Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Simple Skew Braces with Cyclic Sylow Subgroups

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper classifies finite simple skew braces with cyclic Sylow subgroups: trivial, two A4-based order-12 braces, or PSL2(p) examples, with a splitting theorem forcing the trivial case more generally.

desk verdict New classification and splitting results for simple skew braces; proof structure is coherent, but two load-bearing external preprints keep me from calling it fully settled. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17125 v2 pith:ZMMXEAO2 submitted 2026-07-19 math.GR

Marco Damele This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.GR MSC 16T2520D1020D2020E22
keywords skewbracesimpleZ-groupcyclicSylowsubgroupsplittingcriterionHallp'-idealgeneralizedlambdamapsolvabilityconjecture
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to show that cyclicity of Sylow subgroups is so restrictive for finite skew braces that simplicity becomes a rare event. Its main classification says that when the multiplicative group is a Z-group (all Sylow subgroups cyclic), a finite simple skew brace must be trivial of prime order, or isomorphic to one of two order-12 braces with additive group A4, or its additive group must be PSL2(p) for a prime p≥5—and such examples exist for every p. The paper also proves a splitting theorem: if the Sylow p-subgroup for the smallest prime divisor p of the order is cyclic (with the order being 3-free when p=2), the brace contains a Hall p′-ideal and is a semidirect product of that ideal with a Sylow p-subbrace; a simple brace under these hypotheses is therefore trivial of prime order. This splitting result yields a new positive case of the long-standing solvability conjecture: the multiplicative group is soluble whenever the additive group has a cyclic Sylow 2-subgroup. For a reader, the significance is that the structure theory of skew braces is now much more constrained: cyclic Sylow subgroups force ideals to appear, leaving only a tiny zoo of exceptional simple braces.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the generalized lambda map: for a characteristic subgroup H of the additive group, it sends each element of the multiplicative group to the induced automorphism of the additive quotient; H is an ideal exactly when H lies in the kernel. The proof that such H is an ideal is often reduced to checking that |H| and the order of the automorphism group of the quotient are coprime. Around this, the paper uses the structure of Z-groups and supersoluble groups, a classical classification of insoluble groups whose odd Sylow subgroups are cyclic and whose Sylow 2-subgroups contain a cyclic subgroup of index at most 2, and a Schur–Zassenhaus-type splitting result for skew braces.

What would settle it

Look for a finite simple skew brace with a Z-group multiplicative group whose additive group is not isomorphic to PSL2(p), A4, or Cp; the theorems say none exists. More narrowly, try to build a finite simple skew brace with smallest prime divisor p, a cyclic Sylow p-subgroup (and, when p=2, order coprime to 3); Theorem C predicts such a brace is impossible, so any example falsifies the splitting result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that cyclic Sylow subgroups are so restrictive that simple skew braces are almost nonexistent. If the multiplicative group is a Z-group, then a finite simple skew brace must be trivial of prime order, or one of the two order-12 braces whose additive group is A4 and whose multiplicative group is C3⋊C4, or its additive group is PSL2(p) for some prime p≥5—and for each such p an example exists via a known construction. The paper also proves a splitting theorem: when the Sylow p-subgroup for the smallest prime divisor p is cyclic (with order not divisible by 3 when p=2), the brace contains a Hall p′-ideal and is a semidirect product of that ideal with a Sylow p-subbrace; a si

