acts faithfully on R by conjugation. Since p1 is not
a Fermat prime, the group H1 does not satisfy to (iii) of Lemma 3. Hence, an element of order p1 in H1
centralizes some non-identity element of R, so p1 r ∈ ω(G); a contradiction.
Lemma 19. If i ≥ max((m − 5)/3, 7) and r ∈ Ri (εu) then r does not divide |K|.
Proof. Assume on the contrary that r divides |K|. Denote the j-th prime number by pj and the largest
prime less than or equal to n by py . Firstly, we suppose that r < py−2 and r is nonadjacent to py−2 in Γ(G).
Then {r, py−2 , py−1 , py } is a coclique in Γ(G). Lemma 10 shows that py−2 , py−1 , and py divide the order of
S and are coprime to |G|/|S|. Since n/2 < py−2 < py−1 < py ≤ n, at most one number among py−2 , py−1 ,
and py is a Fermat prime. Observe that each of these three primes does not divide v(u2 − 1). Indeed, if
p ∈ {py−2 , py−1 , py } then t(p, S) ≥ |ΩS | ≥ 48; however, t(v, S) ≤ 4 according to [12, Tables 4, 6]. Moreover,
t(r1 (u), S), t(r2 (u), S) ≤ 4 by the adjacency criteria for the prime graphs of simple groups of Lie type [12].
Considering two primes from {py−2 , py−1 , py } that are not Fermat primes, we arrive at a contradiction by
Lemma 18. Thus, either r ∈ {py−2 , py−1 , py } or r is adjacent to py−2 . In the first case, replacing r by py−3
in the set {py−2 , py−1 , py }, we arrive at a contradiction as above, so r + py−2 ≤ n.
According to [7, Table 1], we have (3m + 5)/4 ≥ t(S). Since t(G) ≥ π(n/2, n), Lemma 12 implies that
t(G) ≥ 3n/(10 ln(n/2)). Lemma 10 yields t(S) ≥ t(G) − 1, whence
(3m + 5)/4 ≥ 3n/(10 ln(n/2)) − 1,

(1)

n − py−2 ≥ r ≥ 1 + (m − 5)/3 = (m − 2)/3.

(2)

Observe that

m−2
3m − 6
4 3m − 6
4 3m + 5 − 11
=
= ·
= ·
.
3
9
9
4
9
4
Combining (2) with (3) and (1), we obtain
n − py−2 ≥

(3)

4
3n
4 11
2n
15
2n
·
− −
=
−
>
− 2.
9 10 ln(n/2) 9
9
15 ln(n/2)
9
15 ln(n/2)

Hence, n − py−2 > 15 2n
ln(n) − 2.
Suppose that n > 90000. Since 89983 and 89989 are primes, we have py−1 ≥ 89983. Lemma 13 implies
py
1
that n < py+1 ≤ py (1 + ln3 (p
) and hence n − py < ln3 (p
≤ ln3n(n) . Similarly we infer that py − py−1 ≤
y)
y)
py−1
ln3 (py−1 )

<

n
and py−1 − py−2 < ln3n(n) . So n − py−1 = (n − py ) + (py − py−1 ) + (py−1 − py−2 ) < ln3n
3 (n) .
ln3 (n)
2
3n
3n
3n
2n
2n
> 15 ln(n) −2. Since n > 90000, we have ln (n) > 30 and hence 30 ln(n) > ln3 (n) > 15 ln(n) −2.
ln3 (n)
n
60 > ln(n)
. This inequality is false if n > 90000; a contradiction.

