### Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team. ### Learn More → # The Cayley isomorphism property for the group$C^5_2\times C_p$The Cayley isomorphism property for the group$C^5_2\times C_p$THE CAYLEY ISOMORPHISM PROPERTY FOR THE GROUP C × C GRIGORY RYABOV Abstract. A ﬁnite group G is called a DCI-group if two Cayley digraphs over G are iso- morphic if and only if their connection sets are conjugate by a group automorphism. We prove that the group C × C , where p is a prime, is a DCI-group if and only if p 6= 2. Together with the previously obtained results, this implies that a group G of order 32p, where p is a prime, is a DCI-group if and only if p 6= 2 and G C × C . = p Keywords: Isomorphisms, DCI-groups, Schur rings. MSC: 05C25, 05C60, 20B25. § 1. Introduction Let G be a ﬁnite group and S ⊆ G. The Cayley digraph Cay(G, S) over G with the connection set S is deﬁned to be the digraph with the vertex set G and the arc set {(g, sg) : g ∈ G, s ∈ S}. Two Cayley digraphs over G are called Cayley isomorphic if there exists an isomorphism between them which is also an automorphism of G. Clearly, two Cayley isomorphic Cayley digraphs are isomorphic. The converse statement is not true in general (see [3, 10]). A subset S ⊆ G is called a CI-subset if for each T ⊆ G the Cayley digraphs Cay(G, S) and Cay(G, T ) are isomorphic if and only if they are Cayley isomorphic. A ﬁnite group G is called a DCI-group (CI-group, respectively) if each subset of G (each inverse- closed subset of G, respectively) is a CI-subset. The investigation of DCI-groups was initiated by Ada´m  who conjectured, in our terms, that every cyclic group is a DCI-group. This conjecture was disproved by Elspas and Turner in . The problem of determining of all ﬁnite DCI- and CI-groups was suggested by Babai and Frankl in . For more information on DCI- and CI-groups we refer the readers to the survey paper . In this paper we are interested in abelian DCI-groups. The cyclic group of order n is denoted by C . Elspas and Turner  and independently Djokovi´c  proved that every cyclic group of prime order is a DCI-group. The fact that C is a DCI-group for pq distinct primes p and q was proved by Alspach and Parsons in  and independently by Klin and Po¨schel in . The complete classiﬁcation of all cyclic DCI-groups was obtained by Muzychuk in [23, 24]. He proved that a cyclic group of order n is a DCI-group if and only if n = k or n = 2k, where k is square-free. Denote the class of all ﬁnite abelian groups whose all Sylow subgroups are elementary abelian by E. From [18, Theorem 1.1] it follows that every DCI-group is the coprime product The work is supported by Mathematical Center in Akademgorodok under agreement No. 075-15-2019- 1613 with the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation. arXiv:2005.14539v1 [math.CO] 28 May 2020 2 GRIGORY RYABOV (i.e., the direct product of groups of coprime orders) of groups from the following list: C , C , Q , A , H ⋊ hzi, 4 8 4 z −1 where p is a prime, H is a group of odd order from E, |z| ∈ {2, 4}, and h = h for every h ∈ H. One can check that the class of DCI-groups is closed under taking subgroups. So one of the crucial steps towards the classiﬁcation of all DCI-groups is to determine which groups from E are DCI. The following non-cyclic groups from E are DCI-groups (p and q are assumed to be distinct 2 3 4 5 4 4 primes): C [2, 15]; C [2, 9]; C , C ; C , where p is odd  (a proof for C with no p p 2 2 p p 5 2 3 condition on p was given in ); C , where p is odd ; C × C ; C × C ; q q p p p C × C . The smallest example of a non-DCI-group from E was found by Nowitz . 6 n n He proved that C is non-DCI. This implies that C is non-DCI for every n ≥ 6. Also C 2 2 3 is non-DCI for every n ≥ 8  and C is non-DCI for every prime p and n ≥ 2p + 3 . In this paper we ﬁnd a new inﬁnite family of DCI-groups from E which are close to the smallest non-DCI-group from E. The main result of the paper can be formulated as follows. Theorem 1.1. Let p be a prime. Then the group C × C is a DCI-group if and only if p 6= 2. Theorem 1.1 extends the results obtained in [18, 20, 27] which imply that the group C × C is a DCI-group whenever p and q are distinct primes and k ≤ 4. Note that the “only if” part of Theorem 1.1, in fact, was proved by Nowitz in . The next corollary immediately follows from [18, Theorem 1.1] and Theorem 1.1. Corollary. Let p be a prime. Then a group G of order 32p is a DCI-group if and only if p 6= 2 and G = C × C . To prove Theorem 1.1, we use the S-ring approach. An S-ring over a group G is a subring of the group ring ZG which is a free Z-module spanned by a special partition of G. If every S-ring from a certain family of S-rings over G is a CI-S-ring then G is a DCI-group (see Section 4). The deﬁnition of an S-ring goes back to Schur  and Wielandt . The usage of S-rings in the investigation of DCI-groups was proposed by Klin and Po¨schel . Many of recent results on DCI-groups were obtained with using S-rings (see [16, 18, 19, 20, 27]). The text of the paper is organized in the following way. In Section 2 we provide deﬁni- tions and basic facts concerned with S-rings. Section 3 contains a necessary information on isomorphisms of S-rings. In Section 4 we discuss CI-S-rings and their relation with DCI-groups. Also in this section we prove a suﬃcient condition of CI-property for S-rings (Lemma 4.3). Section 5 is devoted to the generalized wreath and star products of S-rings. Here we deduce from previously obtained results two suﬃcient conditions for the generalized wreath product of S-rings to be a CI-S-ring (Lemma 5.5 and Lemma 5.8). Section 6 and 7 are concerned with p-S-rings and S-rings over groups of non-powerful order respectively. In Section 8 we provide properties of S-rings over the groups C , n ≤ 5, and prove that all S-rings over these groups are CI. The material of this section is based on computational results obtained with the help of the GAP package COCO2P . Finally, in Section 9 we prove Theorem 1.1. 