Undergrad Irreducible representations of the Dn group

Click For Summary
The dihedral group D_n does not possess irreducible representations with dimensions exceeding two. This conclusion arises from the group's structure, which includes a normal Abelian subgroup of index 2. When restricting an irreducible representation to this subgroup, it can be expressed as a sum of one-dimensional representations. The action of the full group is influenced by a representative from the nontrivial coset, leading to either invariance of one-dimensional spaces or the combination of two such spaces. Thus, any irreducible representation of D_n must be one or two-dimensional.
Robin04
Messages
259
Reaction score
16
TL;DR
Is is true that the dihedral group Dn does not have an irreducible representation with a dimension higher than two?
Is is true that the dihedral group ##D_n## does not have an irreducible representation with a dimension higher than two?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can see that in following way. The group has a normal Abelian subgroup of index 2. If you have an irreducible representation of the dihedral group say ##V##, restrict it to the subgroup, then it is a sum of one dimensional representation ##V=\oplus V_i##. The action of the full group is determined by the action of a representative of the nontrivial coset (remember index two). Pick one of the one dimensional spaces say ##V_1##, the representative either sends it to itself or to another one dimensional subsapce say ##V_2##. Then in the first case ##V_1## is invariant under the full group, in the second case ##V_1\oplus V_2## is. So it must be that ##V## is either one or two dimensional.
 
  • Like
Likes nuuskur, member 587159 and Infrared
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
486
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K