Therefore,
Therefore,
Suppose that 15000 < n ≤ 90000. Then according to [13, Table 1] we know that n − py , py − py−1 ,
2n
− 2. Therefore,
py−1 − py−2 ≤ 72. Hence, n − py−2 ≤ 216. We found above that n − py−2 > 15 ln(n/2)
30000
216 > 15 ln(7500) − 2 > 222; a contradiction.
Suppose that 1000 ≤ n ≤ 15000. In this case there are no Fermat primes between n/2 and n. Arguing
as above, we see that r + py−1 ≤ n. Hence, n − py−1 ≥ r ≥ 1 + (m − 5)/3 = (m − 2)/3. Therefore,
m ≤ 3(n − py−1 ) + 2. On the other hand, we know that (3m + 5)/4 ≥ t(S) ≥ t(G) − 1 ≥ π(n/2, n) − 1,
whence m ≥ (4π(n/2, n)−9)/3. Thus, 3(n−py−1 )+2 > (4π(n/2, n)−9)/3. Divide the segment [1000, 15000]
of values of n into three segments [1000, 1300], [1300, 2000], [2000, 15000]. By performing straightforward
calculations, it is possible to compute on these segments the minimal value of 3(n − py−1 ) + 2 and the
maximal value of (4π(n/2, n) − 9)/3. Table 1 shows the results.
In all cases (4π(n/2, n) − 9)/3 < 3(n − py−1 ) + 2; a contradiction. This completes the proof of Lemma 19.

5

Table 1: The maximal values of 3(n − py−1 ) + 2 and the minimal values of (4π(n/2, n) − 9)/3
[L, R]
[1000, 1300]
[1300, 2000]
[2000, 15000]

max 3(n − py−1 ) + 2

n∈[L,R]

83 (n = 1150, py = 1129, py−1 = 1123)
119 (n = 1360, py = 1327, py−1 = 1321)
149 (n = 9600, py = 9587, py−1 = 9551)

min (4π(n/2, n) − 9)/3

n∈[L,R]

93 (n = 1006)
121 (n = 1300)
177 (n = 2000)

Now we are ready to obtain a contradiction justifying the proposition. By Lemma 7, there exist primes
r1 , r2 , r3 , r4 ∈ π(S)\{v} such that e(ri , εu) ≥ max(7, (m−5)/3) for 1 ≤ i ≤ 4, with r1 r2 ∈ ω(S), r3 r4 ∈ ω(S),
r1 r4 6∈ ω(S), and r2 r3 6∈ ω(S). Note that, by [12], the existence of an edge between primes r ans s in Γ(S)
depends only on numbers e(r, u) and e(s, u). By Lemmas 17 and 19, we can choose r1 , r2 , r3 , and r4 such
that (ri , |G/S| · |K|) = 1 for 1 ≤ i ≤ 4. Therefore, r1 r2 ∈ ω(L), r3 r4 ∈ ω(L), r1 r4 6∈ ω(L), and r2 r3 6∈ ω(L).
Hence, r1 + r2 ≤ n, r1 + r4 > n, r3 + r4 ≤ n, and r3 + r2 > n. The first and second inequalities yield r4 > r2 ,
and the third and fourth inequalities yield r4 < r2 ; a contradiction.

