IMPARTIAL AVOIDANCE GAMES FOR GENERATING FINITE GROUPS

arXiv:1506.07105v3 [math.CO] 1 Feb 2016

BRET J. BENESH, DANA C. ERNST, AND NÁNDOR SIEBEN
Abstract. We study an impartial avoidance game introduced by Anderson and Harary. The
game is played by two players who alternately select previously unselected elements of a finite
group. The first player who cannot select an element without making the set of jointly-selected
elements into a generating set for the group loses the game. We develop criteria on the maximal
subgroups that determine the nim-numbers of these games and use our criteria to study our game
for several families of groups, including nilpotent, sporadic, and symmetric groups.

1. Introduction
Anderson and Harary [2] introduced a two-player impartial game called Do Not Generate. In
this avoidance game, two players alternately take turns selecting previously unselected elements
of a finite group until the group is generated by the jointly-selected elements. The goal of the
game is to avoid generating the group, and the first player who cannot select an element without
building a generating set loses.
In the original description of the avoidance game, the game ends when a generating set is
built. This suggests misère-play convention. We want to find the nim-values of these games under
normal-play, so our version does not allow the creation of a generating set—the game ends when
there are no available moves. The two versions have the same outcome, so the difference is only
a question of viewpoint.
The outcomes of avoidance games were determined for finite abelian groups in [2], while Barnes [4]
provided a criterion for determining the outcome for an arbitrary finite group. He also applied his
criterion to determine the outcomes for some of the more familiar finite groups, including abelian,
dihedral, symmetric, and alternating groups, although his analysis is incomplete for alternating
groups.
The fundamental problem in the theory of impartial combinatorial games is finding the nimnumber of the game. The nim-number determines the outcome of the game and also allows for
the easy calculation of the nim-numbers of game sums. The last two authors [8] developed tools
for studying the nim-numbers of avoidance games, which they applied to certain groups including
abelian and dihedral groups.
Our aim is to find Barnes-like criteria for determining not only the outcomes but also the
nim-numbers of avoidance games. We start by recalling results from [8] on cyclic groups and
groups of odd order, and then we reformulate Barnes’ condition in terms of maximal subgroups
(Proposition 5.4) in the case of non-cyclic groups. This allows us to determine the nim-numbers
of the avoidance games for non-cyclic groups that satisfy Barnes’ condition (Proposition 6.2).
Then we combine this with the results of [8] for cyclic groups to get a complete classification
(Theorem 6.3) of the possible values of the avoidance game. Next, we reformulate our classification
in terms of maximal subgroups (Corollary 6.4), and we also provide a practical checklist for
Date: January 8, 2018.
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. 91A46, 20D30.
Key words and phrases. impartial game, maximal subgroup.
This work was conducted during the third author’s visit to DIMACS partially enabled through support from
the National Science Foundation under grant number #CCF-1445755.
1

2

BRET J. BENESH, DANA C. ERNST, AND NÁNDOR SIEBEN

determining the nim-number corresponding to a given group (Proposition 6.9). We then apply
our theoretical results for several families of groups in Section 7, which is followed by a section
whose main result is about quotient groups (Proposition 8.1). We end with several open questions
in Section 9.
Our development is guided by the following intuitive understanding of the game. At the end of
an avoidance game, the players will realize that they simply took turns selecting elements from a
single maximal subgroup. If they knew in advance which maximal subgroup was going to remain
at the end of the game, then the game would be no more complicated than a simple subtraction
game [1, Section 7.6] on a single pile where the players can only remove one object on each turn.
The first player wins if that maximal subgroup has odd order and the second player wins otherwise.
Therefore, the game is a really a struggle to determine which maximal subgroup will remain at
the end. Viewed this way, the second player’s best strategy is to select an element of even order,
if possible. It is intuitively clear that the first player has a winning strategy if all of the maximal
subgroups have odd order, and the second player has a winning strategy if all of the maximal
subgroups have even order.
The authors thank John Bray, Derek Holt, and the anonymous referee for suggestions that
greatly improved the paper.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. Impartial games. We briefly recall the basic terminology of impartial games. A comprehensive treatment of impartial games can be found in [1, 21]. An impartial game is a finite set
X of positions together with a starting position and a collection {Opt(P ) ⊆ X | P ∈ X}, where
Opt(P ) is the set of possible options for a position P . Two players take turns replacing the current position P with one of the available options in Opt(P ). The player who encounters an empty
option set cannot move and therefore loses. All games must come to an end in finitely many turns,
so we do not allow infinite lines of play. An impartial game is an N-position if the next player
wins and it is a P-position if the previous player wins.
The minimum excludant mex(A) of a set A of ordinals is the smallest ordinal not contained
in the set. The nim-number nim(P ) of a position P is the minimum excludant of the set of
nim-numbers of the options of P . That is,
nim(P ) := mex{nim(Q) | Q ∈ Opt(P )}.
Note that the minimum excludant of the empty set is 0, so the terminal positions of a game have
nim-number 0. The nim-number of a game is the nim-number of its starting position. The nimnumber of a game determines the outcome of a game since a position P is a P-position if and only
if nim(P ) = 0; an immediate consequence of this is that the second player has a winning strategy
if and only if the nim-number for a game is 0.
The sum of the games P and R is the game P + R whose set of options is
Opt(P + R) := {Q + R | Q ∈ Opt(P )} ∪ {P + S | S ∈ Opt(R)}.
We write P = R if P + R is a P-position.
The one-pile NIM game with n stones is denoted by the nimber ∗n. The set of options of ∗n
is Opt(∗n) = {∗0, . . . , ∗(n − 1)}. The fundamental Sprague–Grundy Theorem [1, 21] states that
P = ∗ nim(P ) for every impartial game P .
2.2. Avoidance games for groups. We now give a more precise description of the avoidance
game DNG(G) played on a nontrivial finite group G. We also recall some definitions and results
from [8]. The positions of DNG(G) are exactly the non-generating subsets of G; these are the sets
of jointly-selected elements. The starting position is the empty set since neither player has chosen