5 THE CAYLEY ISOMORPHISM PROPERTY FOR THE GROUP C × C 3 2 p Notation. Let G be a ﬁnite group and X ⊆ G. The element x of the group ring ZG is denoted x∈X by X. −1 −1 The set {x : x ∈ X} is denoted by X . The subgroup of G generated by X is denoted by hXi; we also set rad(X) = {g ∈ G : gX = Xg = X}. Given a set X ⊆ G the set {(g, xg) : x ∈ X, g ∈ G} of arcs of the Cayley digraph Cay(G, X) is denoted by R(X). The group of all permutations of G is denoted by Sym(G). The subgroup of Sym(G) consisting of all right translations of G is denoted by G . right The set {K ≤ Sym(G) : K ≥ G } is denoted by Sup(G ). right right S S f For a set Δ ⊆ Sym(G) and a section S = U/L of G we set Δ = {f : f ∈ Δ, S = S}, f S where S = S means that f permutes the L-cosets in U and f denotes the bijection of S induced by f. If K ≤ Sym(Ω) and α ∈ Ω then the stabilizer of α in K and the set of all orbits of K on Ω are denoted by K and Orb(K, Ω) respectively. If H ≤ G then the normalizer of H in G is denoted by N (H). The cyclic group of order n is denoted by C . The class of all ﬁnite abelian groups whose every Sylow subgroup is elementary abelian is denoted by E. § 2. S-rings In this section we give a background of S-rings. In general, we follow , where the most part of the material is contained. For more information on S-rings we refer the readers to [6, 25]. Let G be a ﬁnite group and ZG the integer group ring. Denote the identity element of G by e. A subring A ⊆ ZG is called an S-ring (a Schur ring) over G if there exists a partition S(A) of G such that: (1) {e} ∈ S(A), −1 (2) if X ∈ S(A) then X ∈ S(A), (3) A = Span {X : X ∈ S(A)}. The elements of S(A) are called the basic sets of A and the number rk(A) = |S(A)| is called the rank of A. If X, Y ∈ S(A) then XY ∈ S(A) whenever |X| = 1 or |Y | = 1. Let A be an S-ring over a group G. A set X ⊆ G is called an A-set if X ∈ A. A subgroup H ≤ G is called an A-subgroup if H is an A-set. From the deﬁnition it follows that the intersection of A-subgroups is also an A-subgroup. One can check that for each A-set X the groups hXi and rad(X) are A-subgroups. By the thin radical of A we mean the set deﬁned as O (A) = {x ∈ G : {x} ∈ S(A)}. It is easy to see that O (A) is an A-subgroup. Lemma 2.1. [12, Lemma 2.1] Let A be an S-ring over a group G, H an A-subgroup of G, and X ∈ S(A). Then the number |X ∩ Hx| does not depend on x ∈ X. 4 GRIGORY RYABOV Let L ✂ U ≤ G. A section U/L is called an A-section if U and L are A-subgroups. If S = U/L is an A-section then the module A = Span {X : X ∈ S(A), X ⊆ U} , S Z where π : U → U/L is the canonical epimorphism, is an S-ring over S. § 3. Isomorphisms and schurity ′ ′ ′ Let A and A be S-rings over groups G and G respectively. A bijection f : G → G is called an isomorphism from A to A if f ′ ′ ′ {R(X) : X ∈ S(A)} = {R(X ) : X ∈ S(A )}, f f f ′ where R(X) = {(g , h ) : (g, h) ∈ R(X)}. If there exists an isomorphism from A to A ′ ′ then we say that A and A are isomorphic and write A = A . The group of all isomorphisms from A onto itself contains a normal subgroup {f ∈ Sym(G) : R(X) = R(X) for every X ∈ S(A)} called the automorphism group of A and denoted by Aut(A). The deﬁnition implies that G ≤ Aut(A). The S-ring A is called normal if G is normal in Aut(A). One can verify right right that if S is an A-section then Aut(A) ≤ Aut(A ). Denote the group Aut(A) ∩ Aut(G) by Aut (A). It easy to check that if S is an A-section then Aut (A) ≤ Aut (A ). One can G G S S verify that Aut (A) = N (G ) . G Aut(A) right e Let K ∈ Sup(G ). Schur proved in  that the Z-submodule right V (K, G) = Span {X : X ∈ Orb(K , G)}, is an S-ring over G. An S-ring A over G is called schurian if A = V (K, G) for some K ∈ Sup(G ). One can verify that given K , K ∈ Sup(G ), right 1 2 right if K ≤ K then V (K , G) ≥ V (K , G). (1) 1 2 1 2 If A = V (K, G) for some K ∈ Sup(G ) and S is an A-section then A = V (K , G). So right S if A is schurian then A is also schurian for every A-section S. It can be checked that V (Aut(A), G) ≥ A (2) and the equality is attained if and only if A is schurian. An S-ring A over a group G is deﬁned to be cyclotomic if there exists K ≤ Aut(G) such that S(A) = Orb(K, G). In this case we write A = Cyc(K, G). Obviously, A = V (G K, G). So every cyclotomic S-ring is schurian. If A = Cyc(K, G) for some K ≤ right Aut(G) and S is an A-section then A = Cyc(K , G). Therefore if A is cyclotomic then A is also cyclotomic for every A-section S. Two permutation groups K and K on a set Ω are called 2-equivalent if Orb(K , Ω ) = 1 2 1 2 2 Orb(K , Ω ) (here we assume that K and K act on Ω componentwise). In this case we 2 1 2 write K ≈ K . The relation ≈ is an equivalence relation on the set of all subgroups 1 2 2 2 of Sym(Ω). Every equivalence class has a unique maximal element. Given K ≤ Sym(Ω), 5 THE CAYLEY ISOMORPHISM PROPERTY FOR THE GROUP C × C 5 2 p (2) this element is called the 2-closure of K and denoted by K . If A = V (K, G) for some (2) K ∈ Sup(G ) then K = Aut(A). An S-ring A over G is called 2-minimal if right {K ∈ Sup(G ) : K ≈ Aut(A)} = {Aut(A)}. right 2 Two groups K , K ≤ Aut(G) are said to be Cayley equivalent if Orb(K , G) = Orb(K , G). 1 2 1 2 In this case we write K ≈ K . If A = Cyc(K, G) for some K ≤ Aut(G) then Aut (A) 1 Cay 2 G is the largest group which is Cayley equivalent to K. A cyclotomic S-ring A over G is called Cayley minimal if {K ≤ Aut(G) : K ≈ Aut (A)} = {Aut (A)}. Cay G G It is easy to see that ZG is Cayley minimal. § 4. CI-S-rings Let A be an S-ring over a group G. Put Iso(A) = {f ∈ Sym(G) : f is an isomorphism from A onto S-ring over G}. One can see that Aut(A) Aut(G) ⊆ Iso(A). However, the converse inclusion does not hold in general. The S-ring A is deﬁned to be a CI-S-ring if Aut(A) Aut(G) = Iso(A). It is easy to check that ZG and the S-ring of rank 2 over G are CI-S-rings. Put (2) Sup (G ) = {K ∈ Sup(G ) : K = K}. right right The group M ≤ Sym(G) is said to be G-regular if M is regular and isomorphic to G. Following , we say that a group K ∈ Sup(G ) is G-transjugate if every G-regular right subgroup of K is K-conjugate to G . Babai proved in  the statement which can right be formulated in our terms as follows: a set S ⊆ G is a CI-subset if and only if the group Aut(Cay(G, S)) is G-transjugate. The next lemma provides a similar criterion for a schurian S-ring to be CI. Lemma 4.1. Let K ∈ Sup (G ) and A = V (K, G). Then A is a CI-S-ring if and only right if K is G-transjugate. Proof. The statement of the lemma follows from [16, Theorem 2.6]. Let K , K ∈ Sup(G ) such that K ≤ K . Then K is called a G-complete