Load-bearing premise

The proof of Theorem C imports a Schur–Zassenhaus-type splitting theorem for finite skew braces from companion preprints; if that external result carries an unstated hypothesis or fails, the splitting conclusion and its corollaries collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every finite simple skew brace satisfying the cyclic-Sylow hypotheses of Theorem C is isomorphic to Cp for a prime p.
  • The classification reduces the possible additive groups of simple skew braces with Z-group multiplicative group to A4, PSL2(p), and Cp.
  • The splitting theorem provides a constructive way to detect ideals: a characteristic subgroup with coprime automorphism group is automatically an ideal.
  • The solvability conjecture is verified for all finite skew braces whose additive group has a cyclic Sylow 2-subgroup, equivalently for all Galois extensions whose Hopf–Galois structure type has cyclic Sylow 2-subgroup.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the externally imported Schur–Zassenhaus-type splitting theorem and the supersolubility result from companion preprints hold up, the results here resolve the structure of simple skew braces in a large class; the reliance on those unrefereed preprints is a real risk to the conclusions.
  • The exceptional order-12 braces suggest that the interaction between the additive group A4 and the multiplicative group C3⋊C4 is the minimal obstruction to splitting; any condition that rules out this small configuration may yield stronger triviality results.
  • A natural testable extension is to relax the 'smallest prime' condition and ask what happens when only a non-small Sylow subgroup is cyclic; the methods here suggest such braces may still split, but the exceptional examples show the answer is not uniform.
  • The existence of PSL2(p)-type simple braces for every prime p indicates that non-soluble simple skew braces are tied to the projective line geometry; classifying all regular Z-subgroups of the holomorph of PSL2(p) would complete this picture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies finite simple skew braces under cyclicity assumptions on Sylow subgroups. If the multiplicative group is a Z-group, Theorem A classifies the soluble-additive case as either the trivial prime-order brace or one of the two simple braces S12,22 and S12,23 of order 12; Theorem B shows that an insoluble additive group must be isomorphic to PSL2(p) for some prime p ≥ 5, and Example 1 gives such examples for every such p. The second part proves Theorem C, a splitting criterion: when p is the smallest prime divisor of |B| and one of three hypotheses holds (cyclic additive Sylow p-subgroup; cyclic multiplicative Sylow p-subgroup for odd p; or cyclic multiplicative Sylow 2-subgroup with 3 ∤ |B|), the brace contains a Hall p'-ideal H and splits as H ⋊ P for a Sylow p-subbrace P. Consequences are a simplicity trichotomy for the hypotheses and a positive instance of Byott's solvability conjecture when the additive group has cyclic Sylow 2-subgroup.