4

Proof of the Theorem: the case 19 ≤ n < 1000

Suppose that G is a finite group such that Γ(G) = Γ(L), where L ≃ An or L ≃ Sn for an integer n satisfying
19 ≤ n ≤ 1000. Put ΩL = {p ∈ P | n/2 ≤ p ≤ n}. Lemma 12 yields |ΩL | ≥ 3. By Lemma 10, there exists
a normal subgroup K of G such that S ≤ G/K ≤ Aut(S) for a nonabelian simple group S. Moreover, if
ΩS = π(S) ∩ Ω then ΩS is a coclique in Γ(S) and |ΩS | ≥ |ΩL | − 1. Following [14], we denote by Sr the
set of nonabelian simple groups S such that r ∈ π(S) and no element of π(S) exceeds r. Denote the i-th
prime number by pi and the index of the largest prime less than or equal to n by y. Lemma 10 implies that
either S ∈ Spy or S ∈ Spy−1 . If S is the alternating group At then t ≥ py by Lemma 16 and the theorem is
justified in this case. The following lemma completes the proof of the theorem.
Lemma 20. S is an alternating group.
Proof. Assume the contrary.
Suppose that n ≥ 167. Applying Lemmas 10 and 14, we obtain t(S) ≥ t(G) − 1 ≥ 15. According to [14],
either S ≃ L2 (p) or S is a group in Table 3 of [14], corresponding to py or py−1 . If S = L2 (p) then t(S) = 3
according to Table 2 of [15]. Therefore, S is a group in Table 3 of [14], in particular, S is not a sporadic
simple group. If S is a simple classical group then prk(S) ≤ 12. According to Tables 2, 3 of [15], we find
that t(S) ≤ 9. If S is an exceptional group of Lie type then t(S) ≤ 12 according to Table 4 of [15]. In all
cases, we obtain t(S) ≤ 12; a contradiction.
Suppose that 100 < n < 167. Then, as above, either S ≃ L2 (p) or S is a group in Table 3 of [14],
corresponding to py or py−1 . Now we show that t(S) ≤ 8. If S = L2 (p) then t(L) = 3 according to Table 2
of [15]. Assume that S is a group in Table 3 of [14], in particular, S is not a sporadic group. If S is a linear
or unitary group then prk(S) ≤ 12, and hence t(S) ≤ 6 by [15, Table 2]. If S is a symplectic or orthogonal
group then prk(S) ≤ 8, and hence t(S) ≤ 7 by [15, Table 3]. If S is an exceptional group of Lie type then S
is not of type E8 according to [14, Table 3]. Therefore, Table 4 of [15] shows that t(S) ≤ 8. Thus, t(S) ≤ 8
in all cases. Then t(G) ≤ t(S) + 1 ≤ 9. However, it is easy to verify that t(Sn ) ≥ t(An ) ≥ 11 if n ≥ 101; a
contradiction.
Suppose that 19 ≤ n ≤ 100. It is easy to verify that py−3 + py−2 > n, so py−3 , py−2 , py−1 , and py
are pairwise nonadjacent in Γ(G). Lemma 10 implies that |{py−3 , py−2 , py−1 } ∩ π(S)| ≥ 2. Moreover, if
py 6∈ π(S) then py−3 , py−2 , py−1 ∈ π(S). Verifying these conditions for groups in Spy using [14, Table 1],
we infer that py ∈ {19, 23, 29, 43} and S ∈ {F i23 , F i′24 , U3 (37), J4 , 2 E6 (2)}. Now we consider each of these
possibilities for py and S.
If py = 43 then S ∈ {U3 (37), J4 }. Observe that 17, 41 6∈ π(S); therefore 17 and 41 divide |G|/|S|; a
contradiction with Lemma 10, since {17, 41, 43} is a coclique in Γ(L).
If py = 29 then S = F i′24 and n ∈ {29, 30}. Since 19 6∈ π(S), it follows that 19 ∈ π(K). Assume that
n = 29. Then 11 and 17 are adjacent in Γ(G) and nonadjacent in Γ(S). Therefore, either 11 ∈ π(K) or
17 ∈ π(K). Since 29 is nonadjacent to any vertex in Γ(G), an element of order 29 in S acts fixed-point-freely
on K, and so K is nilpotent by the Thomson theorem. Therefore, either 11 · 19 ∈ ω(G) or 17 · 19 ∈ ω(G); a

