Is the homomorphism $mathbb{Q}Gto prod M_{chi_i(1)}(mathbb{Q})$ given by $x mapsto (rho_i(x))_i$ an...
How can I use the Python library networkx from Mathematica?
Can you use the Shield Master feat to shove someone before you make an attack by using a Readied action?
When a candle burns, why does the top of wick glow if bottom of flame is hottest?
Why didn't Eitri join the fight?
How to Make a Beautiful Stacked 3D Plot
How do pianists reach extremely loud dynamics?
Withdrew £2800, but only £2000 shows as withdrawn on online banking; what are my obligations?
8 Prisoners wearing hats
What does this Jacques Hadamard quote mean?
What are the out-of-universe reasons for the references to Toby Maguire-era Spider-Man in ITSV
Is the Standard Deduction better than Itemized when both are the same amount?
Would "destroying" Wurmcoil Engine prevent its tokens from being created?
Is this homebrew Lady of Pain warlock patron balanced?
What would be the ideal power source for a cybernetic eye?
Around usage results
Is safe to use va_start macro with this as parameter?
Can a party unilaterally change candidates in preparation for a General election?
Do jazz musicians improvise on the parent scale in addition to the chord-scales?
If a contract sometimes uses the wrong name, is it still valid?
Does classifying an integer as a discrete log require it be part of a multiplicative group?
If a VARCHAR(MAX) column is included in an index, is the entire value always stored in the index page(s)?
What is the meaning of the new sigil in Game of Thrones Season 8 intro?
Is it a good idea to use CNN to classify 1D signal?
Fundamental Solution of the Pell Equation
Is the homomorphism $mathbb{Q}Gto prod M_{chi_i(1)}(mathbb{Q})$ given by $x mapsto (rho_i(x))_i$ an isomorphism?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Class function as a characterSum of squares of dimensions of irreducible characters.faithful representation related to the centerRepresentation theory and character proof$chi(g)$ group character $Rightarrow$ $chi(g^m)$ group characterOccurrences of trivial representation is equal to dimension of ${vin V:varphi(g)v=v}$.Why do the characters of an abelian group form a group?characters and representations of extra-special $p$-groupsIf $T$ is an algebraic torus, is there a difference between $operatorname{Irr}(T)$ and $X(T)$?The ring $R (G)$ in Serre's Linear Representations of Finite Groups
$begingroup$
If we have the group algebra $mathbb{Q}G$ and ${chi_1,...,chi_n}$ the irreducible characters of $G$ afforded by the representation $rho_1,...,rho_n$, is it true that the map:
$mathbb{Q}Gto prod M_{chi_i(1)}(mathbb{Q})$ sending $xin mathbb{Q}G$ to $(rho_i(x))_i$
is an isomorphism?
We know that $mathbb{Q}G$ can be decomposed into simple algebras, and every simple algebra produces an irreducible character. Can I mix these facts to give a positive answer to the question?
abstract-algebra group-theory ring-theory representation-theory characters
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If we have the group algebra $mathbb{Q}G$ and ${chi_1,...,chi_n}$ the irreducible characters of $G$ afforded by the representation $rho_1,...,rho_n$, is it true that the map:
$mathbb{Q}Gto prod M_{chi_i(1)}(mathbb{Q})$ sending $xin mathbb{Q}G$ to $(rho_i(x))_i$
is an isomorphism?
We know that $mathbb{Q}G$ can be decomposed into simple algebras, and every simple algebra produces an irreducible character. Can I mix these facts to give a positive answer to the question?
abstract-algebra group-theory ring-theory representation-theory characters
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If we have the group algebra $mathbb{Q}G$ and ${chi_1,...,chi_n}$ the irreducible characters of $G$ afforded by the representation $rho_1,...,rho_n$, is it true that the map:
$mathbb{Q}Gto prod M_{chi_i(1)}(mathbb{Q})$ sending $xin mathbb{Q}G$ to $(rho_i(x))_i$
is an isomorphism?