IMPARTIAL AVOIDANCE GAMES FOR GENERATING FINITE GROUPS

3

A4
h(12)(34), (13)(24)i
h(123)i
h(12)(34)i

h(13)(24)i

h(124)i

h(134)i

h(234)i

h(14)(23)i
Φ(A4 )

Figure 1. Subgroup lattice of A4 with the intersection subgroups circled.
an element yet. The first player chooses x1 ∈ G such that hx1 i =
6 G and, at the kth turn, the
designated player selects xk ∈ G \ {x1 , . . . , xk−1 }, such that hx1 , . . . , xk i =
6 G. A position Q is an
option of P if Q = P ∪ {g} for some g ∈ G \ P . The player who cannot select an element without
building a generating set loses the game. We note that there is no avoidance game for the trivial
group since the empty set generates the whole group.
Because the game ends once the set of selected elements becomes a maximal subgroup, the set
M of maximal subgroups play a significant role in the game. The last two authors [8] define the
set
I := {∩N | ∅ =
6 N ⊆ M}
of intersection subgroups, which is the set of all possible intersections of maximal subgroups. The
smallest intersection subgroup is the Frattini subgroup Φ(G) of G, which is the intersection of all
maximal subgroups of G.
Example 2.1. Subgroups—even those that contain Φ(G)—need not be intersection subgroups.
The maximal subgroups of A4 comprise four subgroups of order 3 and one subgroup of order
4, as shown in Figure 1. The subgroup H = h(1, 2)(3, 4)i contains the trivial Frattini subgroup
Φ(A4 ), but no intersection of some subset of the five maximal subgroups yields a subgroup of order
|H| = 2. So, H is not an intersection subgroup of A4 .
The set I of intersection subgroups is partially ordered by inclusion. We use interval notation
to denote certain subsets of I. For example, if I ∈ I, then (−∞, I) := {J ∈ I | J ⊂ I}.
For each I ∈ I let
XI := P(I) \ ∪{P(J) | J ∈ (−∞, I)}
be the collection of those subsets of I that are not contained in any other intersection subgroup
smaller than I. We let X := {XI | I ∈ I} and call an element of X a structure class.
Parity plays a crucial role in the theory of impartial games. We define the parity of a natural
number n via pty(n) := (1 + (−1)n+1 )/2. The parity of a set is the parity of the size of the set. We
will say that the set is even or odd according to the parity of the set. Observe that an option of a
position has the opposite parity. The parity of a structure class is defined to be pty(XI ) := pty(I).
The set X of structure classes is a partition of the set of game positions of DNG(G). The starting
position ∅ is in XΦ(G) . The partition X is compatible with the option relationship between game
positions [8, Corollary 3.11]: if XI , XJ ∈ X and P, Q ∈ XI 6= XJ , then Opt(P ) ∩ XJ 6= ∅ if and
only if Opt(Q) ∩ XJ 6= ∅.
We say that XJ is an option of XI and we write XJ ∈ Opt(XI ) if Opt(I)∩XJ 6= ∅. The structure
digraph of DNG(G) has vertex set {XI | I ∈ I} and edge set {(XI , XJ ) | XJ ∈ Opt(XI )}.
If P, Q ∈ XI ∈ X and pty(P ) = pty(Q), then nim(P ) = nim(Q) by [8, Proposition 3.15].
In a structure diagram, a structure class XI is represented by a triangle pointing down if I is
odd and by a triangle pointing up if I is even. The triangles are divided into a smaller triangle

4

BRET J. BENESH, DANA C. ERNST, AND NÁNDOR SIEBEN
(1,y,x)
y
x

a
b
(1,a,b)

y = mex{b, d, x}
x = mex{a, c}

d
c
(0,c,d)

Figure 2. Example for the calculation of the type of a structure diagram using the
types of the options.
and a trapezoid, where the smaller triangle represents the odd positions of XI and the trapezoid
represents the even positions of XI . The numbers in the smaller triangle and the trapezoid are the
nim-numbers of these positions. There is a directed edge from XI to XJ provided XJ ∈ Opt(XI ).
See Figure 4(c) for an example of a structure diagram.
The type of the structure class XI is the triple
type(XI ) := (pty(I), nim(P ), nim(Q)),
where P, Q ∈ XI with pty(P ) = 0 and pty(Q) = 1. Note that the type of a structure class XI is
determined by the parity of XI and the types of the options of XI as shown in Figure 2.
The nim-number of the game is the same as the nim-number of the initial position ∅, which is
an even subset of Φ(G). Because of this, the nim-number of the game is the second component
of type(XΦ(G) ), which corresponds to the trapezoidal part of the triangle representing the source
vertex XΦ(G) of the structure diagram.
Loosely speaking, the simplified structure diagram of DNG(G) is built from the structure diagram
by identifying two structure classes that have the same type and the same collection consisting of
option types together with the type of the structure class itself. We remove any resulting loops to
obtain a simple graph as described in [8]. See Figure 4(d) for an example of a simplified structure
diagram.
3. Groups of odd order
This next result is the foundation for our brief study of groups of odd order.
Proposition 3.1. If XI is a structure class of DNG(G) such that I is only contained in odd
maximal subgroups, then type(XI ) = (1, 1, 0).
Proof. We proceed by structural induction on the structure classes. If XI is terminal, then I is an
odd maximal subgroup, so type(XI ) = (1, 1, 0).
Now, assume that XI is not terminal. Let XJ be an option of XI and let M be a maximal
subgroup containing J. Then I ≤ J ≤ M and we may conclude that M is odd. Thus, type(XJ ) =
(1, 1, 0) by induction. This implies that XI only has options of type (1, 1, 0), and hence type(XI ) =
(1, mex{0}, mex{1}) = (1, 1, 0).