6

contradiction. Assume that n = 30. Then 13 and 17 are adjacent in Γ(G) and nonadjacent in Γ(S). Arguing
as above, we find that either 13 · 19 ∈ ω(G) or 17 · 19 ∈ ω(G); a contradiction.
If py = 23 then S = F i23 or S = 2 E6 (2). In the first case 19 ∈ π(K). If n = 23 then K is nilpotent as
above. Since 55 6∈ ω(S), either 5 or 11 divides the order of K, hence either 5 · 19 ∈ ω(G) or 11 · 19 ∈ ω(G);
a contradiction. If n ≥ 24 then 11 and 13 are adjacent in Γ(G) and nonadjacent in Γ(S), hence either 11
or 13 divides |K|. Since {11, 19, 23} and {13, 19, 23} are cocliques in Γ(L), we arrive at a contradiction with
Lemma 10. Suppose now that S = 2 E6 (2). Then 23 ∈ ω(K). If n = 23 then 5 · 17 ∈ ω(G) \ ω(S), so either 5
or 17 divides |K|. This contradicts Lemma 10 because {5, 19, 23} and {17, 19, 23} are cocliques in Γ(L). If
n ≥ 24 then we arrive at a contradiction as above because 11 · 13 ∈ ω(G) \ ω(S).
If py = 19 then S = 2 E6 (2) and 19 ≤ n ≤ 22. Observe that 7 · 11 6∈ ω(S), so either 7 ∈ π(K) or
11 ∈ π(K). Since {7, 17, 19} and {11, 17, 19} are cocliques in Γ(G), Lemma 10 implies that 17, 19 6∈ π(K).
Now we prove that K is solvable. Assume that K is nonsolvable and R is a nonabelian composition factor
of K. All elements of π(R) are at most 13, so 19 6∈ π(Aut R) by Lemma 2. Clearly, there exists a prime
s ∈ π(R) with s > 3. Lemma 11 implies that 19s ∈ ω(G); a contradiction. Hence K is solvable. Suppose
that r ∈ {7, 11} ∩ π(K). To obtain a contradiction, we show that either 17r ∈ ω(G) or 19r ∈ ω(G). Take a
Hall {2, 3}′-subgroup P of K. Applying Frattini’s argument, we may assume that P is normal in G. Since
19 ∈ π(NG (P )) and 19 is not adjacent to every element of π(P ) in Γ(G), we infer that P is nilpotent and hence
we may assume that P is an r-group. Passing to the quotion of G by Φ(P ), we replace P with an elementary
abelian group. Since CG (P ) is a normal subgroup of G, we see that CG (P ) ≤ K. Since P ≤ Z(CG (P )),
the Hall {r}′ -subgroup of CG (P ) is normal in G, so we may assume that CG (P ) = P . Observe that K/P
is a {2, 3}-group, so G/P is an extension of a {2, 3}-group by 2 E6 (2). Let H be a subgroup in G/P of
minimal order such that there exists a normal {2, 3}-subgroup T of H with H/T ≃ 2 E6 (2). We claim that
T ≤ Z(H). Take a Sylow subgroup R of T . Then NH (R)/NT (R) ≃ H/T by Frattini’s argument. Since
H is minimal, it follows that NH (R) = H. Thus, T is nilpotent. Take U ∈ Syl19 (H) and assume that
[R, U ] 6= 1. Then RU acts by conjugation on P and Lemma 3 yields that 19r ∈ ω(G); a contradiction.
Therefore [R, U ] = 1, and hence CH (R) 6⊆ T . Since CH (R) is normal in H and H/T is a simple group, we
infer that CH (R)T = H. Therefore, CH (R)/CT (R) ≃ H/T . Since H is minimal, it follows that CH (R) = H
and hence T ≤ Z(H), as claimed. According to [16], the group 2 E6 (2) includes a subgroup isomorphic to
O8− (2). Take a subgroup M of H with M/T
O8− (2). We claim that M includes a subgroup isomorphic
T ≃ (n)
−
∞
M
in the derived series of M is a perfect group and hence
to O8 (2). The minimal subgroup M =
n≥0

T M ∞ /T ≃ O8− (2). Therefore, M ∞ /(T ∩ M ∞ ) ≃ O8− (2). Since T ∩ M ∞ ≤ Z(M ∞ ), we see that |T ∩ M ∞ |
divides the order of the Schur multiplier of O8− (2) and hence T ∩ M ∞ = 1. Thus, M ∞ is the required group.
Now O8− (2) acts on P and by Lemma 1 we may assume that the extension of O8− (2) by P splits. Observe
that 7 ∈ π(O8− (2)) and 11 6∈ π(O8− (2)). From the character table of O8− (2) in the case r = 11 and the table
of 7-modular characters of O8− (2), when r = 7, we derive that 17r ∈ ω(G); a contradiction. The proof of
Lemma 16 is complete.

