(At least, I think it's simple.)(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Disclaimer: I'm approaching this subject from the vantage point of a chemist, so be careful with how much lingo/jargon/rigor you lay on me

The claim is that if you have two representations of a group, [itex]\Gamma_1[/itex] and [itex]\Gamma_2[/itex], with bases [itex]\{ f_i \}[/itex] and [itex]\{ g_j \}[/itex], then the set of products [itex]\{f_i g_j\}[/itex] is a basis for the direct product representation. Fine. But in the process of showing this, the following assertion is made: If [itex]\hat R[/itex] is an element of the group, then

[tex]

\hat R(f_i g_j) = \hat R(f_i) \hat R(g_j).

[/tex]

...huh? How does that work? How do I know that if I apply a group operation to a product of basis elements, then it's just the product of the operation applied to the individual basis elements? I missed something there, because (a priori) that move is just as suspect as saying that [itex]x(yz) = (xy)(xz) = x^2yz[/itex] for [itex]x,y,z\in \mathbb R[/itex].

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Simple Q about direct product representation of a group

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**