Representation of finite group question


by quasar987
Tags: finite, representation
quasar987
quasar987 is offline
#1
Feb1-10, 06:55 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
quasar987's Avatar
P: 4,768
Does anyone know how to prove that any irreducible representation of a finite group G has degree at most |G|?

Equivalently, that every representation of degree >|G| is reductible.

Thx!
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Cougars' diverse diet helped them survive the Pleistocene mass extinction
Cyber risks can cause disruption on scale of 2008 crisis, study says
Mantis shrimp stronger than airplanes
Hurkyl
Hurkyl is offline
#2
Feb1-10, 07:12 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,101
I suspect your conjecture is true -- for any vector v, the set Gv should span a direct summand of the entire G-vector space. But I haven't proven it yet, so grain of salt.
quasar987
quasar987 is offline
#3
Feb2-10, 08:30 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
quasar987's Avatar
P: 4,768
If F is the field, write FG for the group algebra and call V the FG-module associated with a given representation of G. For any non zero v in V, Gv has at most |G| elements, and so the vector subspace W = span(Gv) has dimension at most |G| and it is clearly stable under the action of G (i.e., it is an FG-submodule of V). But W is non trivial and so if V is irreducible, it must be that W=V. Thus |G|>=dim(W)=dim(V).

I think this work, but according to Dummit & Foote Exercice 5 in the section on representation theory, we can do better and show that an irreducible representation has dimension strictly less than |G|!

Hurkyl
Hurkyl is offline
#4
Feb2-10, 09:02 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,101

Representation of finite group question


Oh! Silly me, I was looking for a direct sum decomposition -- I should have paid more attention to the definitions.


So... I think all we need to do now is to prove that FG is itself a reducible representation, right?
quasar987
quasar987 is offline
#5
Feb3-10, 05:48 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
quasar987's Avatar
P: 4,768
It seems to me that the |G|-dimensional FG-module FG is reducible because if G={e,g_1,...g_r}, for v:=e+g_1+...g_r, we have that span(v) is a one dimensional FG-submodule of FG.

But why do you think this suffices? Is every |G|-dimensional FG-module isomorphic to FG?
Hurkyl
Hurkyl is offline
#6
Feb3-10, 01:40 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,101
Quote Quote by quasar987 View Post
But why do you think this suffices?
I thought it works as an addendum to the previous proof.
quasar987
quasar987 is offline
#7
Feb3-10, 02:25 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
quasar987's Avatar
P: 4,768
In what sense?
wofsy
wofsy is offline
#8
Feb3-10, 02:53 PM
P: 707
If the field is the complex numbers:

The restriction of the representation to a cyclic subgroup is a direct sum of 1 dimensional representations. Since the representation of the entire group is ireducible the number of these 1 dimensional representations in the decomposition must be less that the order of G.
Hurkyl
Hurkyl is offline
#9
Feb3-10, 03:27 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,101
Quote Quote by quasar987 View Post
In what sense?
That it gives more information about the span of Gv.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
representation of lorentz group Advanced Physics Homework 9
Understandig Representation of SO(3) Group High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics 2
a question of element order of finite group Linear & Abstract Algebra 0
Finite Dimensional Representation of SU(2) Linear & Abstract Algebra 2
Question: Elements of Order 2 in Finite Abelian Group Linear & Abstract Algebra 10