Here’s a nice, symmetric, labeled graph:

The prime numbers labelling the vertices are exactly the prime divisors of the order of the largest sporadic group: the monster group
Looking (for example) at the character table of the monster you can check that there is an edge between two primes
Now the fun part: this graph characterises the Monster!
There is no other group
This was proved by Melissa Lee and Tomasz Popiel in
The proof for the Monster takes less than one page, so it’s clear that it builds on lots of previous results.
There’s the work of Mina Hagie The prime graph of a sporadic simple group, who used the classification of all finite simple groups to put heavy restrictions on possible groups
For the Monster, she proved that if the prime graph of
Her result, in turn, builds on the Gruenberg-Kegel theorem, after Karl Gruenberg and Otto Kegel.
The Gruenberg-Kegel theorem, which they never published (a write-up is in the paper Prime graph components of finite groups by Williams), shows the wealth of information contained in the prime graph of a finite group. For this reason, the prime graph is often called the Gruenberg-Kegel graph.

The pictures above are taken from a talk by Peter Cameron, The Gruenberg-Kegel graph. Peter Cameron’s blog is an excellent source of information for all things relating groups and graphs.
The full proof of the Gruenberg-Kegel theorem is way too involved for a blogpost, but I should give you at least an idea of it, and of one of the recurrent tools involved, the structural results on Frobenius groups by John Thompson.
Here’s lemma 1.1 of the paper On connection between the structure of a finite group and the properties of its prime graph by A.V. Vasil’ev.
Lemma: If
Okay, let’s suppose there’s a counterexample
Then there’s a normal series
But as there is no edge among
Oh, I should have said this before: if there is an edge between two primes in the prime graph of a subgroup (or a quotient) of
The only way out is that
Frattini again gives
Lift the whole schmuck to the lift of
satisfying the three primes condition, so would give a smaller counter-example unless
Sooner or later, in almost all proofs around the Gruenberg-Kegel result, a Frobenius group enters the picture.
Here, we take an element
But then,
- the centraliser-subgroup in
of any non-identity element in is contained in - the centraliser-subgroup in
of any non-identity element in is contained in
So,