The next result, originally done with a different proof in [8, Proposition 3.22], is an immediate
consequence of Proposition 3.1 since DNG(G) is determined by the type of XΦ(G) .
Corollary 3.2. If G is a nontrivial odd finite group, then DNG(G) = ∗1.
4. Cyclic groups
Odd cyclic cyclic groups were done in the previous section, and even cyclic groups are characterized by the following result.

IMPARTIAL AVOIDANCE GAMES FOR GENERATING FINITE GROUPS

5

Proposition 4.1. [8, Corollary 6.7] If G is an even cyclic group, then

∗1, |G| = 2
DNG(G) = ∗3, 2 6= |G| ≡4 2

∗0, |G| ≡4 0.
The next two results are likely well-known to finite group theorists, but we provide their proofs
for completeness.
Proposition 4.2. Let G = H × K for finite groups H and K. If M is a maximal subgroup of H,
then M × K is a maximal subgroup of G.
Proof. Suppose that L is a subgroup of G such that M × K < L ≤ H × K = G. Let (x, y) ∈
L\(M ×K). Because {e}×K ≤ M ×K, we can conclude that (x, e) ∈
/ M ×{e}. Then hM, xi = H
by the maximality of M . We have (x, e) ∈ L and M × {e} ≤ L since {e} × K ≤ L, so H × {e} is
a subgroup of L. Then H × {e} and {e} × K are subgroups of L, so G = H × K ≤ L. Therefore,
G = L and M × K is maximal in G.


Proposition 4.3. Let G = P × H, where |P | = 2n and H is odd. Then every maximal subgroup
of G is even if and only if n ≥ 2.
Proof. Let M be a maximal subgroup of P . First, suppose that n ≥ 2. Because |P | ≥ 4, Cauchy’s
Theorem implies |M | ≥ 2. Let K be an odd subgroup of G. Then K ≤ {e} × H < M × H, so K
is not maximal. Therefore, every maximal subgroup is even.
Now, suppose that every maximal subgroup is even. Then M ×H is maximal by Proposition 4.2,
and so it must have even order. Then |M | ≥ 2, so |P | ≥ 4 and n ≥ 2.

The following corollary will help tie the results for nim-numbers of cyclic groups to the results
for nim-numbers of non-cyclic groups in Section 6.
Corollary 4.4. Let G be a finite cyclic group. Then every maximal subgroup of G is even if and
only if 4 divides |G|.
Proof. We may write G as G = P × H, where P is a 2-group and H has odd order. The result
follows by Proposition 4.3.

5. Non-cyclic Groups of even order
S
Recall that a subset C of the power set of a group G is a covering of G if C = G; in this case,
we also say that C covers G. Every proper subgroup of a finite group is contained in a maximal
subgroup, but the set of maximal subgroups does not always cover the group.
We now consider even non-cyclic groups. We will need Corollary 5.2 to do this, which follows
immediately from Lemma 5.1 and Lagrange’s Theorem.
Lemma 5.1. Let G be a finite group. Then the set of maximal subgroups of G covers G if and
only if G is non-cyclic.
Proof. Suppose G is non-cyclic and x ∈ G. Since G is non-cyclic, hxi 6= G. Hence, x ∈ hxi ≤ M
for some maximal subgroup M because there are only finitely many subgroups.
Now, suppose G is cyclic and let x be a generator for G. Then x cannot be contained in any
maximal subgroup M , lest G = hxi ≤ M 6= G.

Corollary 5.2. If G is a finite non-cyclic group and t ∈ G has even order, then t is contained in
an even maximal subgroup.
We recall one of Barnes’ main results in [4].

6

BRET J. BENESH, DANA C. ERNST, AND NÁNDOR SIEBEN

Proposition 5.3. [4, Theorem 1] The first player wins DNG(G) if and only if there is an element
g ∈ G of odd order such that hg, ti = G for every involution t ∈ G.
Note that Condition (1) in the next proposition is the denial of the condition used in Proposition 5.3. This new proposition reformulates Barnes’ condition about elements in terms of maximal
subgroups.
Proposition 5.4. If G is an even non-cyclic group, then the following are equivalent.
(1) There is no element g ∈ G of odd order such that hg, ti = G for every involution t ∈ G.
(2) The set of even maximal subgroups covers G.
Proof. Let E be the set of even maximal subgroups. Suppose ∪E = G, and let g ∈ G have odd
order. Then there is some L ∈ E such that g ∈ L. By Cauchy’s Theorem, there is a t ∈ L of order
2. Then hg, ti ≤ L < G. So, there can be no element g ∈ G of odd order such that hg, ti = G for
all involutions t ∈ G.
Suppose ∪E < G. Then there is an element g ∈ G \ (∪E); this g must have odd order by
Corollary 5.2. Now, let t ∈ G have order 2. If hg, ti is not equal to G, then hg, ti is contained
in a maximal subgroup M . Since t has even order, it follows that M must also be even, which
contradicts the fact that g is not an element of any even maximal subgroup. Therefore, hg, ti is
not contained in any maximal subgroup, which implies that hg, ti = G.