Significance. If the results hold, they form a substantial contribution to the structure theory of finite skew braces: a full classification under the Z-group assumption on the multiplicative group, a sharp infinite family of simple skew braces with additive group PSL2(p), and a general splitting criterion that yields new evidence for Byott's conjecture. The internal arguments for Theorems A and B are carefully structured and, as far as I checked, coherent; the use of the generalized lambda map, the Fitting-subgroup reduction, and the Suzuki–Wong theorem are appropriate. The paper also gives explicit, falsifiable statements and a concrete family of examples. The principal weakness is not an internal error but the heavy reliance on unrefereed external preprints for load-bearing steps.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, proof of Theorem C] The semidirect decomposition B ≃ H ⋊ P, which is the central new claim of Theorem C, is not proved in the manuscript. It is imported from [13, Theorem A] and [16], both preprints. The theorem is not stated, and the proof does not verify that the constructed Hall p'-ideal H and Sylow p-subbrace P satisfy whatever hypotheses that external theorem carries. This is load-bearing for the splitting statement and for Corollary 4.3 as stated. The revision should either state the external theorem precisely and check its hypotheses, or prove the needed special case in an appendix. If the SZ theorem is not available in the required form, the splitting conclusion is unsupported.
  2. [Section 3.1, proof of Theorem A, Step 1] The exclusion of odd order uses 'By [14, Theorem C] B is supersoluble'. This is a result from the author's own preprint, and its statement is not included. The deduction that B admits a Hall p'-ideal then follows, so this step is load-bearing for Theorem A. Please state [14, Theorem C] explicitly and either prove it or give a published refereed reference. Without this input, the odd-order case is unsupported.
  3. [Sections 2 and 4, Sylow subbraces] The proof of Proposition 2.10 and of Theorem C Cases 2 and 3 invokes [27, Theorem 2.1] for the existence of Sylow p-subbraces. This is another unrefereed preprint. Although this input is less central than the SZ theorem, it is foundational for transferring Sylow information between the two group structures. The revision should either prove the needed existence statement, give a refereed reference, or at least flag the dependence clearly and state the exact theorem used.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, proof of Theorem C, Case 2] There is a typo: 'Thus (P,·)∈Syl_p((B,+)). and (P,+)∈Syl_p((B,+)).' should read '(P,·)∈Syl_p(B,·) and (P,+)∈Syl_p(B,+)'.
  2. [Section 2.4 / Section 3.1] The notion of a 'supersoluble skew brace' is used in the proof of Theorem A (e.g., 'By [14, Theorem C] B is supersoluble') but is not defined in Section 2. A definition and a precise reference for the relevant ideal-series notion should be supplied.
  3. [Section 4, proof of Theorem C, Case 1] The appeal to Burnside's p-complement theorem is terse. The standard version requires showing the Sylow p-subgroup is contained in the centre of its normalizer; the paper does not spell out why the hypotheses (p is smallest and the Sylow p-subgroup is cyclic) imply this. The gap is easily filled, but a one-line justification would improve clarity.
  4. [Section 4, Theorem C statement] The notation B ≃ H ⋊ P for skew braces is used without a formal definition of the semidirect product of skew braces in the preliminaries. This should be defined or referenced.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; load-bearing citations to the author's prior preprints are external support, not self-definition.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain through Theorem A, Theorem B, and Theorem C. In Theorem A Step 1, the odd-order exclusion invokes [14, Theorem C] to conclude supersolubility; this is a prior result by the same author, but it is an external lemma, not a restatement of the theorem being proved. The rest of Theorem A proceeds by internally constructing characteristic subgroups and comparing them with the unique small 2-subgroups of the multiplicative Z-group; no fitted parameter is relabelled as a prediction. In Theorem B, the Suzuki-Wong classification is an independent external input, and the elimination of the coprime Z-group factor and of SL_2(p) is done through characteristicity and the lambda map, not by assuming the conclusion. In Theorem C, the Hall p'-ideal is constructed from a normal p-complement, proved characteristic, and shown to be an ideal via the generalized lambda map and a gcd argument; the Schur-Zassenhaus theorem for skew braces [13, Theorem A] (also [16]) is invoked only to obtain the complementary Sylow p-subbrace after the ideal has already been found. That is a genuine external dependency, and because [13] is an unrefereed preprint by the same author, it is a verification risk; but it is not circular, since the cited theorem is not the target result and no equation in the present paper reduces to its own input by construction. I found no self-definitional step, no fitted-input-called-prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported to forbid alternatives, and no renaming of a known result as a new derivation. The score reflects the load-bearing reliance on the author's earlier preprints, not an instance of circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 16 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results are group-theoretic and depend on a long chain of standard theorems plus several recent or self-cited skew-brace results. There are no fitted numerical constants: the only parameter is the existential prime p, which is not fitted. The main non-standard inputs are the author's own preprint results [13,14,16] and Truman's [27]; these carry most of the reproducibility and verification risk.

