Representations of finite groups -- Equivalent representations

In summary, the conversation discusses a transformation method for obtaining equivalent representations of a cyclic group. However, the resulting matrix is not of second order and is not unitary with respect to the standard inner product. This can be resolved by defining a different inner product.
  • #1
LagrangeEuler
717
20
I am confused. Look for instance cyclic ##C_2## group representation where
[tex]D(e)=
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0\\
0 & 1
\end{bmatrix} [/tex]
and
[tex]D(g)=
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1\\
1 & 0
\end{bmatrix} [/tex]
and let's take invertible matrix
[tex]A=
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 2\\
3 & 4
\end{bmatrix}. [/tex]
Then
[tex]A^{-1}=
\frac{1}{2}\begin{bmatrix}
-4 & 2\\
3 & -1
\end{bmatrix} [/tex]
Then
[tex]\tilde{D}(g)=A^{-1}\cdot D(g) \cdot A=
\frac{1}{2}\begin{bmatrix}
-4 & 2\\
3 & -1
\end{bmatrix} \cdot
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1\\
1 & 0
\end{bmatrix} \cdot
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 2\\
3 & 4
\end{bmatrix}=
\begin{bmatrix}
-5 & -6\\
5 & 5
\end{bmatrix}
[/tex]
end that is not second order element, i.e. ##\tilde{D}(g)\cdot \tilde{D}(g)## is not equal to ##I##. Why is that the case if with this transform one should get equivalent representation of group ##C_2##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It should be
\begin{bmatrix}
-5 & -6\\
4 & 5
\end{bmatrix}
 
  • Like
Likes LagrangeEuler
  • #3
martinbn said:
It should be
\begin{bmatrix}
-5 & -6\\
4 & 5
\end{bmatrix}
Problem is still there. My question is why that element is not of second order, or why I do not get ##C_2## group with similarity transform?
 
  • #4
LagrangeEuler said:
Problem is still there. My question is why that element is not of second order, or why I do not get ##C_2## group with similarity transform?
It is! Did you try the corrected one?
 
  • #5
martinbn said:
It is! Did you try the corrected one?
No sorry. Everything is fine.
 
  • #6
Just one more. I found somewhere that any matrix representation of finite group is unitary. Matrix
##\begin{bmatrix}
-5 & -6\\
4 & 5
\end{bmatrix} ##
however is not unitary.
 
  • #7
LagrangeEuler said:
Just one more. I found somewhere that any matrix representation of finite group is unitary.
This statement means that it can be unitarized. In other words you can define an inner product such that the representation is unitary with respect to. But it doesn't say that it is unitary with respect to the standard inner product.
 
  • Like
Likes LagrangeEuler

1. What is the definition of equivalent representations of finite groups?

Equivalent representations of finite groups are two representations of the same group that are related by a change of basis. This means that the two representations have the same underlying structure and can be transformed into one another by a linear transformation.

2. How do you determine if two representations are equivalent?

To determine if two representations are equivalent, you can check if there exists a linear transformation that maps one representation onto the other. This linear transformation must preserve the group structure, meaning that it must commute with the group elements.

3. Can equivalent representations have different matrices?

Yes, equivalent representations can have different matrices. This is because the matrices are simply different ways of representing the same underlying structure, and a change of basis can result in different matrices for the same representation.

4. What is the significance of equivalent representations?

Equivalent representations are important because they allow us to understand the same group in different ways. This can provide insight into the structure and properties of the group, and can also make calculations and proofs easier by choosing the most convenient representation.

5. How are equivalent representations related to isomorphic groups?

Equivalent representations are related to isomorphic groups in that two isomorphic groups will have equivalent representations. This is because isomorphic groups have the same underlying structure, and therefore can be represented in the same way. However, not all equivalent representations imply isomorphism between groups.

Similar threads

Replies
24
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
8
Views
796
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
5
Views
966
Replies
27
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
2
Views
788
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
5
Views
945
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
6
Views
1K
Back
Top