subgroup 1 2 right 1 2 1 of K if every G-regular subgroup of K is K -conjugate to some G-regular subgroup of 2 2 2 K (see [16, Deﬁnition 2]). In this case we write K  K . The relation  is a partial 1 1 G 2 G order on Sup(G ). The set of the minimal elements of Sup (G ) with respect to  is right right G min denoted by Sup (G ). right Lemma 4.2. [20, Lemma 3.3] Let G be a ﬁnite group. If V (K, G) is a CI-S-ring for every min K ∈ Sup (G ) then G is a DCI-group. right min Remark 1. The condition that V (K, G) is a CI-S-ring for every K ∈ Sup (G ) is right equivalent to, say, that every schurian S-ring over G is a CI-S-ring. However, it is not known whether the statement converse to Lemma 4.2 is true. 6 GRIGORY RYABOV We ﬁnish the subsection with the lemma that gives a suﬃcient condition for an S-ring to be a CI-S-ring. In order to formulate this condition, we need to introduce some further notations. Let A be a schurian S-ring over an abelian group G and L a normal A-subgroup of G. Then the partition of G into the L-cosets is Aut(A)-invariant. The kernel of the action of Aut(A) on the latter cosets is denoted by Aut(A) . Since Aut(A) is a normal G/L G/L subgroup of Aut(A), we can form the group K = Aut(A) G . Clearly, K ≤ Aut(A). G/L right (2) From [16, Proposition 2.1] it follows that K = K . Lemma 4.3. Let A be a schurian S-ring over an abelian group G, L an A-subgroup of G, and K = Aut(A) G . Suppose that both A and V (K, G) are CI-S-rings and A G/L right G/L G/L is normal. Then A is a CI-S-ring. G/L Proof. Firstly we prove that the group Aut(A) is G/L-transjugate. Suppose that F is G/L a G/L-regular subgroup of Aut(A) . The S-ring A is a CI-S-ring by the assump- G/L tion of the lemma. So Lemma 4.1 implies that the group Aut(A ) is G/L-transjugate. G/L G/L Since F ≤ Aut(A) ≤ Aut(A ), we conclude that F and (G/L) are Aut(A )- G/L right G/L G/L conjugate. However, A is normal and hence F = (G/L) . Therefore Aut(A) is G/L right G/L-transjugate. Now let us show that K  Aut(A). Let H be a G-regular subgroup of Aut(A). G/L G/L G/L Then H is abelian transitive subgroup of Aut(A) and hence H is regular on G/L G/L G/L. Therefore H = (G/L) = (G ) . There exists γ ∈ Aut(A) such that right right G/L G/L γ G/L G/L (H ) = (G/L) = (G ) because Aut(A) is G/L-transjugate. This yields right right that H ≤ K. Thus, K  Aut(A). Finally, prove that Aut(A) is G-transjugate. Again, let H be a G-regular subgroup of Aut(A). Since K  Aut(A), there exists γ ∈ Aut(A) such that H ≤ K. The S- ring V (K, G) is a CI-S-ring by the assumption of the lemma. So K is G-transjugate by Lemma 4.1. Therefore H and G are K-conjugate and hence H and G are Aut(A)- right right conjugate. Thus, Aut(A) is G-transjugate and A is a CI-S-ring by Lemma 4.1. The lemma is proved. It should be mentioned that the proof of Lemma 4.3 is quite similar to the proof of [20, Lemma 3.6]. § 5. Generalized wreath and star products Let A be an S-ring over a group G and S = U/L an A-section of G. An S-ring A is called the S-wreath product or the generalized wreath product of A and A if L E G and U G/L L ≤ rad(X) for each basic set X outside U. In this case we write A = A ≀ A and U S G/L omit S when U = L. The construction of the generalized wreath product of S-rings was introduced in . The S-wreath product is called nontrivial or proper if L 6= {e} and U 6= G. An S-ring A is said to be decomposable if A is the nontrivial S-wreath product for some A-section S of G; otherwise A is said to be indecomposable. We say that an A-subgroup U < G has a gwr-complement with respect to A if there exists a nontrivial normal A-subgroup L of G such that L ≤ U and A is the S-wreath product, where S = U/L. 5 THE CAYLEY ISOMORPHISM PROPERTY FOR THE GROUP C × C 7 2 p Lemma 5.1. [19, Theorem 1.1] Let G ∈ E, A an S-ring over G, and S = U/L an A-section of G. Suppose that A is the nontrivial S-wreath product and the S-rings A and A are U G/L CI-S-rings. Then A is a CI-S-ring whenever S S Aut (A ) = Aut (A ) Aut (A ) . S S U U G/L G/L S S In particular, A is a CI-S-ring if Aut (A ) = Aut (A ) or Aut (A ) = Aut (A ) . S S U U S S G/L G/L Lemma 5.2. [19, Proposition 4.1] In the conditions of Lemma 5.1, suppose that A = ZS. Then A is a CI-S-ring. In particular, if U = L then A is a CI-S-ring. Lemma 5.3. [20, Lemma 4.2] In the conditions of Lemma 5.1, suppose that at least one of the S-rings A and A is cyclotomic and A is Cayley minimal. Then A is a CI-S-ring. U G/L S Lemma 5.4. Let A be an S-ring over an abelian group G. Suppose that A is the nontrivial S = U/L-wreath product for some A-section S = U/L and L is an A-subgroup containing L. Then B = V (K, G), where K = Aut(A) G , is also the S-wreath product. G/L right Proof. Since K ≤ Aut(A), from Eqs. (1) and (2) it follows that B = V (K, G) ≥ V (Aut(A), G) ≥ A. So U and L are also B-subgroups. Let C = ZU ≀ Z(G/L). The S-rings C and C are schurian and C is 2-minimal. So C S U G/L S is schurian by [26, Corollary 10.3]. This implies that C = V (Aut(C), G). (3) Every element from Aut(C) ﬁxes every basic set of C and hence it ﬁxes every L-coset. Since L ≥ L, every element from Aut(C) ﬁxes every L -coset. We conclude that Aut(C) ≤ 1 e 1 e Aut(A) and hence Aut(C) ≤ K. Now from Eqs. (1) and (3) it follows that G/L C = V (Aut(C), G) ≥ V (K, G) = B. (4) The group U is both B-,C-subgroup. Due to Eq. (4), every basic set of B which lies outside U is a union of some basic sets of C which lie outside U. So L ≤ rad(X) for every X ∈ S(B) outside U. Thus, B is the S-wreath product. The lemma is proved. Lemma 5.5. In the conditions of Lemma 5.1, suppose that: (1) every S-ring over U is a CI-S-ring; (2) A is 2-minimal or normal. Then A is a CI-S-ring. G/L Proof. Let B = V (K, G), where K = Aut(A) G . From Lemma 5.4 it follows that B G/L right is the S-wreath product. Since L = L, the deﬁnition of B implies that B = Z(G/L) 1 G/L and hence B = ZS. Clearly, B is a CI-S-ring. The S-ring B is a CI-S-ring by the S G/L U assumption of the lemma. Therefore B is a CI-S-ring by Lemma 5.2. The S-ring A is G/L a CI-S-ring by the assumption of the lemma. Thus, A is a CI-S-ring by [20, Lemma 3.6] whenever A is 2-minimal and by Lemma 4.3 whenever A is normal. The lemma is G/L G/L proved. Let V and W be A-subgroups. The S-ring A is called the star product of A and A if V W the