assumptions (16)
  • standard math Theorem 2.9: regular subgroups of Hol(H) correspond to skew braces with additive group H.
    Used throughout to translate cyclic Sylow subgroups into elements of maximal order in holomorphs; established in Guarnieri–Vendramin [18].
  • standard math Theorems 2.7 and 2.8 (Byott, Kohl): a holomorph containing an element of maximal order for a 2-group forces cyclic/dihedral/quaternion; for odd p it forces cyclic.
    Used in Proposition 2.10 and Theorem C to constrain additive Sylow subgroups from multiplicative cyclicity; cited from [4] and [21].
  • standard math Theorem 2.12: supersoluble groups have normal Hall p′-subgroups for the smallest prime p and normal Sylow q-subgroups for the largest prime q.
    Used in Theorem A Step 1 and Lemma 3.1 to decompose (B,·); cited from Robinson [23].
  • standard math Fitting centralizer theorem: in a finite soluble group G, C_G(F(G)) ≤ F(G).
    Used in Theorem A Steps 2, 5, and 6 to control automorphisms of the Fitting subgroup; cited from Robinson [23, Theorem 5.4.4(ii)].
  • standard math Lemma 3.3: automorphism groups of cyclic, dihedral, generalized quaternion 2-groups and C2×C2 have restricted odd parts.
    Used to bound odd prime divisors of |Aut(F)| in Theorem A; standard facts from Huppert [20].
  • standard math Theorem 3.5 (Suzuki–Wong): classification of finite insoluble groups with cyclic odd Sylows and Sylow 2-subgroup containing a cyclic subgroup of index at most 2.
    Load-bearing in Theorem B to force the PSL2(p) or SL2(p) factor; cited from Wong [30].
  • standard math Lemma 3.4: standard properties of PSL2(p), SL2(p), PGL2(p)—orders, automorphism groups, and dihedral Sylow 2-subgroups.
    Used in Theorem B Step 3 to show cyclic 2-subgroups of PGL2(p) have order at most 2^{a−1}; standard from Huppert [20].
  • standard math Burnside p-complement theorem: if p is the smallest prime divisor and a Sylow p-subgroup is cyclic, then the group has a normal p-complement.
    Used in Theorem C Case 1 to obtain the additive normal Hall p′-subgroup H; cited from Huppert [20, Theorem 2.6].
  • standard math Huppert's theorem: a group with metacyclic Sylow 2-subgroup and 3∤|G| is 2-nilpotent.
    Used in Theorem C Case 3 to obtain a normal Hall 2′-subgroup in (B,+); cited from Huppert [20, Kapitel IV, Satz 5.11].
  • standard math Feit–Thompson theorem: groups of odd order are soluble.
    Used in Theorem C to conclude that the Hall p′-subgroup H is soluble; cited [15].
  • standard math Hall theorem for finite soluble groups: normal Hall p′-subgroups are characteristic.
    Used in Theorem C Cases 1 and 3 to make H characteristic and λ-invariant; cited from Huppert [20, Theorem 1.7].
  • domain assumption [9, Proposition 4.4]: a finite simple skew brace of prime-power order has prime order.
    Used in Theorem A Step 1 and Corollary 4.1 to pass from p-power order to Cp; cited from Cedó–Smoktunowicz–Vendramin [9].
  • domain assumption [22, Proposition 3.6]: the classification of simple skew braces of order 12 yields exactly S12,22 and S12,23.
    Used at the end of Theorem A and in Example 2; cited from Konovalov–Smoktunowicz–Vendramin [22].
  • domain assumption [14, Theorem C]: every finite skew brace whose additive group is a Z-group is supersoluble.
    Used in Theorem A Step 1 to handle odd |B|; this is a preprint/to-appear result by the same author and is load-bearing for that step.
  • domain assumption [13, Theorem A] and [16]: the Schur–Zassenhaus theorem for finite skew braces, giving a Sylow p-subbrace complement when a Hall p′-ideal exists.
    Used to complete Theorem C; this is a preprint by the author (and Ferrara–Trombetti) and is the most fragile external support.
  • domain assumption [27, Theorem 2.1]: Sylow p-subbraces exist in any finite skew brace.
    Used in Proposition 2.10 and Theorem C Cases 2 and 3; cited from Truman's preprint.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simple Skew Braces with Cyclic Sylow Subgroups." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZMMXEAO2

@misc{pith2026260717125,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simple Skew Braces with Cyclic Sylow Subgroups},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZMMXEAO2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17125}
}
abstract

