Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Group representation
View on Wikipedia
In the mathematical field of representation theory, group representations describe abstract groups in terms of bijective linear transformations of a vector space to itself (i.e. vector space automorphisms); in particular, they can be used to represent group elements as invertible matrices so that the group operation can be represented by matrix multiplication.
In chemistry, a group representation can relate mathematical group elements to symmetric rotations and reflections of molecules.
Representations of groups allow many group-theoretic problems to be reduced to problems in linear algebra. In physics, they describe how the symmetry group of a physical system affects the solutions of equations describing that system.
The term representation of a group is also used in a more general sense to mean any "description" of a group as a group of transformations of some mathematical object. More formally, a "representation" means a homomorphism from the group to the automorphism group of an object. If the object is a vector space we have a linear representation. Some people use realization for the general notion and reserve the term representation for the special case of linear representations. The bulk of this article describes linear representation theory; see the last section for generalizations.
Branches of group representation theory
[edit]The representation theory of groups divides into subtheories depending on the kind of group being represented. The various theories are quite different in detail, though some basic definitions and concepts are similar. The most important divisions are:
- Finite groups — Group representations are a very important tool in the study of finite groups. They also arise in the applications of finite group theory to crystallography and to geometry. If the field of scalars of the vector space has characteristic p, and if p divides the order of the group, then this is called modular representation theory; this special case has very different properties. See Representation theory of finite groups.
- Compact groups or locally compact groups — Many of the results of finite group representation theory are proved by averaging over the group. These proofs can be carried over to infinite groups by replacement of the average with an integral, provided that an acceptable notion of integral can be defined. This can be done for locally compact groups, using the Haar measure. The resulting theory is a central part of harmonic analysis. The Pontryagin duality describes the theory for commutative groups, as a generalised Fourier transform. See also: Peter–Weyl theorem.
- Lie groups — Many important Lie groups are compact, so the results of compact representation theory apply to them. Other techniques specific to Lie groups are used as well. Most of the groups important in physics and chemistry are Lie groups, and their representation theory is crucial to the application of group theory in those fields. See Representations of Lie groups and Representations of Lie algebras.
- Linear algebraic groups (or more generally affine group schemes) — These are the analogues of Lie groups, but over more general fields than just R or C. Although linear algebraic groups have a classification that is very similar to that of Lie groups, and give rise to the same families of Lie algebras, their representations are rather different (and much less well understood). The analytic techniques used for studying Lie groups must be replaced by techniques from algebraic geometry, where the relatively weak Zariski topology causes many technical complications.
- Non-compact topological groups — The class of non-compact groups is too broad to construct any general representation theory, but specific special cases have been studied, sometimes using ad hoc techniques. The semisimple Lie groups have a deep theory, building on the compact case. The complementary solvable Lie groups cannot be classified in the same way. The general theory for Lie groups deals with semidirect products of the two types, by means of general results called Mackey theory, which is a generalization of Wigner's classification methods.
Representation theory also depends heavily on the type of vector space on which the group acts. One distinguishes between finite-dimensional representations and infinite-dimensional ones. In the infinite-dimensional case, additional structures are important (e.g. whether or not the space is a Hilbert space, Banach space, etc.).
One must also consider the type of field over which the vector space is defined. The most important case is the field of complex numbers. The other important cases are the field of real numbers, finite fields, and fields of p-adic numbers. In general, algebraically closed fields are easier to handle than non-algebraically closed ones. The characteristic of the field is also significant; many theorems for finite groups depend on the characteristic of the field not dividing the order of the group.
Definitions
[edit]A representation of a group G on a vector space V over a field K is a group homomorphism from G to GL(V), the general linear group on V. That is, a representation is a map
such that
Here V is called the representation space and the dimension of V is called the dimension or degree of the representation. It is common practice to refer to V itself as the representation when the homomorphism is clear from the context.
In the case where V is of finite dimension n it is common to choose a basis for V and identify GL(V) with GL(n, K), the group of invertible matrices on the field K.
- If G is a topological group and V is a topological vector space, a continuous representation of G on V is a representation ρ such that the application Φ : G × V → V defined by Φ(g, v) = ρ(g)(v) is continuous.
- The kernel of a representation ρ of a group G is defined as the normal subgroup of G whose image under ρ is the identity transformation:
- A faithful representation is one in which the homomorphism G → GL(V) is injective; in other words, one whose kernel is the trivial subgroup {e} consisting only of the group's identity element.
- Given two K vector spaces V and W, two representations ρ : G → GL(V) and π : G → GL(W) are said to be equivalent or isomorphic if there exists a vector space isomorphism α : V → W so that for all g in G,
Examples
[edit]Consider the complex number u = e2πi / 3 which has the property u3 = 1. The set C3 = {1, u, u2} forms a cyclic group under multiplication. This group has a representation ρ on given by:
This representation is faithful because ρ is a one-to-one map.