We know that $mathbb{Q}G$ can be decomposed into simple algebras, and every simple algebra produces an irreducible character. Can I mix these facts to give a positive answer to the question?
abstract-algebra group-theory ring-theory representation-theory characters
$endgroup$
If we have the group algebra $mathbb{Q}G$ and ${chi_1,...,chi_n}$ the irreducible characters of $G$ afforded by the representation $rho_1,...,rho_n$, is it true that the map:
$mathbb{Q}Gto prod M_{chi_i(1)}(mathbb{Q})$ sending $xin mathbb{Q}G$ to $(rho_i(x))_i$
is an isomorphism?
We know that $mathbb{Q}G$ can be decomposed into simple algebras, and every simple algebra produces an irreducible character. Can I mix these facts to give a positive answer to the question?
abstract-algebra group-theory ring-theory representation-theory characters
abstract-algebra group-theory ring-theory representation-theory characters
edited Mar 24 at 16:29
Brahadeesh
6,56652465
6,56652465
asked Mar 24 at 14:26
AlopisoAlopiso
1379
1379
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
No. For a very simple example, let $G$ be cyclic of order 3. Then $G$ has only two irreducible representations over $mathbb{Q}$: the trivial representation $rho_1$, and the quotient $rho_2$ of the regular representation by the trivial representation (which is an irreducible representation of degree $2$). Your map $mathbb{Q}Gto M_1(mathbb{Q})times M_2(mathbb{Q})$ then cannot be surjective, since $mathbb{Q}G$ is $3$-dimensional and $M_1(mathbb{Q})times M_2(mathbb{Q})$ is $5$-dimensional. What's going on here is that the subring generated by the image of $rho_2$ is not the full matrix ring $M_2(mathbb{Q})$; instead it's a $2$-dimensional subring which is isomorphic to the field $mathbb{Q}(zeta)$ where $zeta$ is a primitive cube root of $1$.
In general, the image of $rho_i$ is a matrix ring over the endomorphism ring $D_i$ of $rho_i$. This endomorphism ring $D_i$ is a division algebra since $rho_i$ is irreducible. If $D_i$ is just $mathbb{Q}$, then the image of $rho_i$ will be all of $M_{chi_i(1)}(mathbb{Q})$, but if $D_i$ is larger than $mathbb{Q}$ then the image of $rho_i$ is a proper subring of $M_{chi_i(1)}(mathbb{Q})$ (namely, the subring of elements that commute with every element of $D_i$).
Your statement would be correct if you were working over $mathbb{C}$ instead of $mathbb{Q}$. Over $mathbb{C}$, there are no finite-dimensional division algebras besides $mathbb{C}$ itself, so the image of every irreducible representation is the full matrix ring $M_{chi_i(1)}(mathbb{C})$. In general, the Artin-Wedderburn theorem says a semisimple ring is isomorphic to the product of the images of its irreducible representations, which are matrix rings over the endomorphism rings of those representations (and those endomorphism rings are division algebras).
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks for your time, you help me a lot :D
$endgroup$
– Alopiso
Mar 24 at 16:08
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is not true. The group algebra of the cyclic group of order three is commutative, and decomposes as $mathbb{Q}C_3cong mathbb{Q}oplusmathbb{Q}(omega)$, where $omega$ is a primitive third root of unity.
If you replace $mathbb{Q}$ with $mathbb{C}$, then the statement is true (in the latter case, $mathbb{C}C_3cong mathbb{C}oplusmathbb{C}oplusmathbb{C}$).
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Why is true for $mathbb{Q}S_3 cong mathbb{Q}oplus mathbb{Q}oplus M_2(mathbb{Q})$?
$endgroup$
– Alopiso
Mar 24 at 15:49
$begingroup$
$mathbb{Q}C_3cong mathbb{Q}[x]/(x^3-1)$
$endgroup$
– David Hill
Mar 24 at 16:11
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3160592%2fis-the-homomorphism-mathbbqg-to-prod-m-chi-i1-mathbbq-given-by-x%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
No. For a very simple example, let $G$ be cyclic of order 3. Then $G$ has only two irreducible representations over $mathbb{Q}$: the trivial representation $rho_1$, and the quotient $rho_2$ of the regular representation by the trivial representation (which is an irreducible representation of degree $2$). Your map $mathbb{Q}Gto M_1(mathbb{Q})times M_2(mathbb{Q})$ then cannot be surjective, since $mathbb{Q}G$ is $3$-dimensional and $M_1(mathbb{Q})times M_2(mathbb{Q})$ is $5$-dimensional. What's going on here is that the subring generated by the image of $rho_2$ is not the full matrix ring $M_2(mathbb{Q})$; instead it's a $2$-dimensional subring which is isomorphic to the field $mathbb{Q}(zeta)$ where $zeta$ is a primitive cube root of $1$.
