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:
Thread 'Determine whether ##125## is a unit in ##\mathbb{Z_471}##'
This is the question, I understand the concept, in ##\mathbb{Z_n}## an element is a is a unit if and only if gcd( a,n) =1. My understanding of backwards substitution, ... i have using Euclidean algorithm, ##471 = 3⋅121 + 108## ##121 = 1⋅108 + 13## ##108 =8⋅13+4## ##13=3⋅4+1## ##4=4⋅1+0## using back-substitution, ##1=13-3⋅4## ##=(121-1⋅108)-3(108-8⋅13)## ... ##= 121-(471-3⋅121)-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24(471-3⋅121## ##=121-471+3⋅121-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24⋅471+72⋅121##...
Back
Top