Another representation for C3 on , isomorphic to the previous one, is σ given by:
The group C3 may also be faithfully represented on by τ given by:
where
A possible representation on is given by the set of cyclic permutation matrices v:
Another example:
Let be the space of homogeneous degree-3 polynomials over the complex numbers in variables
Then acts on by permutation of the three variables.
For instance, sends to .
Reducibility
[edit]A subspace W of V that is invariant under the group action is called a subrepresentation. If V has exactly two subrepresentations, namely the zero-dimensional subspace and V itself, then the representation is said to be irreducible; if it has a proper subrepresentation of nonzero dimension, the representation is said to be reducible. The representation of dimension zero is considered to be neither reducible nor irreducible,[1] just as the number 1 is considered to be neither composite nor prime.
Under the assumption that the characteristic of the field K does not divide the size of the group, representations of finite groups can be decomposed into a direct sum of irreducible subrepresentations (see Maschke's theorem). This holds in particular for any representation of a finite group over the complex numbers, since the characteristic of the complex numbers is zero, which never divides the size of a group.
In the example above, the first two representations given (ρ and σ) are both decomposable into two 1-dimensional subrepresentations (given by span{(1,0)} and span{(0,1)}), while the third representation (τ) is irreducible.
Generalizations
[edit]Set-theoretical representations
[edit]A set-theoretic representation (also known as a group action or permutation representation) of a group G on a set X is given by a function ρ : G → XX, the set of functions from X to X, such that for all g1, g2 in G and all x in X:
where is the identity element of G. This condition and the axioms for a group imply that ρ(g) is a bijection (or permutation) for all g in G. Thus we may equivalently define a permutation representation to be a group homomorphism from G to the symmetric group SX of X.
For more information on this topic see the article on group action.
Representations in other categories
[edit]Every group G can be viewed as a category with a single object; morphisms in this category are just the elements of G. Given an arbitrary category C, a representation of G in C is a functor from G to C. Such a functor selects an object X in C and a group homomorphism from G to Aut(X), the automorphism group of X.
In the case where C is VectK, the category of vector spaces over a field K, this definition is equivalent to a linear representation. Likewise, a set-theoretic representation is just a representation of G in the category of sets.
When C is Ab, the category of abelian groups, the objects obtained are called G-modules.
For another example consider the category of topological spaces, Top. Representations in Top are homomorphisms from G to the homeomorphism group of a topological space X.
Two types of representations closely related to linear representations are:
- projective representations: in the category of projective spaces. These can be described as "linear representations up to scalar transformations".
- affine representations: in the category of affine spaces. For example, the Euclidean group acts affinely upon Euclidean space.
See also
[edit]Notes
[edit]- ^ "1.4: Representations". Chemistry LibreTexts. 2019-09-04. Retrieved 2021-06-23.
References
[edit]- Fulton, William; Harris, Joe (1991). Representation theory. A first course. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Readings in Mathematics. Vol. 129. New York: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-0979-9. ISBN 978-0-387-97495-8. MR 1153249. OCLC 246650103.. Introduction to representation theory with emphasis on Lie groups.
- Yurii I. Lyubich. Introduction to the Theory of Banach Representations of Groups. Translated from the 1985 Russian-language edition (Kharkov, Ukraine). Birkhäuser Verlag. 1988.
Group representation
View on GrokipediaIntroduction
Historical overview
The origins of group representation theory can be traced to the early 19th century, when Augustin-Louis Cauchy began studying permutation groups in the context of solving polynomial equations, introducing early notions of group actions on sets in his 1812 memoir on substitutions.[1] Évariste Galois further advanced this in the 1830s by linking permutation groups to field extensions in his work on the solvability of equations by radicals, laying foundational ideas for understanding symmetries through group structures. By the late 19th century, Ferdinand Georg Frobenius made pivotal contributions, motivated by Richard Dedekind's 1896 query on the group determinant; in his 1896 papers, Frobenius developed the theory of group characters, computed the character table for the symmetric group , and established the orthogonality relations for characters, marking the birth of modern representation theory for finite groups.[1][3] Key early 20th-century advancements built on Frobenius's framework. William Burnside's 1897 book Theory of Groups of Finite Order (revised in 1911) synthesized permutation group theory and applied early representation ideas to classify groups, while his 1904 theorem on the solvability of groups of order demonstrated the power of character theory.[4] Issai Schur, in his 1901 dissertation and subsequent papers from 1905 to 1911, introduced irreducibility criteria for representations, proved Schur's lemma on endomorphisms of irreducible representations, and extended character theory to integral representations, solidifying the algebraic foundations.[5] Heinrich Maschke complemented this in 1898 by proving that representations of finite groups over the complex numbers are completely reducible (Maschke's theorem), enabling the decomposition into irreducibles.[1] In the mid-20th century, the theory expanded to infinite and continuous groups. Hermann Weyl's 1925 book The Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics and papers from 1925–1926 developed unitary representations of compact Lie groups, introducing the highest weight construction for semisimple Lie algebras, while his 1931 work The Classical Groups unified finite and continuous cases through invariant theory.