following conditions hold: (1) V ∩ W E W ; (2) each T ∈ S(A) with T ⊆ (W \ V ) is a union of some V ∩ W -cosets; 8 GRIGORY RYABOV (3) for each T ∈ S(A) with T ⊆ G \ (V ∪ W ) there exist R ∈ S(A ) and S ∈ S(A ) V W such that T = RS. In this case we write A = A ⋆ A . The construction of the star product of S-rings V W was introduced in . The star product is called nontrivial if V 6= {e} and V 6= G. If V ∩ W = {e} then the star product is the usual tensor product of A and A (see [12, V W p.5]). In this case we write A = A ⊗ A . One can check that if A = A ⊗ A then V W V W Aut(A) = Aut(A )×Aut(A ). If V ∩W 6= {e} then A is the nontrivial V/(V ∩W )-wreath V W product. Lemma 5.6. Let G ∈ E and A a schurian S-ring over G. Suppose that A = A ⋆ A for V W some A-subgroups V and W of G and the S-rings A and A are CI-S-rings. Then V W/(V ∩W ) A is a CI-S-ring. Proof. The statement of the lemma follows from [18, Proposition 3.2, Theorem 4.1]. Lemma 5.7. [13, Lemma 2.8] Let A be an S-ring over an abelian group G = G × G . 1 2 Assume that G and G are A-groups. Then A = A ⊗ A whenever A or A is the 1 2 G G G G 1 2 1 2 group ring. Lemma 5.8. In the conditions of Lemma 5.1, suppose that |G : U| is a prime and there exists X ∈ S(A ) outside S with |X| = 1. Then A is a CI-S-ring. G/L Proof. Let X = {x} for some x ∈ G/L. Due to G ∈ E, we conclude that |hxi| is prime. So |hxi ∩ S| = 1 because x lies outside S. Since |G : U| is a prime, G/L = hxi × S. Note that A = Zhxi. Therefore hxi A = Zhxi ⊗ A G/L S by Lemma 5.7. Let ϕ ∈ Aut (A ). Deﬁne ψ ∈ Aut(G/L) in the following way: S S S ψ ψ = ϕ, x = x. Then ψ ∈ Aut (A ) because A = Zhxi ⊗ A . We obtain that Aut (A ) ≥ G/L G/L G/L S G/L G/L Aut (A ), and hence Aut (A ) = Aut (A ). Thus, A is a CI-S-ring by Lemma 5.1. S S G/L G/L S S The lemma is proved. § 6. p-S-rings Let p be a prime. An S-ring A over a p-group G is called a p-S-ring if every basic set of A has a p-power size. Clearly, if |G| = p then A = ZG. In the next three lemmas G is a p-group and A is a p-S-ring over G. Lemma 6.1. If B ≥ A then B is a p-S-ring. Proof. The statement of the lemma follows from [29, Theorem 1.1]. Lemma 6.2. Let S = U/L be an A-section of G. Then A is a p-S-ring. Proof. From Lemma 2.1 it follows that for every X ∈ S(A) the number λ = |X ∩ Lx| does not depend on x ∈ X. So λ divides |X| and hence λ is a p-power. Let π : G → G/L be the canonical epimorphism. Note that |π(X)| = |X|/λ and hence |π(X)| is a p-power. Therefore every basic set of A has a p-power size. Thus, A is a p-S-ring. The lemma is S S proved.  5 THE CAYLEY ISOMORPHISM PROPERTY FOR THE GROUP C × C 9 2 p Lemma 6.3. [13, Proposition 2.13] The following statements hold: (1) |O (A)| > 1; (2) there exists a chain of A-subgroups {e} = G < G < . . . G = G such that |G : 0 1 s i+1 G | = p for every i ∈ {0, . . ., s − 1}. min Lemma 6.4. Let G be an abelian group, K ∈ Sup (G ), and A = V (K, G). Suppose right that H is an A-subgroup of G such that G/H is a p-group for some prime p. Then A G/H is a p-S-ring. Proof. The statement of the lemma follows from [18, Lemma 5.2]. § 7. S-rings over over an abelian group of non-powerful order A number n is called powerful if p divides n for every prime divisor p of n. From now throughout this subsection G = H × P , where H is an abelian group and P C , where p is a prime coprime to |H|. Clearly, |G| is non-powerful. Let A be an S-ring over G, H a maximal A-subgroup contained in H, and P the least A-subgroup containing P . Note that H P is an A-subgroup. 1 1 Lemma 7.1. [20, Lemma 6.3] In the above notations, if H 6= (H P ) ′, the Hall p -subgroup 1 1 1 p of H P , then A = A ⋆ A . 1 1 H P H P 1 1 1 1 Lemma 7.2. [27, Proposition 15] In the above notations, if A = ZC then A = H P /H p H P 1 1 1 1 1 A ⋆ A . H P 1 1 Lemma 7.3. [12, Lemma 6.2] In the above notations, suppose that H < H. Then one of the following statements holds: (1) A = A ≀ A with rk(A ) = 2; H G/H G/H 1 1 1 (2) A = A ≀ A , where S = H P /P and P < G. H P S G/P 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 § 8. S-rings over C , n ≤ 5 All S-rings over the groups C , where n ≤ 5, were enumerated with the help of the GAP package COCO2P . The lists of all S-rings over these groups are available on the web-page  (see also ). The next lemma is an immediate consequence of the above computational results (see also [12, Theorem 1.2]). Lemma 8.1. Every S-ring over C , where n ≤ 5, is schurian. The main goal of this section is to describe 2-S-rings over C , where n ≤ 5, using computational results and to check that all S-rings over the above groups are CI-S-rings. From now until the end of the section G is an elementary abelian 2-group of rank n and A is a 2-S-ring over G. Lemma 8.2. Let n ≤ 3. Then A is cyclotomic. Moreover, A is Cayley minimal except for the case when n = 3 and A ZC ≀ ZC ≀ ZC . 2 2 2 Proof. The ﬁrst part of the lemma follows from [20, Lemma 5.2]; the second part follows from [20, Lemma 5.3].  10 GRIGORY RYABOV 4 5 Analyzing the lists of all S-rings over C and C available on the web-page , we con- 2 2 clude that up to isomorphism there are exactly nineteen 2-S-rings over G if n = 4 and there are exactly one hundred 2-S-rings over G if n = 5. It can can be established by inspecting the above 2-S-rings one after the other that there are exactly ﬁfteen decomposable and four indecomposable 2-S-rings over G if n = 4 and there are exactly ninety six decomposable and four indecomposable 2-S-rings over G if n = 5. Lemma 8.3. Let n ∈ {4, 5} and A indecomposable. Then A is normal. If in addition n = 5 ′ ′ 4 then A = ZC ⊗ A , where A is indecomposable 2-S-ring over C . Proof. Let n = 4. One can compute | Aut(A)| and |N (G )| with using the GAP Aut(A) right package COCO2P . It turns out that for each of four indecomposable 2-S-rings over G the equality | Aut(A)| = |N (G )| Aut(A) right is attained. So every indecomposable 2-S-ring over G is normal whenever n = 4. Let n = 5. The straightforward check for each of four indecomposable 2-S-rings over ∼ ∼ G yields that A = A ⊗ ZL, where H C , L C , and A is indecomposable 2-S- = = H 2 H ring. Clearly, ZL is normal. By the above paragraph, A is normal. Since Aut(A) = Aut(A ) × Aut(A ), we obtain that A is normal. The lemma is proved. H L Note that if p > 2 then Lemma 8.3 does not hold. In fact, if p > 2 then there exists an indecomposable p-S-ring over C which is not normal (see [13, Lemma 6.4]). Lemma 8.4. Let n ≤ 5. Then A is normal whenever one of the following statements holds: (1) A is indecomposable; (2) |G : O (A)| = 2; (3) n = 4 and A (ZC ≀ ZC ) ⊗ (ZC ≀ ZC ). 