5

Proof of the Corollary

Proof. Suppose that G is a finite group such that Γ(G) = Γ(An ) or Γ(G) = Γ(Sn ) for some integer n ≥ 19
and n − p ≤ 4, where p is the largest prime less than or equal to n. By Theorem 1, there exists a normal
subgroup K of G such that At ≤ G/K ≤ St where t ≥ p and p 6∈ π(K). Since 5p 6∈ ω(G), we obtain
t ≤ p + 4. Assume that K is nonsolvable and S is a nonabilean composition factor of K. Then there exists
r ∈ π(S) with r ≥ 5. Lemma 2 imply that p 6∈ Aut(S). Finally, by Lemma 11, we infer that rp ∈ ω(G); a
contradiction. Thus, K is solvable and the corollary is established.
Acknowledgements. The authors wish to thank Andrey Vasili′ ev for valuable comments on the manuscript
and Gerhard Paseman for pointing out Dusart’s paper.

References
[1] I.B. Gorshkov, Recognizability of alternating groups by spectrum, Algebra and Logic, 52:1 (2013), 41–
45.
[2] I.B. Gorshkov, Recognizability of symmetric groups by spectrum, Algebra and Logic, 53:6 (2015), 450–
457.
7

[3] I.B. Gorshkov, A.N. Grishkov, On recognition by spectrum of symmetric groups, Sib. Electron. Math.
Rep., 13 (2016), 111–121.
[4] A.M. Staroletov, On recognition of alternating groups by prime graph, Sib. Electron. Math. Rep., 14
(2017), 994–1010.
[5] I.A. Vakula, On the structure of finite groups isospectral to an alternating group, Proc. Steklov Inst.
Math. (Suppl.), 272, suppl. 1 (2011), 271–286.
[6] A.V. Vasil′ ev, On connection between the structure of a finite group and the properties of its prime
graph, Sib. Math. J., 2005, Vol. 46, N3, 396–404.
[7] A.V. Vasil′ ev, On finite groups isospectral to simple classical groups, J. Algebra, 2015, Vol. 423, 318–374.
[8] K. Zsigmondy, Zur Theorie der Potenzreste, Monatsh. Math. Phys., 3 (1892) 265–284.
[9] J. B. Rosser, L. Schoenfeld, Approximate formulas for some functions of prime numbers, Illinois J. Math.,
6 (1) (1962), 64–94.
[10] P. Dusart, Explicit estimates of some functions over primes, Ramanujan J., (2016) 1–25.
[11] D.N. Lehmer, List of prime numbers from 1 to 10006721, Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution, 1914.
[12] A.V. Vasil′ ev and E.P. Vdovin, An adjacency criterion for the prime graph of a finite simple group,
Algebra and Logic, 44:6 (2005), 381–406.
[13] L.J. Lander and T.R. Parkin, On first appearance of prime differences, Math. Comp., 21 (1967), 483–488.
[14] A.V. Zavarnitsine, Finite simple groups with narrow prime spectrum, Sib. Electron. Math. Rep., 6
(2009), 1–12.
[15] A.V. Vasil′ ev and E.P. Vdovin, Cocliques of maximal size in the prime graph of a finite simple group,
Algebra and Logic, 50:4 (2011), 292–322.
[16] J.H. Conway, R.T. Curtis, S.P. Norton, R.A. Parker, R.A. Wilson, Atlas of finite groups, Clarendon Press,
Oxford, 1985.
I. Gorshkov, Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo André, São Paulo, Brazil;
Sobolev Institute of Mathematics, Novosibirsk, Russia
E-mail address: ilygor8@gmail.com
A. Staroletov, Sobolev Institute of Mathematics, Novosibirsk, Russia;
Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia
E-mail address:

staroletov@math.nsc.ru

8

