2004
DOI: 10.1007/s00013-004-1171-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A 5-local identification of the monster

Abstract: Let G be a locally K-proper group, S ∈ Syl 5 (G), and Z = Z(S). We demonstrate that if N G (Z) ∼ 5 1+6 + .4 · J 2 .2 is 5-constrained and Z is not weakly closed in O 5 (N G (Z)) then G is isomorphic to the monster sporadic simple group.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, it is very instructive to produce the extra handful of arguments and do without this sledge hammer. We mention here that there are odd p-local characterizations of some of the sporadic simple groups by Parker and Rowley [15] and Parker and Wiedorn [16] which do use the powerful K-proper assumption.…”
Section: Definitionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…However, it is very instructive to produce the extra handful of arguments and do without this sledge hammer. We mention here that there are odd p-local characterizations of some of the sporadic simple groups by Parker and Rowley [15] and Parker and Wiedorn [16] which do use the powerful K-proper assumption.…”
Section: Definitionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Four examples occur with p = 5 and are listed as A 20 , A 21 , A 46 and A 53 in [22, Table 1.8]. These four amalgams are related to HN , BM , Ly, and M , respectively, and are the subject of [21], [23], and [24]. A further remarkable example which occurs in the monster has N β ∼ 13 1+2 + .12.Sym (4) and N α ∼ 13 2 .4.L 2 (13).2.…”
Section: +24 +mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With respect to this amalgam the monster is of parabolic characteristic 13; unfortunately, as yet we have no idea how to characterize M from these two subgroups. The strategies used in [21], the present paper, [23] and [24] will not work in this particular case since the largest elementary abelian 13-subgroup in the centralizer of an involution in N α and N β has order 13. Thus the critical method of proof used in Propositions 5.6 and 6.5 to control O p (C G (t)) for an involution t fails.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%