Happy holidays,BenDecomposing tensor product of GL(2,C) representations

swallowtail
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi PF bloggers,
I'm trying to decompose a representation of GL(2,C) on C^2\otimes Sym^{N-2}(C^2) into IRREPS and I'm wondering if there's anything similar to Clebsh-Gordan coefficients which could assist one in this task?
Any good references one could point out?
Happy holidays!

P.S.: action is described as g(v\otimes w) := g(v)\otimes g(w), and 'Sym^{N-2}(C^2) ' is thought as homogeneous polynomials of degree (N-2) in two variables.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,

To decompose a tensor product of representations of GL(n,C) into a direct sum of irreps, use the Littlewood-Richardson rule:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littlewood–Richardson_rule

In your case, C^2 is the standard representation represented by the partition (1), and Sym^{N-2}(C^2) is the representation represented by the partition (N-2), so the decomposition is

Sym^{N-1}(C^2) \oplus S_{(N-2,1)}(C^2)

where the second thing is the irrep corresponding to the partition (N-2,1). See this for one possible construction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schur_functor
A more combinatorial description can be found in Section 2 of this paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.4666
 
##\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...
Back
Top