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Withdrew £2800, but only £2000 shows as withdrawn on online banking; what are my obligations?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












2












$begingroup$


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?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    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?










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2


      1



      $begingroup$


      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?










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      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






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Mar 24 at 16:29









      Brahadeesh

      6,56652465




      6,56652465










      asked Mar 24 at 14:26









      AlopisoAlopiso

      1379




      1379






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          5












          $begingroup$

          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).






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for your time, you help me a lot :D
            $endgroup$
            – Alopiso
            Mar 24 at 16:08



















          2












          $begingroup$

          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, $mathbb{C}C_3cong mathbb{C}oplusmathbb{C}oplusmathbb{C}$).






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            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












          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
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          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









          5












          $begingroup$

          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).






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for your time, you help me a lot :D
            $endgroup$
            – Alopiso
            Mar 24 at 16:08
















          5












          $begingroup$

          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).






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for your time, you help me a lot :D
            $endgroup$
            – Alopiso
            Mar 24 at 16:08














          5












          5








          5





          $begingroup$

          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).






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          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).







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          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


















          • $begingroup$
            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











          2












          $begingroup$

          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, $mathbb{C}C_3cong mathbb{C}oplusmathbb{C}oplusmathbb{C}$).






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            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
















          2












          $begingroup$

          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, $mathbb{C}C_3cong mathbb{C}oplusmathbb{C}oplusmathbb{C}$).






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            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














          2












          2








          2





          $begingroup$

          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, $mathbb{C}C_3cong mathbb{C}oplusmathbb{C}oplusmathbb{C}$).






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          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, $mathbb{C}C_3cong mathbb{C}oplusmathbb{C}oplusmathbb{C}$).







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          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


















          • $begingroup$
            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


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          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.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          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





















































          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







          Popular posts from this blog

          Nidaros erkebispedøme

          Birsay

          Was Woodrow Wilson really a Liberal?Was World War I a war of liberals against authoritarians?Founding Fathers...