We study simplicity and splitting phenomena in finite skew braces under cyclicity assumptions on Sylow subgroups. We first classify finite simple skew braces whose multiplicative group is a \(Z\)-group. If the additive group is soluble, then the skew brace is either trivial of prime order or isomorphic to one of the two simple skew braces of order \(12\) with additive group \(A_4\) and multiplicative group \(C_3\rtimes C_4\). If the additive group is insoluble, then it is necessarily isomorphic to \(\operatorname{PSL}_2(p)\) for some prime \(p\geq5\). This conclusion is sharp, since such examples exist for every prime \(p\geq5\). We then consider the more general situation in which only a Sylow subgroup corresponding to the smallest prime divisor \(p\) of the order is assumed to be cyclic. Under suitable hypotheses on the additive or multiplicative Sylow \(p\)-subgroup, we prove that the skew brace contains a Hall \(p'\)-ideal and splits as a semidirect product of this ideal with a Sylow \(p\)-subbrace. As a consequence, every finite simple skew brace satisfying one of these hypotheses is trivial of prime order. Moreover, as a consequence of our splitting theorem, we verify Byott's solvability conjecture for finite skew braces whose additive group has a cyclic Sylow $2$-subgroup.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Counterexample to Byott's Conjecture for Finite Skew Braces

    math.GR 2026-07 accept novelty 9.0 of 10

    An explicit finite skew brace with soluble additive group and insoluble multiplicative group, with quotient PSL2(7), disproves Byott's conjecture.

  2. Ideals and Solvability in Skew Braces

    math.GR 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    For finite skew braces, nilpotency of the multiplicative group forces the additive Fitting subgroup to be an ideal; for finite two-sided skew braces solvability of the brace is equivalent to solvability of either asso...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [13]

    Damele, A Schur–Zassenhaus theorem for finite skew braces, Preprint, arXiv:2606.29295, 2026

    M. Damele, A Schur–Zassenhaus theorem for finite skew braces, Preprint, arXiv:2606.29295, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  2. [16]

    Ferrara and M

    M. Ferrara and M. Trombetti, The Schur–Zassenhaus theorem for finite skew braces, Preprint, arXiv:2606.30453, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  3. [27]

    P.J.Truman, AnaloguesofSylow’sfirsttheorem, Cauchy’stheorem, andHall’s theorem for skew braces, Preprint, arXiv:2606.18414, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  4. [1]

    Bachiller, Extensions, matched products, and simple braces,J

    D. Bachiller, Extensions, matched products, and simple braces,J. Pure Appl. Algebra222(2018), no. 7, 1670–1691

    2018

  5. [2]

    Bachiller, F

    D. Bachiller, F. Cedó, E. Jespers and J. Okniński, Asymmetric product of left braces and simplicity; new solutions of the Yang–Baxter equation,Commun. Contemp. Math.21(2019), no. 8, Paper No. 1850042, 30 pp

    2019

  6. [3]

    Ballester-Bolinches, R

    A. Ballester-Bolinches, R. Esteban-Romero, M. Ferrara, V. Pérez-Calabuig and M. Trombetti, Central nilpotency of left skew braces and solutions of the Yang–Baxter equation,Pacific J. Math.335(2025), no. 1, 1–32

    2025

  7. [4]

    N. P. Byott, Hopf–Galois structures on almost cyclic field extensions of2-power degree,J. Algebra318(2007), no. 1, 351–371

    2007

  8. [5]

    N. P. Byott, On insoluble transitive subgroups in the holomorph of a finite soluble group,J. Algebra638(2024), 1–38

    2024

Show all 30 references
  1. [6]

    N. P. Byott, On a family of simple skew braces,J. Algebra Appl.25(2026), Paper No. 2650230, 26 pp

    2026

  2. [7]

    N. P. Byott, Solubility criteria for Hopf–Galois structures,New York J. Math. 21(2015), 883–903

    2015

  3. [8]

    F. Cedó, E. Jespers and J. Okniński, An abundance of simple left braces with abelian multiplicative Sylow subgroups,Rev. Mat. Iberoam.36(2020), no. 5, 1309–1332

    2020

  4. [9]