2 2 2 2 Proof. If n ≤ 3 and A is indecomposable then A = ZG by [20, Lemma 5.2]. Clearly, in this case A is normal. If n ∈ {4, 5} and A is indecomposable then A is normal by Lemma 8.3. There are exactly n − 1 2-S-rings over G for which Statement 2 of the lemma holds. For every A isomorphic to one of these 2-S-rings and for A = (ZC ≀ ZC ) ⊗ (ZC ≀ ZC ) one 2 2 2 2 can compute | Aut(A)| and |N (G )| with using the GAP package COCO2P . It right Aut(A) turns out that in each case the equality | Aut(A)| = |N (G )| holds and hence A is Aut(A) right normal. The lemma is proved. Lemma 8.5. Let n = 4. Then A is cyclotomic. Proof. If A is decomposable then A is cyclotomic by [20, Lemma 5.6]. If A is indecomposable then A is normal by Lemma 8.3. This implies that Aut(A) = N (G ) ≤ Aut(G). e Aut(A) right e The S-ring A is schurian by Lemma 8.1. So from Eq. (2) it follows that A = V (Aut(A), G) and hence A = Cyc(Aut(A) , G). The lemma is proved. Lemma 8.6. Let n = 5. Suppose that A is decomposable and |O (A)| = 8. Then A is cyclotomic. 5 THE CAYLEY ISOMORPHISM PROPERTY FOR THE GROUP C × C 11 2 p Proof. Let A be the nontrivial S-wreath product for some A-section S = U/L. Note that |U| ≤ 16, |G/L| ≤ 16, and |S| ≤ 8. The S-rings A , A , and A are 2-S-rings by U G/L S Lemma 6.2. So each of these S-rings is cyclotomic by Lemma 8.2 whenever the order of the corresponding group is at most 8 and by Lemma 8.5 otherwise. Since |O (A)| = 8, we conclude that |S| ≤ 4 or |S| = 8 and |O (A )| ≥ 4. In both cases A is Cayley minimal by θ S S Lemma 8.2. This implies that S S Aut (A ) = Aut (A ) = Aut (A ). U U G/L G/L S S Now from [20, Lemma 4.3] it follows that A is cyclotomic. The lemma is proved. Lemma 8.7. Let n = 5. Suppose that A is decomposable and |O (A)| = 4. Then one of the following statements holds: (1) there exists an A-subgroup L ≤ O (A) of order 2 such that A = ZO (A) ≀ A , θ θ S G/L where S = O (A)/L; (2) | Aut (A)| ≥ | Aut (A )| for every A-subgroup U with |U| = 16 and U ≥ O (A); G U U θ (3) A is normal; (4) there exist an A-subgroup L ≤ O (A) and X ∈ S(A) such that |L| = |X| = 2, L 6= rad(X), and A is normal. G/L Proof. There are exactly forty ﬁve decomposable 2-S-rings over G whose thin radical has order 4. This can be checked by inspecting all 2-S-rings over G one after the other. Let A be one of them and R = O (A). The straightforward check of basic sets of each of the above forty ﬁve 2-S-rings shows that Statement 1 of the lemma holds for twenty six of them. The analysis of basic sets of the remaining nineteen 2-S-rings implies that ten of them have an A-subgroup L ≤ R and X ∈ S(A) satisfying the following: (1) |L| = |X| = 2; (2) L 6= rad(X); (3) one of the conditions from Lemma 8.4 holds for A . We conclude that G/L A is normal and hence Statement 4 of the lemma holds for these ten 2-S-rings. G/L It remains to consider nine 2-S-rings for which neither Statement 1 nor Statement 4 of the lemma holds. Let U be an A-subgroup with |U| = 16 and U ≥ R. Statement 2 of Lemma 6.3 yields that there exists an A -subgroup U such that U 1 |U | = 8 and R < U < U. 1 1 Let X be a basic set of A inside U \ R of the least possible size and X a basic set of A 1 1 2 inside U \ U of the least possible size. Clearly, |X | ≤ 4 and |X | ≤ 8. Choose x ∈ X and 1 1 2 1 1 x ∈ X . From the choice of x and x it follows that hR, x , x i = U. So if ϕ ∈ Aut (A ), 2 2 1 2 1 2 U U ϕ ϕ x = x , and x = x then ϕ is trivial. This implies that 1 2 1 2 | Aut (A )| ≤ |X ||X | ≤ 32. (5) U U 1 2 One can compute | Aut (A)| = |N (G ) | with using the GAP package COCO2P . G Aut(A) right e The inequality | Aut (A)| ≥ 32 holds for four of the remaining 2-S-rings. Due to Eq. (5), Statement 2 of the lemma holds for them. For three of the remaining 2-S-rings, we have | Aut (A)| = 16. However, in this situation there are no basic sets of size 4 and hence |X | = 2 or there are no basic sets of size 8 and hence |X | ≤ 4. In both case Eq. (5) implies 1 2 that | Aut (A )| ≤ 16 and Statement 2 of the lemma holds. U U Now it remains to consider two 2-S-rings for which | Aut (A)| = 8. One of these 2-S-rings does not have a basic set of size 8 and every of its A-subgroups of order 16 contains a basic 12 GRIGORY RYABOV set of size 2. So |X ||X | ≤ 8. In view of Eq. (5), Statement 2 of the lemma holds for this 1 2 2-S-ring. For the other of these 2-S-rings computer calculations made with the help the GAP package COCO2P  imply that | Aut(A) | = | Aut (A)| = 8 and hence it is normal, e G i.e. Statement 3 of the lemma holds for it. The lemma is proved. Lemma 8.8. Let n = 5. Suppose that A is decomposable, |O (A)| = 2, and there exists X ∈ S(A) with |X| > 1 and | rad(X)| = 1. Then |X| = 4 and one of the following statements holds: (1) A B ≀ ZC , where B is a 2-S-ring over C ; (2) | Aut (A)| ≥ | Aut (A )| for every A-subgroup U with |U| = 16; G U U (3) there exists an A-subgroup L such that |L| ∈ {2, 4} and A is normal. G/L Proof. There are exactly twenty nine decomposable 2-S-rings over G whose thin radical has order 2 (in fact, every 2-S-ring with the thin radical of order 2 is decomposable). This can be veriﬁed by inspecting all 2-S-rings over G one after the other. Only ten of these twenty nine 2-S-rings have a basic set with the trivial radical and each of such basic sets with the trivial radical has size 4. Let A be one of the ten above 2-S-rings. From the direct check it follows that Statement 1 of the lemma holds for two of these ten 2-S-rings. The analysis of basic sets of the remaining eight 2-S-rings yields that six of them have an A-subgroup L satisfying the following: (1) |L| ∈ {2, 4}; (2) one of the conditions from Lemma 8.4 holds for A . We conclude A is normal and hence Statement 3 of the lemma holds for these G/L G/L six 2-S-rings. It remains to consider two 2-S-rings for which neither Statement 1 nor Statement 3 of the lemma holds. Each of these two 2-S-rings has exactly three distinct A-subgroups of order 16, say U , U , and U . Computations made by using the GAP package COCO2P 1 2 3 yield