The next corollary follows from Propositions 5.3 and 5.4 since DNG(G) = ∗0 if and only if the
second player has a winning strategy.
Corollary 5.5. If G is an even non-cyclic group, then the following are equivalent.
(1) The set of even maximal subgroups covers G.
(2) Every element of G of odd order is in a proper even subgroup of G.
(3) DNG(G) = ∗0.
The following proposition shows that we only need to consider groups G where the minimum
number of generators d(G) is 2. One can prove this by slightly modifying the proof of [4, Theorem 1], although we provide a different proof here.
Proposition 5.6. If G is an even group satisfying d(G) ≥ 3, then DNG(G) = ∗0.
Proof. Suppose that the set of even maximal subgroups fails to cover G, and let t ∈ G have order
2. Let N be the set of maximal subgroups containing t. This is a nonempty set of even subgroups.
Because the entire set of even maximal subgroups
S fails to cover G, the set N must also fail to
cover G. But then ht, xi = G for all x ∈ G \ N , so d(G) ≤ 2. The result now follows from
Corollary 5.5 since the set of even maximal subgroups covers G when d(G) ≥ 3.

Example 5.7. One can easily verify using GAP [10] that d(G) = 3 if G = Sym(4) × Sym(4) ×
Sym(4), where Sym(k) is the symmetric group on k letters. Hence DNG(G) = ∗0.
6. Classification of avoidance games
We seek a way to determine the nim-number of DNG(G) for a finite group G from covering
properties of the maximal subgroups of G. We first recall the following result.
Proposition 6.1. [8, Proposition 3.20] The type of a structure class of DNG(G) is in
{(0, 0, 1), (1, 0, 1), (1, 1, 0), (1, 3, 2)}.
The following allows us to complete the determination of nim-numbers for all avoidance games.

IMPARTIAL AVOIDANCE GAMES FOR GENERATING FINITE GROUPS

7

Proposition 6.2. Let G be an even non-cyclic group. Then DNG(G) = ∗3 if and only if the set
of even maximal subgroups does not cover G.
Proof. The contrapositive of the forward direction follows immediately from Corollary 5.5. Now,
assume that the set of even maximal subgroups does not cover G. Since G is non-cyclic, the set
of maximal subgroups covers G, so there must be an odd maximal subgroup and hence XΦ(G) is
odd. We will prove that type(XΦ(G) ) = (1, 3, 2) by showing that both (0, 0, 1) and (1, 0, 1) are
contained in the set
T := {type(XI ) | XI ∈ Opt(XΦ(G) )}.
An easy calculation shows that this is sufficient to determine the type of XΦ(G) , regardless of
whether there are other elements in T because T is necessarily contained in the four-element set
given in Proposition 6.1. Since ∅ ∈ XΦ(G) , it will suffice to show that ∅ has options of type (0, 0, 1)
and (1, 0, 1).
By Cauchy’s Theorem, there is an involution t ∈ G. Because the set of even maximal subgroups
does not cover G, there is an element g ∈ G that is not contained in any even maximal subgroup.
Because G is non-cyclic, both {g} and {t} are options of the initial position ∅. Let {g} ∈ XI and
{t} ∈ XJ . Because g is only contained in odd maximal subgroups and g ∈ I, type(XI ) = (1, 1, 0)
by Proposition 3.1. We also know that XJ is even, so type(XJ ) = (0, 0, 1).

The following theorem is a complete categorization of the possible values of DNG(G).
Theorem 6.3. Let G be a nontrivial finite group.
(1) If |G| = 2 or G is odd, then DNG(G) = ∗1.
(2) If G ∼
= Z4n or the set of even maximal subgroups covers G, then DNG(G) = ∗0.
(3) Otherwise, DNG(G) = ∗3.
Proof. The first case is handled by Proposition 4.1 and Corollary 3.2, respectively. For the second case, note that both conditions imply that G has even order. Then the result follows from
Proposition 4.1 and Corollary 5.5, respectively.
For the final case, assume that the conditions of Items (1) and (2) are not met. If G is cyclic,
then G ∼
= Z4n+2 for some n ≥ 1. Thus, DNG(G) = ∗3 by Proposition 4.1. On the other hand, if
G is not cyclic, then Proposition 6.2 implies that DNG(G) = ∗3, as well.

Note that the set of maximal subgroups of a cyclic group never covers the group by Lemma 5.1.
Therefore, exactly one of the hypotheses of Theorem 6.3(2) will hold.
Corollary 6.4. Let G be a nontrivial finite group.
(1) If all maximal subgroups of G are odd, then DNG(G) = ∗1.
(2) If all maximal subgroups of G are even, then DNG(G) = ∗0.
(3) Assume G has both even and odd maximal subgroups.
(a) If the set of even maximal subgroups covers G, then DNG(G) = ∗0.
(b) If the set of even maximal subgroups does not cover G, then DNG(G) = ∗3.
Proof. Let G be a finite group. If all maximal subgroups of G are odd, then it must be that |G| is
2 or odd, so DNG(G) = ∗1 by Theorem 6.3. If all maximal subgroups of G are even and G is cyclic,
then |G| is a multiple of 4 by Corollary 4.4 and DNG(G) = ∗0. If all maximal subgroups of G are
even and G is not cyclic, then the set of maximal subgroups of G covers G and DNG(G) = ∗0 by
Theorem 6.3. So, we may suppose that G has both even and odd maximal subgroups.
If the set of even maximal subgroups covers G, then G cannot be cyclic by Lemma 5.1, and
hence DNG(G) = ∗0 by Corollary 5.5. If the set of even maximal subgroups does not cover G,
then DNG(G) = ∗3 by Theorem 6.3.


