Completeness of irreducible representations

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter alexgs
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Representations
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the completeness of irreducible representations of finite groups, specifically addressing the implications of having zero entries in the matrices representing these representations. The participants explore the orthogonality relations and the conditions under which certain vectors formed from these matrices can be considered in the context of completeness.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Alex questions the completeness argument by asking what happens if all entries in a specific row and column of the irreducible representation matrices are zero, suggesting this could invalidate the proof of orthogonality.
  • One participant asserts that the matrices D(g) are invertible, implying that having a zero in a specific row and column is impossible.
  • Another participant seeks clarification on the reasoning behind the invertibility of the matrices and how it relates to the presence of zero entries.
  • Discussion includes the orthogonality theorem, which states that vectors must be normalized, leading to the conclusion that zero vectors cannot exist among the orthogonal vectors.
  • Concerns are raised about constructing a new matrix from the irreducible representations and whether it could have a zero row, with a participant noting that a rectangular matrix with a zero row is not invertible.
  • One participant highlights the need to consider the irreducibility of the representation, pointing out that trivial representations could allow for zero entries without violating the completeness argument.
  • Confusion arises regarding the interpretation of fixed indices in the original question, leading to a participant's admission of misunderstanding the context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of zero entries in the matrices of irreducible representations, with some asserting that it is impossible while others question the completeness argument based on specific scenarios. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the conditions under which zero entries could exist.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the orthogonality relations and the definitions of invertibility, but there are unresolved assumptions about the nature of irreducible representations and the implications of trivial representations.

alexgs
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
"Completeness" of irreducible representations

Hi,
For a finite group of order n each irreducible representation consists of n matrices [D(g)], one for each element in the group. For a given row and column (e.g. i,j) you can form an n-dimensional vector by taking the ij element of D(g) for each g. i.e. the vector:

{ [D(g1)]_ij, [D(g2)]_ij, ... , [D(gn)]_ij }

The orthogonality relations say that the vectors corresponding to different pairs ij are orthonormal and vectors formed from two different irreps are orthogonal.

Textbooks give an argument like:

Count the number of orthogonal vectors: If the dimension of the irrep is k then there are k^2 orthogonal vectors formed by all the combinations of i and j. Each different irrep adds k^2 vectors all orthogonal to each other and orthogonal to the vectors from the other irreps (k can be different for the different irreps). So we have in total k1^2 + k2^2 + ... + kp^2 different orthogonal vectors (where k1, k2, ... kp are the dimensions of the different irreps.) But there can only be at most n orthogonal n-dimensional vectors. Therefore, k1^2 + k2^2 + ... + kp^2 <= n.

My question is:

What happens if, in an irrep, all the entries are 0 for some particular row and column? i.e. for some i and j, [D(g)]_ij = 0 for every g. Then you should not count this vector in your list of orthogonal vectors.

That is, in your list of k^2 orthogonal vectors you might have some 0 vectors. This seems to break the proof.

How do you show that there is never such a situation where all the matrices of an irrep have a 0 in the ith row and jth column??

Thanks a lot,
Alex

p.s. The argument is given, for example, on page 41 of Group Theory in Physics by Tung
 
Physics news on Phys.org
alexgs said:
How do you show that there is never such a situation where all the matrices of an irrep have a 0 in the ith row and jth column??
Because D(g) is invertible.
 
Thanks for the quick reply. Would you mind explaining in a little more detail?
 
alexgs said:
Thanks for the quick reply. Would you mind explaining in a little more detail?
What part don't you understand? Why it's invertible, or how that answers your question? Both should be straightforward applications of your definitions and basic computational facts.
 
The inverse of the matrix D(g) is D(g^-1) since a representation is a homomorphism from the group to the space of matrices:

D(g)*D(g^-1) = D(g*g^-1) = D(e) = 1

Knowing this, though, how can you show it's impossible that each D(g) have a 0 in the same place?

Thanks
 
I've got it. The orthogonality theorem says that each "vector" is normalized. There's no way to normalize a zero vector so none of the vectors can be a zero vector.

Out of curiosity, how were you thinking of showing this by saying the representation matrices are invertible?
 
alexgs said:
I've got it.
That sounds right!

Out of curiosity, how were you thinking of showing this by saying the representation matrices are invertible?
Characterizations of invertibility -- e.g. a square matrix is invertible if and only if it has full rank if and only if it has nonzero determinant. Either of those two conditions are easy to show if one of the rows or columns is zero; do you see how?
 
I think. But the matrix that has the zero row would be the matrix built out of the vectors, not the actual matrices of the irrep.

i.e. if the (I,J) element of each D(g) is 0 then build a new matrix whose (i,j) element is:
[D(g_j)]_iJ
This matrix is unitary (therefore invertible) by the orthogonality relation, because each row of the matrix is one of the "vectors" I described in the first post and these vectors are orthonormal.

But the I'th row of the matrix will be all zeros since the elements in this row are [D(g_j)]_IJ, which is zero for every g.

I guess you could imagine an irreducible representation as a 3-dimensional matrix whose third "axis" corresponds to the different group elements. Then a "cross-section" which included that third axis would have a row of zeros.

edit: actually the matrix I described above would not be square. but still, a rectangular matrix with a zero row is not invertible.
 
Last edited:
Hurkyl said:
Because D(g) is invertible.

This is certainly not enough. You need to know that the representation is irreducible because for the trivial representation, we can just have all the entries mapping into a 2x2 identity matrix, and then the 01 entry of each matrix is 0.

I don't know the answer yet, but I'll think about it and post it if I figure it out.
 
  • #10
masnevets said:
This is certainly not enough. You need to know that the representation is irreducible because for the trivial representation, we can just have all the entries mapping into a 2x2 identity matrix, and then the 01 entry of each matrix is 0.
Oh! I misread the original question. I thought it was fixed i, fixed g, variable j... not fixed i fixed j variable g. :frown: I feel silly now.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K