[6] Emil Artin's 1927 contributions in class field theory utilized group characters to define Artin L-functions, bridging representation theory with number theory by generalizing Dirichlet characters to non-abelian Galois groups.[7] In the 1940s, Claude Chevalley's 1941 lectures and 1946 book Theory of Lie Groups pioneered aspects of the study of algebraic groups over arbitrary fields, proving that semisimple algebraic groups have the same representation theory as their Lie algebras. Modern computational aspects emerged in the 1960s with the advent of computer algebra systems, enabling algorithmic computation of character tables and irreducible representations. Joachim Neubüser's 1960 paper initiated systematic computational group theory, leading to programs for permutation and matrix group computations by the late 1960s, such as those used in classifying finite simple groups.[8] A brief application in physics appeared with Eugene Wigner's 1931 book Group Theory and Its Application to the Quantum Mechanics of Atomic Spectra, where representations classified atomic states under symmetry groups.[9]| Year | Milestone | Contributor | Key Publication/THEOREM |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1812 | Early permutation group studies | Cauchy | Memoir on substitutions |
| 1830s | Permutation groups in Galois theory | Galois | Works on solvability by radicals |
| 1896 | Invention of group characters and orthogonality | Frobenius | "Über Gruppencharaktere" |
| 1898 | Complete reducibility over ℂ | Maschke | Maschke's theorem |
| 1904 | Solvability via characters | Burnside | Burnside's theorem |
| 1905–1911 | Irreducibility and Schur's lemma | Schur | Papers on linear substitutions |
| 1925 | Unitary representations of Lie groups | Weyl | Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics |
| 1927 | Characters in class field theory | Artin | Artin L-functions |
| 1941 | Algebraic groups and representations | Chevalley | Lectures on Lie groups |
| 1960 | Computational initiation | Neubüser | First computational paper on groups |
Motivations
Group representations provide a powerful framework for abstracting and analyzing group actions by linearizing symmetries into concrete matrix operations. Rather than studying abstract groups in isolation, representations embed them as subgroups of general linear groups acting on vector spaces, enabling the use of linear algebra to compute and understand group behaviors. This approach transforms potentially intractable problems about group elements and relations into manageable matrix manipulations, such as finding eigenvalues or solving systems of equations.[10][11] At their core, groups encode symmetries arising in geometry, physics, and algebra, and representations illuminate these by revealing invariant subspaces—subspaces preserved under the group action. These subspaces correspond to irreducible components of the representation, allowing the decomposition of complex actions into simpler building blocks that respect the underlying symmetry. Such decompositions highlight how group elements act consistently on geometric objects or algebraic structures, providing insight into the invariants that remain unchanged.[10] Representation theory unifies diverse mathematical themes, notably through its connections to invariant theory, as pioneered by David Hilbert in the 1890s. Hilbert's finiteness theorem demonstrated that the ring of polynomial invariants under a linearly reductive group action on a vector space is finitely generated, laying groundwork for studying symmetries via representations. This links to the decomposition of tensor products of representations into direct sums of irreducibles, which captures how combined symmetries behave and facilitates the classification of group elements through traces of representation matrices—quantities that are invariant under similarity and thus serve as signatures of conjugacy classes.[12][10] More broadly, representations enable the reduction of intricate problems to linear algebra, such as solving systems of equations that are invariant under group actions or computing cohomology groups via induced representations. By focusing on linear actions, this theory simplifies the analysis of group symmetries across disciplines, turning abstract algebraic questions into concrete computational tasks.[11][10]Core Definitions
Group homomorphisms to general linear groups
In the abstract framework of group theory, a representation of a group on a vector space over a field is defined as a group homomorphism , where denotes the general linear group of all invertible linear endomorphisms of .[13] This homomorphism encodes how elements of act linearly on , preserving the group operation through composition of endomorphisms.[14] The associated group action is then expressed as for all and , ensuring that the action respects both the vector space structure and the group multiplication: and , where is the identity in .[15] The dimension of the representation, denoted , is commonly referred to as the degree of the representation, which quantifies its complexity and plays a central role in decomposition theorems.[16] A particularly simple case is the trivial representation, where (the identity endomorphism) for every , meaning the action fixes every vector in invariantly. Representations can also be classified by faithfulness: a representation is faithful if the homomorphism is injective, embedding as a subgroup of without kernel, whereas non-faithful representations have a non-trivial kernel, effectively representing a quotient group.[17] As an illustrative abstract example, consider the cyclic group . A representation is fully determined by the image , which must be an invertible endomorphism of order dividing , i.e., , and extended by for .[14] This setup highlights how the homomorphism property constrains the possible actions without specifying a basis or matrix form. Representations of this type are often analyzed up to equivalence, where two are equivalent if there exists an invertible linear map intertwining their actions.[18]Vector space representations
A vector space representation of a group assigns to each element an invertible linear transformation on a finite-dimensional vector space over a field , typically or , such that the map is a group homomorphism. This means preserves vector addition and scalar multiplication, and the assignment respects the group operation via for all .[1][19] To obtain a concrete matrix form, select a basis for , where . The action of is then encoded by an matrix with entries in , satisfying for each . This matrix representation facilitates computations, as the homomorphism property translates to matrix multiplication: , where .[1][19] The choice of basis affects the specific matrices but not the underlying representation. If is an invertible matrix representing a change of basis, the transformed matrices are given by similarity for all , preserving the linear action on . Equivalent representations in this sense yield isomorphic modules over the group algebra .[1] Over , a representation is unitary if each is a unitary linear operator, meaning with respect to a Hermitian inner product on , thereby preserving the inner product: for all . For compact groups, every finite-dimensional complex representation is equivalent to a unitary one, obtained by averaging an inner product over the group.[1] Although finite-dimensional vector spaces form the core setting, the concept extends to infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, where unitary representations ensure continuity and completeness in the analysis of group actions, as in harmonic analysis on non-compact groups.[1]Fundamental Properties
Equivalence of representations
In representation theory, two representations and of a group on vector spaces and over the same field are said to be equivalent if there exists an invertible linear map such that for all .[20][21] This condition implies that the representations are related by a change of basis in the vector spaces, preserving the group action up to similarity transformation. Equivalence is an equivalence relation on the set of representations, partitioning them into classes where representations within the same class are structurally indistinguishable.[20] The invertible map is known as an intertwining operator (or -equivariant map) between the representations, satisfying the commutation relation for all .[22][23] The space of all such intertwining operators forms the Hom space , which is a vector space under pointwise addition and scalar multiplication. When is invertible, the representations are isomorphic, meaning and are isomorphic as modules over the group algebra , where the group action is extended linearly.[24][23] This module-theoretic perspective underscores that equivalent representations capture the same abstract -module structure. Representations are classified up to equivalence, with uniqueness holding in the sense that any two equivalent representations yield the same equivalence class, often used to study invariants like dimension or decomposition types.[21] For direct sum decompositions, two representations are equivalent if and only if their direct summands match up to equivalence and multiplicity; for instance, is equivalent to precisely when the pairs and consist of equivalent components with the same multiplicities.[24][20] This ensures that non-matching decompositions, such as differing irreducible summands, yield non-equivalent representations.Subrepresentations and quotients
In the context of a representation of a group on a vector space , a subrepresentation is defined as a subspace such that for all .[25] This condition ensures that the restriction of to , denoted , defines a valid representation on .[26] Such a subspace is also called a -invariant subspace or simply an invariant subspace, emphasizing the preservation of the subspace under the group action.[25] Given a subrepresentation , the quotient space inherits a natural representation structure from , known as the quotient representation. This is defined by for all and , where the bar denotes the induced map on the quotient.[27] The quotient representation captures the action of on the "cosets" of within , providing a way to factor out the subrepresentation while preserving the linear group action.[26] These constructions fit into the framework of exact sequences of representations. Specifically, for a subrepresentation , there is a short exact sequence where is the inclusion map and is the canonical quotient map, both -equivariant (i.e., commuting with the representation actions).[26] This sequence is exact in the category of representations, meaning , , and , thus encoding the relationship between the subrepresentation, the original representation, and the quotient.[26] Representations can be classified based on their subrepresentation structure, particularly through the notions of simple and semisimple modules (or representations, viewed as modules over the group algebra). A representation is simple if it admits no proper nonzero subrepresentations, meaning the only invariant subspaces are and itself.[26] In contrast, a representation is semisimple if it decomposes as a direct sum of simple representations; here, subrepresentations and quotients behave particularly well, as every subrepresentation has a complementary invariant subspace, ensuring that quotient maps have precisely the expected kernels without additional complications from non-split extensions.[26] This distinction highlights how semisimple representations allow for clean decomposition into building blocks via subrepresentations and quotients.[19] The kernel of a representation is the normal subgroup , consisting of group elements that act trivially on .[19] Since is a group homomorphism, this kernel is normal in , and the representation factors through the quotient group .[19] This kernel provides insight into the "ineffective" part of the group action and relates subrepresentations to the broader structure of group homomorphisms.[25]Examples
Permutation representations
A permutation representation of a finite group arises from a left action of on a finite set . This action induces a linear representation on the complex vector space of functions , defined by for , , and .[1] The space admits a natural permutation basis consisting of the Dirac delta functions , where if and 0 otherwise; the group action permutes these basis vectors according to the action on .[1] In this basis, the representing matrix is a permutation matrix with a 1 in position for each , and 0s elsewhere.[1] Consequently, the trace of , which counts the number of 1s on the diagonal, equals the number of fixed points of on , i.e., .[1] The permutation representation decomposes according to the -orbits on : since is a disjoint union of orbits, is the direct sum of the invariant subspaces spanned by the basis elements in each orbit, yielding a direct sum of transitive permutation representations (one for each orbit).[28] For the symmetric group acting naturally on , the associated permutation representation admits a 1-dimensional subrepresentation known as the sign representation, given by , where is the number of cycles in (yielding for even permutations and for odd ones).[1] This representation is the unique nontrivial 1-dimensional representation of .[1] A concrete example is the natural permutation representation of on the set , which has dimension 3.[1] The character of this representation takes value 3 on the identity, 1 on each of the three transpositions, and 0 on each of the two 3-cycles.[1] By character orthogonality, it decomposes as the direct sum of the 1-dimensional trivial representation and the 2-dimensional irreducible representation of .[1]Regular and induced representations
The regular representation of a finite group over the complex numbers is the representation , where is the group algebra with basis and acts by left multiplication: .[29] This construction endows with a natural -module structure, capturing the group's action on itself.[4] The dimension of the regular representation is , as the basis has one element per group element.[29] In the basis , the matrix of is a permutation matrix corresponding to the left multiplication by , which permutes the basis elements by shifting indices: the entry in position is 1 if and 0 otherwise.[4] This permutation action highlights the regular representation as a faithful representation of , embedding it into the symmetric group on letters.[19] For finite , the regular representation decomposes as a direct sum of all irreducible representations of , where each irreducible representation appears with multiplicity equal to .[29] This multiplicity follows from the orthogonality of characters and implies the sum-of-squares formula , providing a key tool for classifying irreducibles.[4] Given a subgroup and a representation of on a finite-dimensional complex vector space , the induced representation is the representation of on the vector space , with dimension .[29] Equivalently, it can be described as the space of -valued functions satisfying for all , , with -action .[4] The action of on the induced space is given explicitly by where is a set of coset representatives for in , adjusted for elements where for some via the -action.[4] More generally, for an arbitrary element , the action is , with identification under the right -action.[29] The Frobenius reciprocity theorem relates induction and restriction: for representations of and of , there is a natural isomorphism .[29] In terms of characters, this yields , equating multiplicities under induction and restriction.[4]Reducibility
Reducible representations
A representation of a group on a finite-dimensional vector space over a field (such as ) is said to be reducible if there exists a proper nontrivial subspace that is invariant under the action of all for , meaning for every .[30] This invariance implies that the representation restricts to a subrepresentation on and induces a quotient representation on .[30] A representation is completely reducible if it decomposes as a direct sum of irreducible representations, i.e., where each is an irreducible subrepresentation.[31] Over the complex numbers for finite groups , every finite-dimensional representation is completely reducible, as guaranteed by Maschke's theorem, which states that any invariant subspace has a complementary invariant subspace, allowing full decomposition into irreducibles.[31] This property holds because the characteristic of does not divide the order of , ensuring the group algebra is semisimple.[32] Schur's lemma provides a key tool for understanding irreducible representations within reducible ones: if is irreducible over an algebraically closed field like , then the endomorphism algebra consists precisely of scalar multiples of the identity, i.e., .[33] This implies that irreducible subrepresentations are rigid, with no nontrivial intertwiners, which aids in decomposing reducible representations by identifying distinct irreducible factors.[33] To explicitly decompose reducible representations, projection operators are constructed using group averages. The orthogonal projection onto the subspace of invariants is given by which is idempotent () and -equivariant when is invertible in .[34] For finite over , more generally, the projection onto the isotypic component corresponding to an irreducible representation (the sum of all subrepresentations isomorphic to ) is where is the character of ; this operator satisfies and projects onto while annihilating other components.[34] These projections enable the explicit construction of the complete decomposition into isotypic components, each of which is a direct sum of copies of .[35]Irreducible representations
An irreducible representation of a group on a vector space over a field is a representation that admits no proper nontrivial subrepresentations, meaning the only -invariant subspaces of are and itself.[1] In the context of module theory, such a representation corresponds to a simple module over the group algebra , where the module has no proper nontrivial submodules. A key criterion for irreducibility is given by Schur's lemma, which characterizes the endomorphism ring of an irreducible representation. Specifically, if is an irreducible representation over an algebraically closed field and denotes the space of -equivariant endomorphisms of , then , the scalar multiples of the identity operator. To prove this, first note that for any , the image is a -invariant subspace of . Since is irreducible and , it follows that , so is surjective. Similarly, the kernel is -invariant, and since , surjectivity implies injectivity, hence . Thus, is invertible, and the set of all such forms a division algebra over . By the assumption that is algebraically closed, this division algebra must be itself, so every is scalar. Conversely, if , then any nonzero is invertible, implying that no proper nontrivial -invariant subspace exists, as the image of any such subspace under would contradict irreducibility.