8

BRET J. BENESH, DANA C. ERNST, AND NÁNDOR SIEBEN

Example 6.5. All four cases of Corollary 6.4 can occur. All maximal subgroups of Z3 are odd,
so DNG(Z3 ) = ∗1. All maximal subgroups of Z4 are even, so DNG(Z4 ) = ∗0. The group G :=
Z2 × Z3 × Z3 has maximal subgroups of both parities with the set of even maximal subgroups
covering G, so DNG(G) = ∗0. The group Sym(3) has maximal subgroups of both parities with
the set of even maximal subgroups failing to cover Sym(3), so DNG(Sym(3)) = ∗3.
Corollary 6.4 relates to an amusing result.
Proposition 6.6. If the parity of all maximal subgroups of G is the same, then the outcome of
DNG(G) does not depend on the strategy of the players.
Proof. If every maximal subgroup is even, the players will inevitably end up choosing from a
single even maximal subgroup. Thus, regardless of strategy, the second player will win. A similar
argument holds if every maximal subgroup is odd.

The parity of the maximal subgroups are all the same for p-groups. It has been conjectured
that almost every group is a p-group; if so, there is almost always no strategy that changes the
outcome of the game.
Corollary 6.7. If G is a finite group with an even Frattini subgroup, then DNG(G) = ∗0.
Proof. Since Φ(G) is even, every maximal subgroup must be even.



Example 6.8. The Frattini subgroups of the general linear group GL(2, 3) and the special linear
group SL(2, 3) are isomorphic to Z2 . Hence the avoidance game on these groups has nim-number
0.
The following corollary is a restatement of the results above, but written as an ordered checklist
of conditions, starting with what is easiest to verify. Note that the hypothesis of Item (3) implies
the hypothesis of Item (4), which in turn implies the hypothesis of Item (5) if G is non-cyclic, so
there is some redundancy. Items (3) and (4) are listed separately because they are easier to check
than Item (5).
Corollary 6.9. Let G be a nontrivial finite group.
(1) If |G| = 2, then DNG(G) = ∗1.
(2) If G is odd, then DNG(G) = ∗1.
(3) If Φ(G) is even, then DNG(G) = ∗0.
(4) If every maximal subgroup of G is even, then DNG(G) = ∗0.
(5) If the set of even maximal subgroups covers G, then DNG(G) = ∗0.
(6) Otherwise, DNG(G) = ∗3.
Proof. Items (1)–(6) follow immediately from Proposition 4.1, Corollary 3.2, Corollary 6.7, Corollary 6.4(2), Corollary 6.4(3)(a), and Corollary 6.4(3)(b), respectively.

7. Applications
7.1. Nilpotent Groups. Recall that finite nilpotent groups are the finite groups that are isomorphic to the direct product of their Sylow subgroups. It immediately follows that all abelian
groups are nilpotent. The next proposition generalizes the result for abelian groups found in [8].
Proposition 7.1. If G is a nontrivial finite nilpotent group, then

∗1, |G| = 2 or G is odd
= Z2 × Z2k+1 , k ≥ 1
DNG(G) = ∗3, G ∼
∗0, otherwise.

IMPARTIAL AVOIDANCE GAMES FOR GENERATING FINITE GROUPS

9

Proof. If |G| = 2 or G is odd, then DNG(G) = ∗1 by Theorem 6.3. If G ∼
= Z2 × Z2k+1 for some k,
then it follows from Proposition 4.1 that DNG(G) = ∗3.
Lastly, we assume we are not
Qin the first two cases; then either 4 divides |G| or G is non-cyclic
∼
of even order. We know G = p Qp , where Qp is the Sylow p-subgroup of G for the prime p. If
4 divides |G|, then every maximal subgroup is even by Proposition 4.3,Qand hence DNG(G) = ∗0
by Corollary 6.4. So, suppose that |Q2 | = 2 and G is non-cyclic; then p6=2 Qp is not cyclic. Let
Q
g ∈ G have odd order. Then hgi is a proper subgroup of Qp , so Q2 × hgi is a proper subgroup
of G. Thus, every element of odd order is contained in an even subgroup, so DNG(G) = ∗0 by
Corollary 5.5.

7.2. Generalized Dihedral Groups. A group G is said to be a generalized dihedral group if
G∼
= A o Z2 for some finite abelian A, where the action of the semidirect product is inversion. In
this case, we write G = Dih(A) and we identify A with the corresponding subgroup of G. Note
that A has index 2 in G, so A is maximal in G. The proof of the following is a trivial exercise.
Proposition 7.2. Every element of Dih(A) that is not in A has order 2.
Proposition 7.3. Every maximal subgroup of Dih(A) is even except possibly A.
Proof. Let M be a maximal subgroup of Dih(A) that is not equal to A. Then M contains an
element of Dih(A) that is not contained in A. By Proposition 7.2, this element has order 2, so M
is even.

Proposition 7.4. The avoidance games on the generalized dihedral groups satisfy:

∗3, A is odd and cyclic
DNG(Dih(A)) = ∗0, otherwise.
Proof. If A is even, then all maximal subgroups of Dih(A) are even by Proposition 7.3. Then
DNG(Dih(A)) = ∗0 by Corollary 6.4, so we may assume that A is odd.
If A = hai for some a ∈ A, then hL, ai = G for all even maximal subgroups L. Then a is
not in the union of the even maximal subgroups, and we conclude that DNG(Dih(A)) = ∗3 by
Theorem 6.3.
If A is non-cyclic, let g ∈ Dih(A) have odd order; then g ∈ A by Proposition 7.2. Let t ∈ Dih(A)
be any element of order 2. Then hg, ti = Dih(hgi) < Dih(A) since A is not cyclic, so DNG(G) = ∗0
by Corollary 5.5.

