Re: paper claiming projective planes must have prime power order
 From: Craig Feinstein <cafeinst@xxxxxxx>
 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:02:24 0800 (PST)
On Feb 14, 9:42 pm, Craig Feinstein <cafei...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 12, 10:44 pm, Craig Feinstein <cafei...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
For people who don’t have time to read Mehendale’s whole paper, I’ll
summarize his argument in the paper arXiv:math/0611492, which claims
that a finite projective plane must have prime power order:
The author proves that if there are n1 orthogonal Latin squares of
order n, then n must be a prime power. (Bose’s Theorem tells us that
this is equivalent to proving that a finite projective plane must have
prime power order.)
Consider the n(n1) rows of n1 Latin squares of order n as a set of
permutations in the group of permutations S_n. For instance if n=5 and
a row is 3 2 4 1 5, then this means that 1 goes to 3, 2 goes to 2, 3
goes to 4, 4 goes to 1 and 5 goes to 5. Without loss of generality,
assume that one of the Latin squares has the identity permutation [1 2
… n] as a row. Call the set of rows in this Latin square N. And
without loss of generality, assume that the first column in each of
the Latin squares is [1 2 … n]. Call the set of n(n1) rows G.
Then it is not difficult to see that any two columns of G (when all of
the rows are placed on top of one another) must contain the n(n1)
unique ordered pairs (1,2),(1,3),…,(1,n),(2,1),(2,3),….,(n,1),(n,2),…,
(n,n1). (Otherwise, the n1 Latin squares would not be orthogonal.)
In other words, the sets of permutations must be sharply 2transitive.
This implies that the set G of permutations is a group, since there is
an identity permutation in G.
When I wrote this, I thought that a sharply 2transitive set of
permutations must be a group. Now, I'm not so certain. I wrote the
author of the paper asking him for a proof of this.
After contacting the author of the paper, it is clear to me that I
misunderstood his paper. By mistake, I misrepresented what the author
had in mind when I summarized his paper in this thread. I apologize
for this.
In the author's words to me through email, he agreed that "There can
exist more than one nonisomorphic projective planes of given order,
for which each one may not admit group structure." So the reference to
"exotic" projective planes of order 9 does not contradict what
Mehendale had in mind when he was writing this paper. It only
contradicts my former interpretation of what Mehendale's paper, which
was wrong.
I'm going to leave this thread and leave it to others to try to figure
this all out.
Craig
Furthermore, the set N consists of the identity permutation and n1
permutations in G that are fixedpointfree, since these permutations
form a Latin square. (One can use an elementary countingargument to
show that there are at most n1 permutations in G that are fixedpoint
free, since G is sharply 2transitive.) Since N is sharply transitive,
N is a subgroup of G. Also, N is a normal subgroup in G: A conjugate
of any element in N must also be fixedpointfree. But since the only
permutations in G that are fixedpointfree are in N, the nonidentity
elements of N must all be conjugate to one another. Hence, the
nonidentity elements of N must have the same order, some prime p
divisible by n. If n is not a power of the prime p, then by Cauchy’s
theorem N must have an element of order not equal to p and not equal
to 1, which is impossible, since all elements of N have order either p
or 1. Hence, n must be a prime power.
Notice that this argument doesn’t require the theorem that Mehendale
quotes from Aschbacher’s book. You just need Cauchy’s theorem for
this.
There you have it  an elementary proof of a famous conjecture that
has been open for a very long time and that has been up on arxiv.org
for more than two years now, yet the conjecture is still considered by
an open problem by the mathematics community at large. Can anyone find
a flaw in this argument? I can’t. Hide quoted text 
 Show quoted text  Hide quoted text 
 Show quoted text 
.
 FollowUps:
 Re: paper claiming projective planes must have prime power order
 From: victor_meldrew_666@xxxxxxxxxxx
 Re: paper claiming projective planes must have prime power order
 From: hagman
 Re: paper claiming projective planes must have prime power order
 References:
 paper claiming projective planes must have prime power order
 From: Craig Feinstein
 Re: paper claiming projective planes must have prime power order
 From: Craig Feinstein
 Re: paper claiming projective planes must have prime power order
 From: Craig Feinstein
 Re: paper claiming projective planes must have prime power order
 From: Craig Feinstein
 paper claiming projective planes must have prime power order
 Prev by Date: Re: Families of sets closed under union
 Next by Date: Re: Suggesting a Poll
 Previous by thread: Re: paper claiming projective planes must have prime power order
 Next by thread: Re: paper claiming projective planes must have prime power order
 Index(es):
Relevant Pages