[1] This criterion provides a practical test for irreducibility: a representation is irreducible if and only if its endomorphism ring consists solely of scalars. For finite groups, Maschke's theorem guarantees that representations decompose into irreducibles under suitable conditions. Precisely, if is finite and is a field whose characteristic does not divide , then every finite-dimensional representation of over is semisimple, meaning it is isomorphic to a direct sum of irreducible representations.[36] The proof proceeds by showing that any subrepresentation has a complementary invariant subspace. Suppose is a -invariant subspace of a finite-dimensional representation . Equip with an inner product , and define the projection by averaging over the group: more invariantly, the orthogonal projection onto followed by group averaging , where is the orthogonal projection to . Since , the averaging operator is well-defined and -equivariant, and its image is with kernel complementary to . This yields with -invariant. Iterating this decomposition shows full semisimplicity.[1] Moreover, for finite , the number of distinct irreducible representations (up to isomorphism) over an algebraically closed field of characteristic not dividing equals the number of conjugacy classes in .[1] This semisimplicity extends to compact groups via Weyl's unitary trick. For a compact Lie group , every continuous finite-dimensional representation on a complex vector space is equivalent to a unitary representation with respect to some -invariant Hermitian inner product, obtained by averaging an arbitrary inner product over using the Haar measure. Since unitary representations preserve the inner product, any invariant subspace has an orthogonal complement that is also invariant, mirroring the finite-group case and implying complete reducibility into irreducibles.[1] This trick reduces the study of representations of compact groups to the unitary case, where orthogonality relations simplify analysis.Character Theory
Definition and basic properties of characters
In representation theory, the character of a representation of a finite group on a finite-dimensional complex vector space is defined as the function given by for each , where denotes the trace of the matrix representing the linear operator .[1] This definition extends to a linear functional on the group algebra by linearity.[1] Characters possess several fundamental algebraic properties. First, is a class function, meaning for all , since the trace satisfies and is invariant under simultaneous conjugation of the matrices.[1] Additionally, , as is the identity operator whose trace equals the dimension of the space.[1] For representations that can be chosen unitary (which is always possible over ), , the complex conjugate, because the eigenvalues of are roots of unity and those of are their conjugates.[1] Characters exhibit multiplicativity with respect to direct sums and tensor products of representations. For representations and , the character of the direct sum satisfies for all , following from the additivity of the trace on block-diagonal matrices.[1] Similarly, the character of the tensor product is , as the trace of the Kronecker product of matrices multiplies accordingly.[1] The space of class functions on carries a Hermitian inner product defined by for characters .[1] This inner product is positive definite and induces a Hilbert space structure, with measuring the intertwining dimension between representations.[1] The kernel of a character , defined as , forms a normal subgroup of .[37] This subgroup consists of elements acting as scalar multiples of the identity on the representation space, up to the character's trace value. For a representation of a subgroup , the character of the induced representation is given by the formula for , where the sum is over those such that the conjugate lies in (and is extended by zero outside ).[1] This expression, known as the Frobenius formula, arises from averaging the action over cosets.[1]Orthogonality and decomposition
One of the key features of character theory for finite groups is the orthogonality relations satisfied by the characters of irreducible representations. These relations arise from the inner product on the space of class functions , defined by where is a finite group and are class functions (constant on conjugacy classes). For characters and of irreducible representations and , this inner product equals , which is 1 if and 0 otherwise.[38] Thus, the column orthogonality relation states that where is the Kronecker delta. This orthogonality implies that distinct irreducible characters are linearly independent.[38] The row orthogonality relation provides another perspective, focusing on sums over irreducible characters for fixed group elements. For elements , where the sum is over a complete set of irreducible representations and is the centralizer of in . Since the size of the conjugacy class of is , this relation shows that the columns of the character table (indexed by conjugacy classes) are orthogonal when appropriately weighted by class sizes.[38] These orthogonality relations establish the completeness of the irreducible characters: they form an orthonormal basis for the vector space of class functions with respect to the inner product above. The dimension of this space equals the number of conjugacy classes, which matches the number of irreducible representations by basic properties of characters. This basis property allows any class function, including the character of an arbitrary representation, to be uniquely expressed as a linear combination of irreducible characters.[38] A central application is the decomposition of any finite-dimensional representation into a direct sum of irreducible representations. The multiplicity of the irreducible representation with character in the decomposition is given by the inner product Since characters determine representations up to isomorphism over , this formula completely classifies the representation via its character table projection.[38] Character tables tabulate these values for all conjugacy classes and irreducible characters, facilitating computations. For example, the symmetric group has three conjugacy classes: the identity (size 1), transpositions like (size 3), and 3-cycles like (size 2). Its three irreducible representations yield the following character table:[38]| Representation | Id (size 1) | (1 2) (size 3) | (1 2 3) (size 2) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trivial () | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Sign () | 1 | -1 | 1 |
| Standard () | 2 | 0 | -1 |
Branches
Representations of finite groups
In the theory of group representations, finite groups exhibit particularly tractable behavior over fields of characteristic zero, such as the complex numbers . Every finite-dimensional representation of a finite group over is completely reducible, meaning it decomposes as a direct sum of irreducible representations.[34] This result, known as Maschke's theorem, relies on the fact that the group order is invertible in , allowing an averaging projection onto invariant subspaces.[39] Consequently, the representation theory of finite groups over reduces to classifying the irreducible representations, which are finite in number and uniquely determined up to isomorphism. The structure of the group algebra further illuminates this classification. By the Artin-Wedderburn theorem, since is a semisimple Artinian algebra, it decomposes as a direct sum of matrix algebras over : , where the are the dimensions of the distinct irreducible representations of , and is the number of such irreducibles, equal to the number of conjugacy classes in .[40] This isomorphism underscores the complete reducibility and provides a algebraic foundation for understanding all representations as modules over . Over fields of positive characteristic dividing , the situation changes significantly. Representations are no longer necessarily completely reducible, and the number of irreducible representations over an algebraically closed field of characteristic equals the number of -regular conjugacy classes in (those consisting of elements whose orders are coprime to ).[41] This result, due to Brauer, restricts the theory: there are fewer irreducibles than over , and their dimensions do not necessarily divide , complicating decomposition compared to the characteristic-zero case.[42] Character tables, which tabulate the values of irreducible characters on conjugacy classes, play a central role in classifying representations of finite groups. Constructing these tables computationally is feasible via algorithms that exploit orthogonality relations and modular arithmetic. A seminal method, introduced by Dixon in 1968, computes irreducible characters by iteratively building power character tables and resolving ambiguities using probabilistic techniques over finite fields.[43] This approach efficiently handles groups of moderate order, enabling explicit verification of decompositions and symmetries. A concrete example is the quaternion group of order 8. It has five irreducible representations over : four one-dimensional representations corresponding to the abelian quotient Q_8 / \{\pm 1\} \cong \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z\}, and one faithful two-dimensional representation realized in the quaternions via the standard embedding.[44] The dimensions satisfy , confirming completeness. Representations over the rationals retain complete reducibility, as has characteristic zero and is invertible therein, so Maschke's theorem applies.[4] However, the irreducible -representations differ from those over : they are realized by summing Galois orbits of complex irreducibles under the action of , where is a root of unity, often yielding higher-dimensional modules that are indecomposable over but split over .[45] For instance, cyclic groups of prime order have one-dimensional -irreducibles, but non-abelian groups like require a four-dimensional irreducible in addition to the one-dimensional ones to capture the full structure rationally.[46]Representations of Lie groups
A representation of a Lie group is a smooth homomorphism , where is a finite-dimensional complex vector space, encoding the linear action of on .[47] For infinite-dimensional settings, particularly unitary representations, acts on a Hilbert space by preserving the inner product, i.e., for all and .[47] These representations capture the continuous symmetries of , extending finite-group theory to manifolds with group structure, and are central to applications in quantum mechanics and geometry. The infinitesimal counterpart arises via the derivative at the identity, where is the Lie algebra of , yielding a Lie algebra representation that linearizes the group action.[48] This differential map preserves the Lie bracket, , and facilitates analysis of representations through algebraic tools like root systems. For compact Lie groups, the Peter-Weyl theorem provides a Fourier-like decomposition: the space of square-integrable functions on (with respect to the Haar measure) decomposes as the completed direct sum , where the sum runs over equivalence classes of irreducible finite-dimensional representations with representation spaces , and the summands consist of matrix coefficients.[49] This orthogonality implies that irreducible representations are finite-dimensional and that is spanned by these coefficients, enabling harmonic analysis on non-abelian groups. In the semisimple case, irreducible finite-dimensional representations of a complex semisimple Lie algebra (and thus of the corresponding simply-connected Lie group) are classified by dominant integral weights via highest weight theory, originally developed by Cartan and Weyl.[50] Specifically, each such representation corresponds uniquely to a dominant weight in the weight lattice, with highest weight space one-dimensional and annihilated by positive root vectors; the weights lie in the convex hull of the Weyl group orbit of .[50] This parametrization, known as the Cartan-Weyl classification, determines the representation up to isomorphism and extends to compact or reductive groups through analytically integral dominant weights on the Cartan subalgebra. A canonical example is the special unitary group , whose irreducible representations are the spin representations labeled by , each of dimension with basis states for .[51] These arise from the ladder operators acting on the highest weight state , generating the full space while preserving the commutation relations . Characters of representations on compact Lie groups are class functions , integrated against test functions via the Haar measure (normalized to ): for instance, the multiplicity of an irrep in is .[52] This inner product leverages the bi-invariant Haar measure, unique up to scalar for compact , to orthogonalize characters and decompose representations analytically.Generalizations