Note that DNG(Dih(A)) can only be ∗3 if Dih(A) is a dihedral group. An alternative proof
for Proposition 7.4 is to determine the simplified structure diagrams shown in Figure 3 for
DNG(Dih(A)) in terms of the minimum number of generators d(A) of A and the parities of A
and Φ(A).
7.3. Generalized Quaternion Groups. Recall that a group G is a generalized quaternion group
(or dicyclic group) if G ∼
= hx, y | x2n = y 4 = 1, xn = y 2 , xy = x−1 i for some n ≥ 2. The quaternion
group of order 8 is the n = 2 case.
Proposition 7.5. If G is a generalized quaternion group, then DNG(G) = ∗0.
Proof. Let g ∈ G have odd order. Using notation from the presentation above, one can easily
verify that G = X ∪ Xy, where X = hxi. It is easy to check that every element of Xy has order
4 and so g ∈ X. Since X is even, DNG(G) = ∗0 by Corollary 5.5.


10

BRET J. BENESH, DANA C. ERNST, AND NÁNDOR SIEBEN

A is even

A is odd
0
1

0
1

1
0

1
0

Φ(A) even Φ(A) odd

3
2

1
0

1
0

d(A) = 1

1
0

0
1

0
1

3
2

3
2

1
0

d(A) = 2

1
0

1
0

d(A) ≥ 3

Figure 3. Simplified structure diagrams for DNG(Dih(A)).
7.4. Groups with Real Elements. Recall [20] that an element g of a group G is real if there
is a t ∈ G such that g t = g −1 . Note that t induces an automorphism of order 2 on hgi, so G must
be even if it has a real element.
Proposition 7.6. If G is a finite group such that |G| > 2 and g ∈ G is a real element of odd
order, then g is contained in a proper even subgroup or G ∼
= Dih(hgi).
Proof. Let K = hgi. Because g is real, there is a t ∈ G such that g t = g −1 . Then conjugation by
t in G induces an automorphism of K of order 2, so the order of t is even. Since t normalizes K,
we may define a subgroup L = Khti. If L < G, then g ∈ L < G and we are done since L must be
even.
So assume that G = L with K normal in G. Let u be an involution in G, and let M = Khui.
If M < G, then g ∈ M < G and we are done since M is even. So assume that G = Khui = hg, ui
with |G| = 2|hgi|. Since g is real and G = K ∪ Ku, u must invert g and we have G ∼
= Dih(hgi). 
The next corollary immediately follows from Proposition 4.1, Corollary 5.5 and Propositions 7.4
and 7.6.
Corollary 7.7. If G is a finite group such that every element of G of odd order is real, then

∗1, |G| = 2
= Dih(A) for some odd cyclic A
DNG(G) = ∗3, G ∼
∗0, otherwise.
Example 7.8. If G is any of the groups listed below, then DNG(G) = ∗0 by Corollary 7.7 since
every element of G is real by [22].
(1) Ω2n+1 (q) with q ≡4 1 and n ≥ 3
(2) Ω+
9 (q) with q ≡4 3
(3) PΩ+
4n (q) with q 6≡4 3 and n ≥ 3
+
(4) Ω4n (q) with q 6≡4 3 and n ≥ 3
(5) 3 D4 (q)
0
(6) any quotient of Spin−
4n (q) with n ≥ 2
0
(7) any quotient of Sp2n (q) with q 6≡4 3 and n ≥ 1
Proposition 7.6 implies that DNG(Sym(n)) = ∗0 for all n ≥ 4 since every element in Sym(n) is
conjugate to other elements with the same cycle structure, including the element’s inverse. This is
generalized in the following corollary for Coxeter groups. Recall that the Coxeter groups of types
An and I2 (m) are isomorphic to Sym(n + 1) and the dihedral group of order 2m, respectively [11].

IMPARTIAL AVOIDANCE GAMES FOR GENERATING FINITE GROUPS

11

Corollary 7.9. If G is a finite irreducible Coxeter group, then

∗1, G is of type A1
DNG(G) = ∗3, G is of type I2 (m) for some odd m
∗0, otherwise.
Proof. If G is of type A1 , then G is isomorphic to Z2 and DNG(G) = ∗1 by Proposition 6.3. If G
is of type I2 (m) for some odd m (which includes type A2 ), then G is dihedral of order 2m, and
hence DNG(G) = ∗3 by Proposition 7.4. Every element of every other Coxeter group is real by [9,
Corollary 3.2.14], so the result follows from Corollary 7.7.

7.5. Alternating Groups. Let Alt(n) denote the alternating group on n letters. The last
two authors proved in [8] that DNG(Alt(3)) = ∗3 = DNG(Alt(4)). Barnes proved in [4] that
DNG(Alt(n)) = ∗0 if n is greater than 5 and not a prime that is congruent to 3 modulo 4. The
full characterization of DNG(Alt(n)) can be found in [6], which uses the O’Nan–Scott Theorem [3]
to show

∗3, n ∈ {3, 4} or n is in a certain family of primes
DNG(Alt(n)) =
∗0, otherwise.
The smallest number in this family of primes is 19.
7.6. Sporadic Groups. The sporadic groups are the finite simple groups that do not belong to
any infinite family of simple groups.
Proposition 7.10. Let M23 denote the Mathieu group that permutes 23 objects and B denote the
Baby Monster. If G is a sporadic group, then

∗3, G ∼
= M23 or G ∼
=B
DNG(G) = ∗0, otherwise.

