I Are my thoughts about groups correct?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Tio Barnabe
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Groups Thoughts
Tio Barnabe
I would kindly appreciate any corrections to my conclusions, because I need to get this subject straight for learning QFT in a satisfactory way.

From what I have been reading about Lie groups so far, I have concluded the following:

1 - A group is independent of a representation, but we usually define a group using some representation. We do that in order to get the Lie Algebra of the group.

2 - Once we get the Lie Algebra of the group, we can derive what it looks like in any representation.

3 - A given group has the same number of generators in any representation, because of 1 above.

[I realized that these properties of groups are analogous to those of topological spaces, in the sense that we usually define a topological space, for instance, the 2-sphere in ##\mathbb{R}^3##, because it seems the only reasonable way to define it. After defining, the 2-sphere becomes totally independent of ##\mathbb{R}^3##, i.e., we don't need to see it as embedded in ##\mathbb{R}^3##. Other examples are the cylinder, the torus... The analog of various representations of a group would be various possible metrics for a given topological space.]

Now, comes a part that I still don't understand.

When we are using the ##2 \otimes 2## representation of ##SU(2)##, i.e., the direct sum of two 2-dimensional representations of ##SU(2)##, it seems that the correct way to operate with the transformation matrices, is to operate with them on a matrix ##M## from the left & from the right of ##M##. This is in contradiction with the assumption that the transformation matrices would operate on vectors, only from the left.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Another question: can we say whether a representation is irreducible by testing commutativity of their matrices? I remember from QM that a set of matrices can be diagonalized by the same matrix iff the matrices commute with each other.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...

Similar threads

Back
Top