that for one of them the following holds: | Aut (A)| = 64, | Aut (A )| ∈ {8, 64} for i ∈ {1, 2, 3}; G U U i i and for the other of them the following holds: | Aut (A)| = 32, | Aut (A )| ∈ {4, 32} for i ∈ {1, 2, 3}. G U U i i In both cases Statement 2 of the lemma holds. The lemma is proved. Lemma 8.9. Let D ∈ E such that every S-ring over a proper section of D is CI, D an S- ring over D, and S = U/L a D-section. Suppose that D is the nontrivial S-wreath product. Then D is a CI-S-ring whenever D/L = C for some k ≤ 4 and D is a 2-S-ring. D/L Proof. The S-ring D is cyclotomic by Lemma 8.2 whenever |D/L| ≤ 8 and by Lemma 8.5 D/L whenever |D/L| = 16. The S-ring D is a 2-S-ring by Lemma 6.2. If D ≇ ZC ≀ZC ≀ZC S S 2 2 2 then D is Cayley minimal by Lemma 8.2. The S-rings D and D are CI-S-rings by the S U D/L assumption of the lemma. So D is a CI-S-ring by Lemma 5.3. Assume that D ZC ≀ ZC ≀ ZC . S 2 2 2 In this case |D/L| = 16, |S| = 8, and there exists the least D -subgroup A of S of order 2. Every basic set of D outside S is contained in an S-coset because D ZC . So D/L (D/L)/S 2 rad(X) is an D -subgroup for every X ∈ S(D ) outside S. If | rad(X)| > 1 for every S D/L 5 THE CAYLEY ISOMORPHISM PROPERTY FOR THE GROUP C × C 13 2 p X ∈ S(D ) outside S then D is the S/A-wreath product because A is the least D - D/L D/L S −1 subgroup. This implies that D is the U/π (A)-wreath product, where π : D → D/L is the −1 −1 canonical epimorphism. One can see that |D/π (A)| ≤ 8 and |U/π (A)| ≤ 4. The S-rings −1 −1 −1 D and D are 2-S-rings by Lemma 6.2. The S-ring D is cyclotomic D/π (A) U/π (A) D/π (A) −1 by Lemma 8.2 and the S-ring D is Cayley minimal by Lemma 8.2. The S-rings D U/π (A) U −1 and D are CI-S-rings by the assumption of the lemma. Thus, D is a CI-S-ring by D/π (A) Lemma 5.3. Suppose that there exists a basic set X of D outside S with | rad(X)| = 1. If D is D/L D/L decomposable then Aut (D ) = Aut (D ) D/L D/L S S by [20, Lemma 5.8]. Therefore D is a CI-S-ring by Lemma 5.1. If D is indecomposable then D is normal by Lemma 8.3. So all conditions of D/L D/L Lemma 5.5 hold for D. Thus, D is a CI-S-ring. The lemma is proved. From the results obtained in [2, 7] it follows that the group C is a DCI-group for n ≤ 5. However, this does not imply that every S-ring over C , where n ≤ 5, is a CI-S-ring (see Remark 1). Below we check that all S-rings over the above groups are CI-S-rings. Lemma 8.10. Let n ≤ 5. Then every S-ring over G is a CI-S-ring. Proof. Every S-ring over G is schurian by Lemma 8.1. So to prove the lemma, it is suﬃcient min to prove that B = V (K, G) is a CI-S-ring for every K ∈ Sup (G ) (see Remark 1). The right S-ring B is a 2-S-ring by Lemma 6.4. If n ≤ 4 then B is CI by [20, Lemma 5.7]. Thus, if n = 4 then the statement of the lemma holds. Let n = 5. Suppose that B is indecomposable. Then the second part of Lemma 8.3 ′ ′ 4 implies B = ZC ⊗ B , where B is indecomposable 2-S-ring over C . Since B is schurian by Lemma 8.1 and every S-ring over an elementary abelian group of rank at most 4 is CI by the above paragraph, we conclude that B is a CI-S-ring by Lemma 5.6. Now suppose that B is decomposable, i.e. B is the nontrivial S = U/L-wreath product for some B-section S = U/L. Clearly, |G/L| ≤ 16. The S-ring B is a 2-S-ring by G/L Lemma 6.2. Since every S-ring over an elementary abelian group of rank at most 4 is CI, B is a CI-S-ring by Lemma 8.9. The lemma is proved. § 9. Proof of Theorem 1.1 ∼ 5 ∼ Let G = H × P , where H = C and P = C , where p is a prime. These notations are valid until the end of the paper. If p = 2 then G is not a DCI-group by . So in view of Lemma 4.2, to prove Theorem 1.1, it is suﬃcient to prove the following theorem. min Theorem 9.1. Let p be an odd prime and K ∈ Sup (G ). Then A = V (K, G) is a right CI-S-ring. The proof of Proposition 9.1 will be given in the end of the section. We start with the next lemma concerned with proper sections of G. Lemma 9.1. Let S be a section of G such that S 6= G. Then every schurian S-ring over S is a CI-S-ring. 14 GRIGORY RYABOV n n ∼ ∼ Proof. If S = C for some n ≤ 5 then we are done by Lemma 8.10. Suppose that S = C ×C 2 2 for some n ≤ 4. Then the statement of the lemma follows from [20, Remark 3.4] whenever n ≤ 3 and from [20, Remark 3.4, Theorem 7.1] whenever n = 4. The lemma is proved. A key step towards the proof of Theorem 9.1 is the following lemma. Lemma 9.2. Let A be an S-ring over G and U an A-subgroup with U ≥ P . Suppose that P is an A-subgroup, A is the nontrivial S-wreath product, where S = U/P , |S| = 16, and A is a 2-S-ring. Then A is a CI-S-ring. G/P Lemma 9.3. In the conditions of Lemma 9.2, suppose that S has a gwr-complement with respect to A . Then A is a a CI-S-ring. G/P Proof. The condition of the lemma implies that there exists an A -subgroup A such G/P that A is the nontrivial S/A-wreath product. This means that A is the nontrivial G/P −1 U/π (A)-wreath product, where π : G → G/P is the canonical epimorphism. Note that −1 |G/π (A)| ≤ 16 and A −1 A is a 2-S-ring by Lemma 6.2. Therefore A is a G/π (A) (G/P )/A CI-S-ring by Lemma 9.1 and Lemma 8.9. The lemma is proved. Lemma 9.4. In the conditions of Lemma 9.2, suppose that S does not have a gwr-complement with respect to A . Then G/P | Aut (A ) | = | Aut (A )|. G/P G/P G/P G/P Proof. To prove the lemma it is suﬃcient to prove that the group (Aut (A )) = {ϕ ∈ Aut (A ) : ϕ = id } G/P G/P S G/P G/P S is trivial. Let ϕ ∈ (Aut (A )) . Put C = Cyc(hϕi, G/P ). Clearly, hϕi ≤ Aut(A ). G/P G/P S G/P So from Eqs. (1) and (2) it follows that C ≥ A . Lemma 6.1 yields that C is a 2-S-ring. G/P Since ϕ = id , we conclude that O (C) ≥ S. S θ If C = 6 Z(G/P ) then O (C) = S. Therefore C = ZS ≀ Z((G/P )/A) for some C-subgroup θ S/A A by Statement 1 of [19, Proposition 4.3]. This implies that A = A ≀ A G/P S/A ((G/P )/A) because C ≥ A and S is both A , C-subgroup. We obtain a contradiction with G/P G/P the assumption of the lemma. Thus, C = Z(G/P ) and hence ϕ is trivial. So the group (Aut (A )) is trivial. The lemma is proved. G/P G/P S Proof of Lemma 9.2. If A is indecomposable then A is normal by Lemma 8.3. So A is G/P G/P a CI-S-ring by Lemma 9.1 and Lemma 5.5. Further we assume that A is decomposable. G/P Due to Lemma 9.3, we may assume also that S does not have a gwr-complement