Proof. Suppose G ∼
= M23 . Then 23 divides |G|, so G has an element of order 23. The Atlas of
Finite Groups [7] states that no even maximal subgroup of G has order divisible by 23, so we
conclude that elements of order 23 are not in any even maximal subgroup and the set of even
maximal subgroups does not cover G. Then DNG(G) = ∗3 by Corollary 6.4. If G ∼
= B, then
similarly elements of order 47 are not contained in any even maximal subgroup, since no even
maximal subgroup is divisible by 47 [23]. So DNG(G) = ∗3 in this case, too.
Now suppose that G is isomorphic to the Thompson group T h. There is only one class of
maximal subgroups of G that is odd [15], and these odd maximal subgroups are isomorphic to
31.15. Thus, we only need to consider elements of order dividing 31 · 15, since all other elements
are contained in some even maximal subgroup. By the character table in [7], it suffices to consider
elements of order 3, 5, 15, and 31. Again by the character table, all elements of orders 3, 5, and
15 are contained in centralizers of even order. Therefore, all elements of G are contained in an
even maximal subgroup except possibly for elements of order 31.
So let M be a maximal subgroup of G isomorphic to 31.15, and let g ∈ M have order 31. By
the character table, there are exactly two conjugacy classes C1 and C2 of elements of order 31, and
any element of order 31 is contained in one and its inverse is contained in the other. By [7], there
is a maximal subgroup H of G that is isomorphic to 25 .L5 (2), so 31 divides |H| and H has an
element h of order 31. Then g is conjugate to either h or h−1 ; without loss of generality, assume
that there is an x ∈ G such that hx = g. Then g = hx ∈ H x , so g is contained in an even maximal
subgroup. Therefore, the maximal subgroups of G cover G, so DNG(G) = ∗0 by Corollary 6.4.
The remaining cases contain only even maximal subgroups, and therefore have nim-number 0
by Corollary 6.4:
(1) The group J4 has only even maximal subgroups by [14].

12

BRET J. BENESH, DANA C. ERNST, AND NÁNDOR SIEBEN

(2) The group F i23 has only even maximal subgroups by [13].
(3) The group F i024 has only even maximal subgroups by [16].
(4) The group M has only even maximal subgroups by [17], [18], [19], [23], and [24].
Every maximal subgroup is even for every sporadic group not already mentioned [7], so they
also have nim-number 0.

7.7. Rubik’s Cube Groups. We can use our classification results together with a computer
algebra system to handle some fairly large groups. There are 8 and 20 conjugacy classes of
maximal subgroups of the 2 × 2 × 2 and 3 × 3 × 3 Rubik’s Cube groups, respectively. A simple
GAP calculation [5] shows that all these maximal subgroups are even. Hence, the avoidance games
on these groups are all ∗0.
8. Groups with Odd Order Frattini Subgroup
If the Frattini subgroup of a group G is even, then DNG(G) = ∗0 by Corollary 6.7. If the Frattini
subgroup is odd, then factoring out by the Frattini subgroup does not change the nim-number of
DNG(G).
Proposition 8.1. Let G be a finite group, and let N be a normal subgroup of G such that N is
odd and N ≤ Φ(G). Then DNG(G) = DNG(G/N ).
Proof. The result follows trivially if |G| = 2 and follows from Corollary 3.2 if G is odd, so assume
that G is even of order greater than 2. If G is cyclic, then 4 divides |G| if and only if 4 divides
|G/N |, since N is odd; the result follows by Proposition 4.1. So, suppose that G is non-cyclic.
Let x ∈ G. If M is a maximal subgroup of G, then N ≤ Φ(G) ≤ M by the definition of Φ(G).
By the Correspondence Theorem [12, Theorem 3.7], the maximal subgroups of G/N that contain
N x are exactly the set of subgroups of the form M/N , where M is a maximal subgroup of G
containing x. Additionally, |(M N )/N | = |M/N | = |M |/|N | ≡2 |M | since N is odd. Therefore,
the parities of the orders of maximal subgroups of G/N that contain N x are exactly the same
as the parities of orders of maximal subgroups of G that contain x, so the set of even maximal
subgroups of G/N covers G/N if and only if the set of even maximal subgroups of G covers G.
The result follows from Theorem 6.3.

It is well-known that the Frattini quotient of a nilpotent group is abelian. Since the avoidance games for abelian groups were classified in [8], we could have used Proposition 8.1 to prove
Proposition 7.1.
Example 8.2. The Frattini subgroup of G = Z18 × Z2 is Φ(G) ∼
= Z3 . Hence, DNG(G) =
DNG(G/Φ(G)) = DNG(Z6 × Z2 ) = ∗0, where the last equality follows from Proposition 7.1.
Figure 4 shows how the subgroup lattice changes in the factoring process while the structure
diagrams remain the same. Notice that there are three arrows in Figure 4(c) joining the structure
classes corresponding to the intersection subgroups Z1 and 3 · Z6 in the structure diagram of
DNG(Z6 × Z2 ), even though there is no edge joining Z1 to any copy of Z6 in Figure 4(b). A similar
relationship holds between the structure classes corresponding to the intersection subgroups Z3
and 3 · Z18 for DNG(Z18 × Z2 ).
Factoring out by the Frattini subgroup can reduce the size of the group to make it more manageable for computer calculation.
Example 8.3. The Frattini subgroup of the special linear group SL(3, 7) is isomorphic to Z3 . The
Frattini quotient is isomorphic to the projective special linear group P SL(3, 7). A GAP calculation
shows that the Frattini quotient has 69008 even and 32928 odd maximal subgroups. The set of

IMPARTIAL AVOIDANCE GAMES FOR GENERATING FINITE GROUPS

Z1
Z3

Z9
3 · Z18

0
1

3 · Z2
3 · Z6

Z18 × Z2

(a)

Z1

Z2 × Z2

Z6 × Z2

13

3·

3 · Z2

Z3

0
1

Z2 × Z2

3 · Z6

1
0

0
1

Z6 × Z2

(b)

1
0

3·

1
0

1
0

(c)

(d)

