Register to reply 
Equivalence of definitions for regular representations 
Share this thread: 
#1
Mar2912, 07:37 PM

P: 743

There seem to be two definitions for a regular representation of a group, with respect to a field k. In particular, one definition is that the regular representation is just left multiplication on the group algebra kG, while the other is defined on the set of all functions [itex] f: G \to k [/itex]. I do not see why these are equivalent, and would appreciate any advice as to why this is the case.



#2
Mar2912, 07:58 PM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 2,020

(I'm assuming G is a finite group.) The element ##\sum_{g \in G} c_g g## in kG can be thought of as the function ##G \to k## defined by ##g \mapsto c_g##. Conversely, a function ##f \colon G \to k## gives rise to the element ##\sum_g f(g) g \in kG##. From this it's easy to see that the two vector spaces kG and {functions ##G \to K##} are isomorphic; in fact the map ##\sum_g c_g g \mapsto (g \mapsto c_g)## is an isomorphism.
Now all you have to do is check that this isomorphism respects the Gaction. You've already indicated that the action on kG is given by left multiplication. The action of G on a function ##f \colon G \to k## is defined by ##(h \cdot f)(g) = f(h^{1}g)## (for ##h \in G##). Now note that $$ h \sum_g c_g g = \sum_g c_g hg = \sum_{h^{1}g} c_{h^{1}g} g. $$ This shows that the isomorphism is Glinear. 


#3
Mar2912, 08:11 PM

P: 743

Excellent, thank you.



Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Ellipse: geometric equivalence of two definitions  General Math  10  
Field trace and norm (Equivalence between definitions)  Linear & Abstract Algebra  2  
Equivalence betwen diferent definitions of charge  Beyond the Standard Model  0  
Regular and nonregular magic squares  Calculus & Beyond Homework  0  
Volumes of Regular Icosahedron and Regular Tetrahedron  General Math  20 