In general, the image of $rho_i$ is a matrix ring over the endomorphism ring $D_i$ of $rho_i$. This endomorphism ring $D_i$ is a division algebra since $rho_i$ is irreducible. If $D_i$ is just $mathbb{Q}$, then the image of $rho_i$ will be all of $M_{chi_i(1)}(mathbb{Q})$, but if $D_i$ is larger than $mathbb{Q}$ then the image of $rho_i$ is a proper subring of $M_{chi_i(1)}(mathbb{Q})$ (namely, the subring of elements that commute with every element of $D_i$).
Your statement would be correct if you were working over $mathbb{C}$ instead of $mathbb{Q}$. Over $mathbb{C}$, there are no finite-dimensional division algebras besides $mathbb{C}$ itself, so the image of every irreducible representation is the full matrix ring $M_{chi_i(1)}(mathbb{C})$. In general, the Artin-Wedderburn theorem says a semisimple ring is isomorphic to the product of the images of its irreducible representations, which are matrix rings over the endomorphism rings of those representations (and those endomorphism rings are division algebras).
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks for your time, you help me a lot :D
$endgroup$
– Alopiso
Mar 24 at 16:08
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No. For a very simple example, let $G$ be cyclic of order 3. Then $G$ has only two irreducible representations over $mathbb{Q}$: the trivial representation $rho_1$, and the quotient $rho_2$ of the regular representation by the trivial representation (which is an irreducible representation of degree $2$). Your map $mathbb{Q}Gto M_1(mathbb{Q})times M_2(mathbb{Q})$ then cannot be surjective, since $mathbb{Q}G$ is $3$-dimensional and $M_1(mathbb{Q})times M_2(mathbb{Q})$ is $5$-dimensional. What's going on here is that the subring generated by the image of $rho_2$ is not the full matrix ring $M_2(mathbb{Q})$; instead it's a $2$-dimensional subring which is isomorphic to the field $mathbb{Q}(zeta)$ where $zeta$ is a primitive cube root of $1$.
In general, the image of $rho_i$ is a matrix ring over the endomorphism ring $D_i$ of $rho_i$. This endomorphism ring $D_i$ is a division algebra since $rho_i$ is irreducible. If $D_i$ is just $mathbb{Q}$, then the image of $rho_i$ will be all of $M_{chi_i(1)}(mathbb{Q})$, but if $D_i$ is larger than $mathbb{Q}$ then the image of $rho_i$ is a proper subring of $M_{chi_i(1)}(mathbb{Q})$ (namely, the subring of elements that commute with every element of $D_i$).
Your statement would be correct if you were working over $mathbb{C}$ instead of $mathbb{Q}$. Over $mathbb{C}$, there are no finite-dimensional division algebras besides $mathbb{C}$ itself, so the image of every irreducible representation is the full matrix ring $M_{chi_i(1)}(mathbb{C})$. In general, the Artin-Wedderburn theorem says a semisimple ring is isomorphic to the product of the images of its irreducible representations, which are matrix rings over the endomorphism rings of those representations (and those endomorphism rings are division algebras).
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks for your time, you help me a lot :D
$endgroup$
– Alopiso
Mar 24 at 16:08
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No. For a very simple example, let $G$ be cyclic of order 3. Then $G$ has only two irreducible representations over $mathbb{Q}$: the trivial representation $rho_1$, and the quotient $rho_2$ of the regular representation by the trivial representation (which is an irreducible representation of degree $2$). Your map $mathbb{Q}Gto M_1(mathbb{Q})times M_2(mathbb{Q})$ then cannot be surjective, since $mathbb{Q}G$ is $3$-dimensional and $M_1(mathbb{Q})times M_2(mathbb{Q})$ is $5$-dimensional. What's going on here is that the subring generated by the image of $rho_2$ is not the full matrix ring $M_2(mathbb{Q})$; instead it's a $2$-dimensional subring which is isomorphic to the field $mathbb{Q}(zeta)$ where $zeta$ is a primitive cube root of $1$.