    F. Cedó, A. Smoktunowicz and L. Vendramin, Skew left braces of nilpotent type,Proc. Lond. Math. Soc.118(2019), no. 6, 1367–1392

    2019

  5. [10]

    Damele, On finite perfect two-sided skew braces, Preprint, arXiv:2605.22302, 2026

    M. Damele, On finite perfect two-sided skew braces, Preprint, arXiv:2605.22302, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  6. [11]

    Damele and A

    M. Damele and A. Loi, Structural and rigidity properties of Lie skew braces, J. Algebra695(2026), 356–383

    2026

  7. [12]

    Damele and A

    M. Damele and A. Loi, Solvability and rigidity for topological skew braces, Preprint, arXiv:2605.07609, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Damele, Finite skew braces whose additive group is aZ-group,Arch

    M. Damele, Finite skew braces whose additive group is aZ-group,Arch. Math. (Basel), to appear; arXiv:2603.22980, 2026

    2026

  9. [15]

    Feit and J

    W. Feit and J. G. Thompson, Solvability of groups of odd order,Pacific J. Math.13(1963), no. 3, 775–1029

    1963

  10. [17]

    Gorshkov and T

    I. Gorshkov and T. Nasybullov, Finite skew braces with solvable additive group,J. Algebra574(2021), 172–183

    2021

  11. [18]

    Guarnieri and L

    L. Guarnieri and L. Vendramin, Skew braces and the Yang–Baxter equation, Math. Comp.86(2017), no. 307, 2519–2534

    2017

  12. [19]

    Hall, Jr.,The Theory of Groups, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1959

    M. Hall, Jr.,The Theory of Groups, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1959

    1959

  13. [20]

    Huppert,Endliche Gruppen I, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wis- senschaften, vol

    B. Huppert,Endliche Gruppen I, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wis- senschaften, vol. 134, Springer-Verlag, Berlin–Heidelberg–New York, 1967

    1967

  14. [21]

    Kohl, Classification of the Hopf–Galois structures on prime power radical extensions,J

    T. Kohl, Classification of the Hopf–Galois structures on prime power radical extensions,J. Algebra207(1998), no. 2, 525–546. SIMPLE SKEW BRACES WITH CYCLIC SYLOW SUBGROUPS 23

    1998

  15. [22]

    Konovalov, A

    A. Konovalov, A. Smoktunowicz and L. Vendramin, On skew braces and their ideals,Exp. Math.30(2021), no. 1, 95–104, with an appendix by A. Smok- tunowicz

    2021

  16. [23]

    D. J. S. Robinson,A Course in the Theory of Groups, 2nd ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 80, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1996

    1996

  17. [24]

    Rump, Braces, radical rings, and the quantum Yang–Baxter equation,J

    W. Rump, Braces, radical rings, and the quantum Yang–Baxter equation,J. Algebra307(2007), no. 1, 153–170

    2007

  18. [25]

    Smoktunowicz and L

    A. Smoktunowicz and L. Vendramin, On skew braces,J. Comb. Algebra2 (2018), no. 1, 47–86, with an appendix by N. P. Byott and L. Vendramin

    2018

  19. [26]

    Trappeniers, On two-sided skew braces,J

    S. Trappeniers, On two-sided skew braces,J. Algebra631(2023), 267–286

    2023

  20. [28]

    Tsang, Non-abelian simple groups which occur as the type of a Hopf–Galois structure on a solvable extension,Bull

    C. Tsang, Non-abelian simple groups which occur as the type of a Hopf–Galois structure on a solvable extension,Bull. Lond. Math. Soc.55(2023), no. 5, 2324–2340

    2023

  21. [29]

    Tsang and C

    C. Tsang and C. Qin, On the solvability of regular subgroups in the holomorph of a finite solvable group,Internat. J. Algebra Comput.30(2020), no. 2, 253– 265

    2020

  22. [30]

    W. J. Wong, On finite groups with semi-dihedral Sylow2-subgroups,J. Algebra 4(1966), 52–63

    1966

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.