with respect to A . (6) G/P If there exists X ∈ S(A ) outside S with |X| = 1 then A is a CI-S-ring by Lemma 9.1 G/P and Lemma 5.8. So we may assume that O (A ) ≤ S. (7) θ G/P Note that |O (A )| > 1 by Statement 1 of Lemma 6.3 and |O (A )| ≤ 16 by Eq. (7). θ θ G/P G/P So |O (A )| ∈ {2, 4, 8, 16}. We divide the rest of the proof into four cases depending on θ G/P |O (A )|. θ G/P Case 1: |O (A )| = 16. θ G/P 5 THE CAYLEY ISOMORPHISM PROPERTY FOR THE GROUP C × C 15 2 p Due to Eq. (7), we conclude that A = ZS. So A is a CI-S-ring by Lemma 9.1 and Lemma 5.2. Case 2: |O (A )| = 8. θ G/P Since A is decomposable, Lemma 8.6 implies that A is cyclotomic. The S-ring G/P G/P A is a 2-S-ring by Lemma 6.2. In view of Eq. (7), we obtain that |O (A )| = 8. So S θ S Statement 2 of [19, Proposition 4.3] yields that the S-ring A is Cayley minimal. Thus, A is a CI-S-ring by Lemma 9.1 and Lemma 5.3. Case 3: |O (A )| = 4. θ G/P In this case one of the statements of Lemma 8.7 holds for A . If Statement 1 of Lemma 8.7 G/P holds for A then we obtain a contradiction with Eq. (6). G/P If Statement 2 of Lemma 8.7 holds for A then | Aut (A )| ≥ | Aut (A )|. From G/P G/P G/P S S Lemma 9.4 it follows that | Aut (A ) | = | Aut (A )| and hence G/P G/P G/P G/P | Aut (A ) | ≥ | Aut (A )|. S S G/P G/P S S Since Aut (A ) ≤ Aut (A ), we conclude that Aut (A ) = Aut (A ). Thus, G/P G/P S S G/P G/P S S A is a CI-S-ring by Lemma 9.1 and Lemma 5.1. If Statement 3 of Lemma 8.7 holds for A then A is normal. In this case A is a G/P G/P CI-S-ring by Lemma 9.1 and Lemma 5.5. Suppose that Statement 4 of Lemma 8.7 holds for A , i.e. there exists an A - G/P G/P subgroup A ≤ O (A ) of order 2 and X = {x , x } ∈ S(A ) such that A θ G/P 1 2 G/P (G/P )/A −1 is normal and A 6= rad(X). Let L = π (A), where π : G → G/P is the canonical epimorphism, and B = V (N, G), where N = Aut(A) G . G/L right Prove that B is a CI-S-ring. Lemma 5.4 implies that B is the S-wreath product. From Eqs. (1) and (2) it follows that B ≥ A. So B ≥ A and hence B is a 2-S-ring by G/P G/P G/P Lemma 6.1. We obtain that B and U satisfy the conditions of Lemma 9.2. One can see that X is a B -set and G/P O (B ) ≥ O (A ) (8) θ G/P θ G/P because B ≥ A . The deﬁnition of B yields that every basic set of B is contained in G/P G/P an L-coset and hence every basic set of B is contained in an A-coset. Therefore G/P {x }, {x } ∈ S(B ) (9) 1 2 G/P because X is a B -set and A 6= rad(X). Now from Eqs. (8) and (9) it follows that G/P |O (B )| ≥ 8. (10) θ G/P If B is indecomposable then B is normal by Lemma 8.3 and hence B is CI by G/P G/P Lemma 9.1 and Lemma 5.5; if S has a gwr-complement with respect to B then B is CI G/P by Lemma 9.3; if O (B )  S then B is CI by Lemma 9.1 and Lemma 5.8; otherwise B θ G/P is CI by Eq. (10) and one of the Cases 1 or 2. 16 GRIGORY RYABOV Clearly, A = A and hence A is normal. Also A is CI by Lemma 9.1. G/L (G/P )/A G/L G/L The S-ring B is CI by the above paragraph. Thus, A is CI by Lemma 4.3. Case 4: |O (A )| = 2. θ G/P Let A = O (A ). Clearly, A is the least A -subgroup. If | rad(X)| > 1 for every θ G/P G/P X ∈ S(A ) outside S then A ≤ rad(X) for every X ∈ S(A ) outside S and we obtain G/P G/P a contradiction with Eq. (6). So there exists X ∈ S(A ) outside S with | rad(X)| = 1. G/P From Eq. (7) it follows that |X| > 1. Lemma 8.8 implies that |X| = 4. The number λ = |X ∩ Ax| does not depend on x ∈ X by Lemma 2.1. If λ = 2 then A ≤ rad(X), a contradiction. Therefore λ = 1. (11) One of the statements of Lemma 8.8 holds for A . If Statement 1 of Lemma 8.8 holds G/P for A then there exists Y ∈ S(A ) with |Y | = 16 and | rad(Y )| = 16. Since |S| = 16, G/P G/P we conclude that Y lies outside S and hence Y = (G/P ) \ S. This means that S is a gwr-complement to S with respect to A . However, this contradicts to Eq. (6). G/P If Statement 2 of Lemma 8.8 holds for A then | Aut (A )| ≥ | Aut (A )|. So G/P G/P G/P S S Lemma 9.4 implies that Aut (A ) = Aut (A ). Therefore, A is CI by Lemma 9.1 G/P G/P S S and Lemma 5.1 Suppose that Statement 3 of Lemma 8.8 holds for A , i.e. there exists an A - G/P G/P −1 subgroup B such that |B| ∈ {2, 4} and A is normal. Let L = π (B), where (G/P )/B π : G → G/P is the canonical epimorphism, and B = V (N, G), where N = Aut(A) G . G/L right Prove that B is a CI-S-ring. As in Case 3, B is the S-wreath product by Lemma 5.4 and B ≥ A by Eqs. (1) and (2). So B ≥ A and hence B is a 2-S-ring by Lemma 6.1. G/P G/P G/P Therefore B and U satisfy the conditions of Lemma 9.2. Note that X is a B -set and Eq. (8) holds because B ≥ A . By the deﬁnition G/P G/P G/P of B, every basic set of B is contained in an L-coset and hence every basic set of B is G/P contained in a B-coset. The set X is a B -set with |X| = 4 and | rad(X)| = 1. So there G/P exists X ∈ S(B ) such that 1 G/P X ⊂ X and |X | ∈ {1, 2}. 1 1 If |X | = 1 then X ⊆ O (B ). If |X | = 2 then X is a coset by a B -subgroup A 1 1 θ G/P 1 1 G/P 1 of order 2. Clearly, A ⊆ O (B ). In view of Eq. (11), we have A 6= A. Thus, in both 1 θ G/P 1 cases O (B )  A. Together with Eq. (8) this implies that θ G/P |O (B )| ≥ 4. (12) θ G/P If B is indecomposable then B is normal by Lemma 8.3 and hence B is CI by G/P G/P Lemma 9.1 and Lemma 5.5; if S has a gwr-complement with respect to B then B is CI G/P by Lemma 9.3; if O (B )  S then B is CI by Lemma 9.1 and Lemma 5.8; otherwise B G/P is CI by Eq. (12) and one of the Cases 1, 2, or 3. The S-ring A is normal because it is isomorphic to A . The S-rings A and B G/L (G/P )/B G/L are CI by Lemma 9.1 and the above paragraph respectively. Thus, A is CI by Lemma 4.3. All cases were considered. The lemma is proved.  5 THE CAYLEY ISOMORPHISM PROPERTY FOR THE GROUP C × C 17 2 p Proof of Theorem 9.1. Let H be a maximal A-subgroup contained in H and P the least 1 1 A-subgroup containing P . Lemma 9.5. If H = H then A is a CI-S-ring. ∼ ∼ Proof. The S-ring A is a p-S-ring over G/H C by Lemma 6.4. So A ZC . = = G/H p G/H p Clearly, G = HP . Therefore A = A ⋆ A by Lemma 7.2. Since H and P /(H ∩ P ) are 1 H P 1 1 proper sections of G, the S-rings A and A are CI-S-ring by Lemma 9.1. Thus, A H P /(H∩P ) 1 1 is a CI-S-ring by Lemma 5.6. The lemma is proved. Lemma 9.6. If H < H and H P = G then A is a CI-S-ring. 1 1 1 Proof. Since H 6= (H P ) ′ = H, Lemma 7.1 implies that A = A ⋆ A . The S-rings 1 1 1 p H P 1 1 A and A are CI-S-ring by Lemma 9.1 because H and P /(H ∩ P ) are proper H P /(H∩P ) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 sections of G. Therefore A is a CI-S-ring by Lemma 5.6. The lemma is proved. In view of Lemma 9.5, we may assume that H < H. Then one of the statements of Lemma 7.3 holds for A. If Statement 1 of Lemma 7.3 holds for A then A = A ≀ A , 1 G/H where rk(A ) = 2. If H is trivial then rk(A) = 2 and obviously A is a CI-S-ring. If H G/H 1 1 is nontrivial then A is a CI-S-ring by Lemma 9.1 and Lemma 5.2. Assume that Statement 2 of Lemma 7.3 holds for A, i.e. A = A ≀ A , U S G/P where U = H P , S = U/P , and P < G. In view of Lemma 9.6, we may assume that 1 1 1 1 H P < G, i.e. A is the nontrivial S-wreath product. The group G/P is a 2-group of order 1 1 1 at most 32 because P ≥ P . So Lemma 6.4 implies that A is a 2-S-ring. If |G/P | ≤ 16 1 G/P 1 then A is a CI-S-ring by Lemma 9.1 and Lemma 8.9. So we may assume that |G/P | = 32. Clearly, in this case P = P. In view of Statement 2 of Lemma 6.3, we may assume also that |S| = 16. Indeed, if |S| < 16 then S is contained in an A -subgroup S of order 16 by Statement 2 G/P ′ −1 ′ of Lemma 6.3. Clearly, A = A ′ ≀ ′ A , where U = π (S ) and π : G → G/P is the U S G/P canonical epimorphism. Replacing S by S , we obtain the required. Now all conditions of Lemma 9.2 hold for A and U. Thus, A is a CI-S-ring by Lemma 9.2. The theorem is proved. References 1. A. Ad´am, Research Problem 2-10, J. Combin. Theory, 2 (1967), 393. 2 3 2. B. Alspach, L. Nowitz, Elementary proofs that Z and Z are CI-groups, European J. Combin., 20, p p No. 7 (1999), 607–617. 3. B. Alspach, T. Parsons, Isomorphism of Circulant graphs and digraphs, Discrete Math., 25, No. 2 (1979), 97–108. 4. L. Babai, Isomorphism problem for a class of point symmetric structures, Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hung., 29, No. 3 (1977), 329–336. 18 GRIGORY RYABOV 5. L. Babai, P. Frankl, Isomorphisms of Cayley graphs I, Colloq. Math. Soc. J´anos Bolyai, 18, North- Holland, Amsterdam (1978), 35–52. 6. G. Chen, I. Ponomarenko, Coherent conﬁgurations, Central China Normal University Press, Wuhan (2019). 7. M. Conder, C. H. Li, On isomorphism of ﬁnite Cayley graphs, European J. Combin., 19, No. 8 (1998), 911–919. 8. D. Djokovi´c, Isomorphism problem for a special class of graphs, Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hung., 21 (1970), 267–270. 9. E. Dobson, Isomorphism problem for Cayley graphs of Z , Discrete math., 147, Nos. 1-3 (1995), 87–94. 10. B. Elspas, J. Turner, Graphs with circulant adjacency matrices, J. Combin. Theory, 9 (1970), 297–307. 11. S. Evdokimov, I. Ponomarenko, On a family of Schur rings over a ﬁnite cyclic group, St. Petersburg Math. J., 13, No. 3 (2002), 441–451. 12. S. Evdokimov, I. Kov´acs, I. Ponomarenko, On schurity of ﬁnite abelian groups, Comm. Algebra, 44, No. 1 (2016), 101–117. 13. Y-Q. Feng, I. Kov´acs, Elementary abelian groups of rank 5 are DCI-group, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A, 157 (2018) 162–204. 14. M. Klin, C. Pech, S. Reichard, COCO2P – a GAP package, 0.14, 07.02.2015, http://www.math.tu- dresden.de/ pech/COCO2P. 15. C. Godsil, On Cayley graph isomorphisms, Ars Combin., 15 (1983), 231–246. 16. M. Hirasaka, M. Muzychuk, An elementary abelian group of rank 4 is a CI-group, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A, 94 (2001), 339-362. 17. M. Klin, R. Po¨schel, The K¨onig problem, the isomorphism problem for cyclic graphs and the method of Schur rings, Colloq. Math. Soc. J´anos Bolyai, 25 (1981), 405–434. 18. I. Kov´acs, M. Muzychuk, The group Z × Z is a CI-group, Comm. Algebra, 37, No. 10 (2009), 3500– 19. I. Kov´acs, G.Ryabov, CI-property for decomposable Schur rings over an abelian group, Algebra Colloq., 26, No. 1 (2019), 147–160. 20. I. Kov´acs, G.Ryabov, The group C ×C is a DCI-group, http://arxiv.org/abs/1912.08835 [math.CO], (2019), 1–20. 21. C. H. Li, On isomorphisms of ﬁnite Cayley graphs – a survey, Discrete Math., 256, Nos. 1-2 (2002), 301–334. 22. J. Morris, Elementary proof that Z is a DCI-group, Discrete Math., 338, No. 8 (2015) 1385–1393 23. M. Muzychuk, Adam’s conjecture is true in the square-free case, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A, 72 (1995), 118–134. 24. M. Muzychuk, On Ad´am’s conjecture for circulant graphs, Discrete Math., 167/168 (1997), 497–510; corrigendum 176 (1997), 285–298. 25. M. Muzychuk, I. Ponomarenko, Schur rings, European J. Combin., 30, No. 6 (2009), 1526–1539. 26. M. Muzychuk, I. Ponomarenko, On Schur 2-groups, J. Math. Sci. (N. Y.), 219, No. 4 (2016), 565–594. 27. M. Muzychuk, G. Somlai, The Cayley isomorphism property for Z × Z , http://arxiv.org/abs/1907.03570 [math.GR], (2019), 1–13. 28. L. Nowitz, A non-Cayley-invariant Cayley graph of the elementary abelian group of order 64, Discrete Math., 110, Nos. 1-3 (1992), 223–228. 29. I. Ponomarenko, A. R. Barghi, On the structure of p-schemes, J. Math. Sci. (N. Y.), 147, No. 6 (2007), 7227–7233. 30. S. Reichard, http://www.math.tu-dresden.de/ reichard/schur/newData/. 31. I. Schur, Zur theorie der einfach transitiven Permutationgruppen, S.-B. Preus Akad. Wiss. Phys.-Math. Kl., 18, No. 20 (1933), 598–623. 32. G. Somlai, Elementary abelian p-groups of rank 2p + 3 are not CI-groups, J. Algebraic Combin., 34, No. 3 (2011), 323–335. 33. P. Spiga, CI-property of elementary abelian 3-groups, Discrete Math., 309 No. 10 (2009), 3393–3398. 34. H. Wielandt, Finite permutation groups, Academic Press, New York - London, 1964. 5 THE CAYLEY ISOMORPHISM PROPERTY FOR THE GROUP C × C 19 2 p 35. M. Ziv-Av, Enumeration of Schur rings over small groups, CASC Workshop 2014, LNCS 8660 (2014), 491–500. Sobolev Institute of Mathematics, Novosibirsk, Russia Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia E-mail address: gric2ryabov@gmail.com http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Mathematics arXiv (Cornell University) # The Cayley isomorphism property for the group$C^5_2\times C_p\$

, Volume 2020 (2005) – May 28, 2020
19 pages      /lp/arxiv-cornell-university/the-cayley-isomorphism-property-for-the-group-c-5-2-times-c-p-P200667GAR
ISSN
1855-3974
eISSN
ARCH-3343
DOI
10.26493/1855-3974.2348.f42
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site