In general, the image of $rho_i$ is a matrix ring over the endomorphism ring $D_i$ of $rho_i$. This endomorphism ring $D_i$ is a division algebra since $rho_i$ is irreducible. If $D_i$ is just $mathbb{Q}$, then the image of $rho_i$ will be all of $M_{chi_i(1)}(mathbb{Q})$, but if $D_i$ is larger than $mathbb{Q}$ then the image of $rho_i$ is a proper subring of $M_{chi_i(1)}(mathbb{Q})$ (namely, the subring of elements that commute with every element of $D_i$).
Your statement would be correct if you were working over $mathbb{C}$ instead of $mathbb{Q}$. Over $mathbb{C}$, there are no finite-dimensional division algebras besides $mathbb{C}$ itself, so the image of every irreducible representation is the full matrix ring $M_{chi_i(1)}(mathbb{C})$. In general, the Artin-Wedderburn theorem says a semisimple ring is isomorphic to the product of the images of its irreducible representations, which are matrix rings over the endomorphism rings of those representations (and those endomorphism rings are division algebras).
$endgroup$
No. For a very simple example, let $G$ be cyclic of order 3. Then $G$ has only two irreducible representations over $mathbb{Q}$: the trivial representation $rho_1$, and the quotient $rho_2$ of the regular representation by the trivial representation (which is an irreducible representation of degree $2$). Your map $mathbb{Q}Gto M_1(mathbb{Q})times M_2(mathbb{Q})$ then cannot be surjective, since $mathbb{Q}G$ is $3$-dimensional and $M_1(mathbb{Q})times M_2(mathbb{Q})$ is $5$-dimensional. What's going on here is that the subring generated by the image of $rho_2$ is not the full matrix ring $M_2(mathbb{Q})$; instead it's a $2$-dimensional subring which is isomorphic to the field $mathbb{Q}(zeta)$ where $zeta$ is a primitive cube root of $1$.
In general, the image of $rho_i$ is a matrix ring over the endomorphism ring $D_i$ of $rho_i$. This endomorphism ring $D_i$ is a division algebra since $rho_i$ is irreducible. If $D_i$ is just $mathbb{Q}$, then the image of $rho_i$ will be all of $M_{chi_i(1)}(mathbb{Q})$, but if $D_i$ is larger than $mathbb{Q}$ then the image of $rho_i$ is a proper subring of $M_{chi_i(1)}(mathbb{Q})$ (namely, the subring of elements that commute with every element of $D_i$).
Your statement would be correct if you were working over $mathbb{C}$ instead of $mathbb{Q}$. Over $mathbb{C}$, there are no finite-dimensional division algebras besides $mathbb{C}$ itself, so the image of every irreducible representation is the full matrix ring $M_{chi_i(1)}(mathbb{C})$. In general, the Artin-Wedderburn theorem says a semisimple ring is isomorphic to the product of the images of its irreducible representations, which are matrix rings over the endomorphism rings of those representations (and those endomorphism rings are division algebras).
edited Mar 24 at 16:06
answered Mar 24 at 15:52
Eric WofseyEric Wofsey
193k14221352
193k14221352
$begingroup$
Thanks for your time, you help me a lot :D
$endgroup$
– Alopiso
Mar 24 at 16:08
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thanks for your time, you help me a lot :D
$endgroup$
– Alopiso
Mar 24 at 16:08
$begingroup$
Thanks for your time, you help me a lot :D
$endgroup$
– Alopiso
Mar 24 at 16:08
$begingroup$
Thanks for your time, you help me a lot :D
$endgroup$
– Alopiso
Mar 24 at 16:08
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is not true. The group algebra of the cyclic group of order three is commutative, and decomposes as $mathbb{Q}C_3cong mathbb{Q}oplusmathbb{Q}(omega)$, where $omega$ is a primitive third root of unity.