Representations over rings and modules
The group ring associated to a commutative ring with identity and a group is the free left -module with basis , consisting of all formal finite sums where . Addition is defined componentwise, and multiplication is extended bilinearly from the group operation: for and , making an associative unital -algebra. A representation of over is equivalently a left -module , or a unital ring homomorphism , where the group action arises from the module structure via for and a corresponding representation . This generalizes the classical case of representations over fields, where modules are vector spaces, but extends to more general rings where modules may not be free or semisimple. In modular representation theory, attention shifts to cases where is a field of characteristic dividing the order of a finite group , so is not semisimple. Here, Maschke's theorem fails, as the group algebra lacks the property that every module is a direct sum of simples, leading to non-split extensions and indecomposable modules beyond the simples. Blocks of are the indecomposable two-sided ideals corresponding to primitive central idempotents, partitioning the simple -modules and capturing linked representations via their projective covers. The decomposition matrix relates the irreducible characters over a field of characteristic zero (e.g., ) to the irreducible Brauer characters over , with entries giving the multiplicity of the -th simple -module in the reduction modulo of the -th ordinary irreducible module; these matrices are integral with non-negative entries and determine the Cartan matrix of composition multiplicities in projectives. Projective -modules play a central role in characteristic , as every finitely generated module admits a projective cover, and the indecomposable projectives are in bijection with the simple modules, each being the unique indecomposable projective with a given simple socle or head. For a simple module , its projective cover has head and is determined up to isomorphism, with the set of all indecomposables generating the module category in blocks of defect greater than zero. In blocks with full defect (defect group a Sylow -subgroup), the projectives encode the non-semisimple structure, and Green's correspondence relates projectives over to those over subgroups containing normalizers of defect groups. Examples illustrate these concepts over integral domains like . For a cyclic group of prime order , the integral group ring has representations as -lattices, which decompose as , where annihilates the torsion submodule , an -module with for a primitive -th root of unity , isomorphic to a direct sum of ideals in . Torsion arises in , of type with invariants including the -rank and ideal classes, yielding non-isomorphic indecomposables where is the class number of . Brauer characters provide a character theory for modular representations, defined for a -module on -regular elements (those of order coprime to ) as the trace of the action, lifted to a complex-valued function via a map from eigenvalues in to roots of unity. For an indecomposable projective , the Brauer character vanishes on non--regular elements and equals a -linear combination of ordinary characters via the transpose decomposition matrix, enabling decomposition of modular representations from characteristic zero data. In the case of -groups, Brauer characters lift directly to ordinary characters of the same degree, reflecting the uniserial structure of projectives over cyclic -group algebras.Categorical representations
In category theory, a representation of a group on a category is defined by a functor , where denotes the monoid of strict automorphisms of (isomorphisms of categories that preserve the skeletal structure strictly), such that preserves the group operation: and .[53] More generally, to accommodate non-strict isomorphisms, one considers functors to the group of autoequivalences of , which are equivalence-preserving transformations up to natural isomorphism.[53] This generalizes classical representations, where is the category of vector spaces or modules, by abstracting the action to the level of the entire category rather than individual objects. The category of representations of in the category of sets, denoted , consists of -sets and equivariant maps, which arise as representable functors from the delooping category (the one-object category with morphisms given by ) to \Set. These actions on objects of \Set extend naturally to the categorical framework, providing a foundational example where the representation recovers the group's permutation action on discrete structures. Examples of categorical representations abound in structured categories. In abelian categories, such as the category of coherent sheaves on an algebraic variety , a group acting on induces a representation via pullback functors for , which form autoequivalences preserving the abelian structure. Similarly, in topological categories, where objects carry topology and morphisms are continuous, the functor must consist of continuous autoequivalences to respect the topological enrichment. Enriched representations over a monoidal category like (vector spaces over a field ) generalize linear representations by requiring the autoequivalences to be -linear and monoidal, preserving tensor products up to isomorphism.[53] Tannakian duality provides a reconstruction theorem for certain categorical representations: for a neutral Tannakian category over a field equipped with a fiber functor , the category of finite-dimensional representations of an affine group scheme is equivalent to , allowing recovery of as the automorphism group of the fiber functor.[54] This duality underscores how the categorical structure encodes the group via tensor-preserving actions. In higher dimensions, categorical representations extend to 2-groups (categorical groups), where a representation is a 2-functor from the 2-group to the 2-category of autoequivalences of , yielding a monoidal 2-category of such representations that generalizes the 1-categorical case.[55]References
- https://groupprops.subwiki.org/wiki/Linear_representation_theory_of_quaternion_group