Figure 4. The subgroup lattices for Z18 × Z2 and its quotient group Z6 × Z2 ,
together with their common structure diagram and simplified structure diagram for
the avoidance game. The intersection subgroups are framed. Note that 3 · Zn refers
to 3 distinct copies of Zn at the same node in the diagram.
even maximal subgroups does not cover P SL(3, 7), so DNG(SL(3, 7)) = DNG(P SL(3, 7)) = ∗3 by
Corollary 6.4(3)(b).
9. Further Questions
Below we outline a few open problems related to DNG(G).
(1) The nim-number of the avoidance game is determined by the structure diagram, which is
determined by the structure digraph and the parity of the intersection subgroups. Is it
possible to determine the structure diagram from the abstract subgroup lattice structure
without using any information about the subgroups?
(2) Can we characterize DNG(G×H), or even DNG(GoH), in terms of DNG(G) and DNG(H)?
(3) Let N be a normal subgroup of G such that N ≤ Φ(G). Are the structure digraphs of
DNG(G) and DNG(G/N ) isomorphic?
(4) Can we characterize the nim-numbers of the achievement games from [8] in terms of covering conditions by maximal subgroups similar to Corollary 6.4 for avoidance games?
(5) Is it possible to determine nim-numbers for avoidance games played on algebraic structures
having maximal sub-structures, such as quasigroups, semigroups, monoids, and loops?
(6) The nim-number of a game position P can be determined using the type of the structure
class containing P . The type of the structure class requires a recursive computation using
the minimal excludant. Is it possible to avoid this computation and determine the nimvalue of P in terms of a simple condition using only the maximal subgroups?
(7) What are the nim-values of avoidance games played on the remaining classical and simple
groups?
References
1. M.H. Albert, R.J. Nowakowski, and D. Wolfe, Lessons in play: an introduction to combinatorial game theory,
AMC 10 (2007), 12.
2. M. Anderson and F. Harary, Achievement and avoidance games for generating abelian groups, Internat. J.
Game Theory 16 (1987), no. 4, 321–325.
3. M. Aschbacher and L. Scott, Maximal subgroups of finite groups, J. Algebra 92 (1985), no. 1, 44–80.
4. F.W. Barnes, Some games of F. Harary, based on finite groups, Ars Combin. 25 (1988), no. A, 21–30, Eleventh
British Combinatorial Conference (London, 1987).
5. B.J. Benesh, D.C. Ernst, and N. Sieben, Companion web site, 2015.

14

BRET J. BENESH, DANA C. ERNST, AND NÁNDOR SIEBEN

6. B.J. Benesh, D.C. Ernst, and N. Sieben, Impartial avoidance and achievement games for generating symmetric
and alternating groups, arXiv:1508.03419 (2015).
7. J.H. Conway, R.T. Curtis, S.P. Norton, R.A. Parker, and R.A. Wilson, Atlas of finite groups: maximal subgroups
and ordinary characters for simple groups, Oxford University Press Eynsham, 1985.
8. D.C. Ernst and N. Sieben, Impartial achievement and avoidance games for generating finite groups,
arXiv:1407.0784 (2014).
9. M. Geck and G. Pfeiffer, Characters of finite Coxeter groups and Iwahori-Hecke algebras, vol. 21, The Clarendon
Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 2000.
10. The GAP Group, GAP – Groups, Algorithms, and Programming, Version 4.7.7, 2015.
11. J.E. Humphreys, Reflection groups and Coxeter groups, vol. 29, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990.
12. I.M. Isaacs, Algebra: a graduate course, vol. 100, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2009, Reprint
of the 1994 original.
13. P.B. Kleidman, R.A. Parker, and R.A. Wilson, The maximal subgroups of the Fischer group F i23 , J. London
Math. Soc. (2) 39 (1989), no. 1, 89–101.
14. P.B. Kleidman and R.A. Wilson, The maximal subgroups of J4 , Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 56 (1988), no. 3,
484–510.
15. S.A. Linton, The maximal subgroups of the Thompson group, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 39 (1989), no. 1, 79–88.
16. S.A. Linton and R.A. Wilson, The maximal subgroups of the Fischer groups F i24 and F i024 , Proc. London
Math. Soc. (3) 63 (1991), no. 1, 113–164.
17. S.P. Norton, Anatomy of the Monster: I, The Atlas of Finite Groups: ten years on (Birmingham, 1995), vol.
249, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1998, pp. 198–214.
18. S.P. Norton and R.A. Wilson, Anatomy of the Monster: II, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 84 (2002), no. 3,
581–598.
, A correction to the 41-structure of the Monster, a construction of a new maximal subgroup L2 (41) and
19.
a new Moonshine phenomenon, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 87 (2013), no. 3, 943–962.
20. J.S. Rose, A course on group theory, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1994.
21. A.N. Siegel, Combinatorial game theory, vol. 146, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2013.
22. P.H. Tiep and A.E. Zalesski, Real conjugacy classes in algebraic groups and finite groups of Lie type, J. Group
Theory 8 (2005), no. 3, 291–315.
23. R.A. Wilson, The maximal subgroups of the Baby Monster, I, J. Algebra 211 (1999), no. 1, 1–14.
24.
, New computations in the Monster, Moonshine: the first quarter century and beyond, London Math.
Soc. Lecture Note Ser., vol. 372, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2010, pp. 393–401.
Department of Mathematics, College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University, 37 College Avenue South, Saint Joseph, MN 56374-5011, USA
E-mail address: bbenesh@csbsju.edu
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Northern Arizona University PO Box 5717, Flagstaff,
AZ 86011-5717, USA
E-mail address: Dana.Ernst@nau.edu,Nandor.Sieben@nau.edu