If you replace $mathbb{Q}$ with $mathbb{C}$, then the statement is true (in the latter case, $mathbb{C}C_3cong mathbb{C}oplusmathbb{C}oplusmathbb{C}$).
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Why is true for $mathbb{Q}S_3 cong mathbb{Q}oplus mathbb{Q}oplus M_2(mathbb{Q})$?
$endgroup$
– Alopiso
Mar 24 at 15:49
$begingroup$
$mathbb{Q}C_3cong mathbb{Q}[x]/(x^3-1)$
$endgroup$
– David Hill
Mar 24 at 16:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is not true. The group algebra of the cyclic group of order three is commutative, and decomposes as $mathbb{Q}C_3cong mathbb{Q}oplusmathbb{Q}(omega)$, where $omega$ is a primitive third root of unity.
If you replace $mathbb{Q}$ with $mathbb{C}$, then the statement is true (in the latter case, $mathbb{C}C_3cong mathbb{C}oplusmathbb{C}oplusmathbb{C}$).
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Why is true for $mathbb{Q}S_3 cong mathbb{Q}oplus mathbb{Q}oplus M_2(mathbb{Q})$?
$endgroup$
– Alopiso
Mar 24 at 15:49
$begingroup$
$mathbb{Q}C_3cong mathbb{Q}[x]/(x^3-1)$
$endgroup$
– David Hill
Mar 24 at 16:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is not true. The group algebra of the cyclic group of order three is commutative, and decomposes as $mathbb{Q}C_3cong mathbb{Q}oplusmathbb{Q}(omega)$, where $omega$ is a primitive third root of unity.
If you replace $mathbb{Q}$ with $mathbb{C}$, then the statement is true (in the latter case, $mathbb{C}C_3cong mathbb{C}oplusmathbb{C}oplusmathbb{C}$).
$endgroup$
This is not true. The group algebra of the cyclic group of order three is commutative, and decomposes as $mathbb{Q}C_3cong mathbb{Q}oplusmathbb{Q}(omega)$, where $omega$ is a primitive third root of unity.
If you replace $mathbb{Q}$ with $mathbb{C}$, then the statement is true (in the latter case, $mathbb{C}C_3cong mathbb{C}oplusmathbb{C}oplusmathbb{C}$).
answered Mar 24 at 15:39
David HillDavid Hill
9,6361619
9,6361619
$begingroup$
Why is true for $mathbb{Q}S_3 cong mathbb{Q}oplus mathbb{Q}oplus M_2(mathbb{Q})$?
$endgroup$
– Alopiso
Mar 24 at 15:49
$begingroup$
$mathbb{Q}C_3cong mathbb{Q}[x]/(x^3-1)$
$endgroup$
– David Hill
Mar 24 at 16:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Why is true for $mathbb{Q}S_3 cong mathbb{Q}oplus mathbb{Q}oplus M_2(mathbb{Q})$?
$endgroup$
– Alopiso
Mar 24 at 15:49
$begingroup$
$mathbb{Q}C_3cong mathbb{Q}[x]/(x^3-1)$
$endgroup$
– David Hill
Mar 24 at 16:11
$begingroup$
Why is true for $mathbb{Q}S_3 cong mathbb{Q}oplus mathbb{Q}oplus M_2(mathbb{Q})$?
$endgroup$
– Alopiso
Mar 24 at 15:49
$begingroup$
Why is true for $mathbb{Q}S_3 cong mathbb{Q}oplus mathbb{Q}oplus M_2(mathbb{Q})$?
$endgroup$
– Alopiso
Mar 24 at 15:49
$begingroup$
$mathbb{Q}C_3cong mathbb{Q}[x]/(x^3-1)$
$endgroup$
– David Hill
Mar 24 at 16:11
$begingroup$
$mathbb{Q}C_3cong mathbb{Q}[x]/(x^3-1)$
$endgroup$
– David Hill
Mar 24 at 16:11
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3160592%2fis-the-homomorphism-mathbbqg-to-prod-m-chi-i1-mathbbq-given-by-x%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown