MHB Characterizations of the Orthogonal Groups _ Tapp, Ch. 3, Section 2

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Kristopher Tapp's book: Matrix Groups for Undergraduates.

I am currently focussed on and studying Section 2 in Chapter 3, namely:

"2. Several Characterizations of the Orthogonal Groups".

I need help in fully understanding some important remarks following Proposition 3.10.

Section 2 in Ch. 3, including Proposition 3.10 reads as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/3996
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/3997

Near to the bottom of the above text, after the statement of Proposition 3.10, we read:" ... ... Since $$U(n)$$ is isomorphic to its image, $$\rho_n ( U(n) )$$, ... ... "My question is how do we know that $$U(n)$$ is isomorphic to its image, $$\rho_n ( U_n) )$$ ... ... indeed, further ... how do we rigorously prove that $$U(n)$$ is isomorphic to its image, $$\rho_n ( U(n) )$$?I note in passing that Proposition 2.2 on page 25 of Tapp's book (see below for details) proves that $$\rho_n$$ is a linear transformation ... and I also note that intuitively $$\rho_n$$ would seem to be injective (but how on Earth do we prove it?) ... but I have no idea of how to prove the surjectivity of $$\rho_n$$ in the case of $$U(n) $$... ... I hope someone can help ...

Peter
***NOTE***

Tapp introduces $$\rho_n$$ in Section 1 of Ch. 2 (pages 24-25) ... so I am providing these pages as follows:View attachment 3998
View attachment 3999
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

In my first replie in post
http://mathhelpboards.com/linear-abstract-algebra-14/rotations-complex-matrices-real-matrices-proof-tapp-proposition-2-2-a-14380.html

I told you it was easy to check that $\rho_{n}$ was injective but NOT SURJECTIVE, reflect on it taking $\rho_{1}$ as an example.

What you have in Proposition 2.2 is that $\rho_{n}:\mathcal{M}_{n}(\Bbb{C})\longrightarrow \mathcal{M}_{2n}\Bbb{R}$ is a ring homomorphism, so we can apply first isomorphis theorem, which says that
$\begin{array}{cccc}\bar{\rho_{n}}:&\mathcal{M}_{n}(\Bbb{C})/Ker(\rho_{n}) &\longrightarrow& Im(\rho_{n})\\
& A+Ker(\rho_{n}) & \mapsto & \rho_{n}(A) \end{array}$

Is a ring isomorphism, but we know that $\rho_{n}$ is injective, so $Ker(\rho_{n})=\{0\}$
 
Fallen Angel said:
Hi Peter,

In my first replie in post
http://mathhelpboards.com/linear-abstract-algebra-14/rotations-complex-matrices-real-matrices-proof-tapp-proposition-2-2-a-14380.html

I told you it was easy to check that $\rho_{n}$ was injective but NOT SURJECTIVE, reflect on it taking $\rho_{1}$ as an example.

What you have in Proposition 2.2 is that $\rho_{n}:\mathcal{M}_{n}(\Bbb{C})\longrightarrow \mathcal{M}_{2n}\Bbb{R}$ is a ring homomorphism, so we can apply first isomorphis theorem, which says that
$\begin{array}{cccc}\bar{\rho_{n}}:&\mathcal{M}_{n}(\Bbb{C})/Ker(\rho_{n}) &\longrightarrow& Im(\rho_{n})\\
& A+Ker(\rho_{n}) & \mapsto & \rho_{n}(A) \end{array}$

Is a ring isomorphism, but we know that $\rho_{n}$ is injective, so $Ker(\rho_{n})=\{0\}$
Hi Fallen Angel,

Thanks for the post ...

MY APOLOGIES! I made what was essentially a typo in my post ... I meant "injective" ... but for some strange reason that I cannot explain (mind you it is late here in Tasmania ... ), I typed "surjective" ... ...

I have now edited my post ...

Again ... sorry about the error ... now reflecting on $$\rho_n$$ as a ring homomorphism ... ...

Thanks for your help ...

Peter
 
Peter said:
Hi Fallen Angel,

Thanks for the post ...

MY APOLOGIES! I made what was essentially a typo in my post ... I meant "injective" ... but for some strange reason that I cannot explain (mind you it is late here in Tasmania ... ), I typed "surjective" ... ...

I have now edited my post ...

Again ... sorry about the error ... now reflecting on $$\rho_n$$ as a ring homomorphism ... ...

Thanks for your help ...

Peter
Thanks for the help in showing that $$\overline{ \rho}_n$$ is an isomorphism ... allows me to move on through Tapp's textbook with more confidence ...

Appreciate your help!

Peter***EDIT***

Alternatively ... Presumably we could have used the First Isomorphism Theorem for Groups ... ... is that correct?

Peter
 
Last edited:
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...
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...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top