Is there an isomorphism between O(2n) and SO(2n)xZ2?

  • Thread starter Thread starter naele
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Isomorphism
naele
Messages
199
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


Is there an isomorphism between
<br /> O(2n)\simeq SO(2n)\times \mathbb{Z}_2<br />
<br /> O(2n+1)\simeq SO(2n+1)\times \mathbb{Z}_2<br />


Homework Equations


First isomorphism theorem

The Attempt at a Solution


I think, if I can show a homomorphism between SO(2n)\times\mathbb{Z}_2 and O(2n) then showing whether the kernel is just the identity or not shouldn't be too difficult. But, this is my first time showing a homomorphism with a product of two groups, so I'm unsure how to proceed, namely how do I show that \phi(S_1S_2)=\phi(S_1)\phi(S_2)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Kind of an update, but for the odd case if I use regular matrix multiplication as a homomorphism it seems fairly straightforward, but the even case is still giving me trouble.
 
The odd case is straightforward because an odd-dimensional matrix of unit determinant becomes a matrix of determinant -1 by multiplying by -I. So any element of O(2n+1) can be obtained by multiplying an element of SO(2n+1) by either \pm I.

In the odd case, this doesn't work, but there is a semidirect product structure

O(2n)\simeq SO(2n)\ltimes \mathbb{Z}_2 .

In this case, we can obtain a matrix with determinant -1 by multiplying an SO(2n) matrix by an involution R that negates an odd number of columns. Equivalently this is composed of an odd number of reflections in \mathbb{R}^{2n}. Since R is a nontrivial automorphism of SO(2n), this is not a direct product.
 
I see thanks for the help. Semidirect products are beyond the scope of my class, though at least so far.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top