I State of a Generator in Representation Theory

Silviu
Messages
612
Reaction score
11
Hello! I am reading something about representation theory (just started) and I encountered this: "We will denote the state in the adjoint representation corresponding to an arbitrary generator ## X_a ## as |## X_a ##>". What is the state of a generator in a certain representation?
Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
They did not talk about the state of a generator.
You have a generator... this can generate a state. They are introducing a notation to help talk about that.
Maybe you need to go back to find the definitions of "state" and "generator", and find out what a generator does?
 
Simon Bridge said:
They did not talk about the state of a generator.
You have a generator... this can generate a state. They are introducing a notation to help talk about that.
Maybe you need to go back to find the definitions of "state" and "generator", and find out what a generator does?
Thank you for your answer. I am still a bit confused. From what I understood generators are part of the Lie Algebra and they can generate the whole Lie Group. For example for SO(2) if S is the generator any rotation by ##\alpha## degrees is written as ##e^{i\alpha S}##. So, I understand a generator generates a whole group which usually acts on a vector space. Please let me know if anything I said is wrong. Now, I just don't understand where the idea of state appears in this as I thought that generators are generating a group not states.
 
I get confusded too and authors can use the same word to refer to slightly different things.
I do not have the context of the passage - but I would see the above as meaning that |A> is a single state belonging to the group that is generated by A.
The passages that follow should include examples that will make the matter clear. If they do not, then get a different book.
 
##\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...

Similar threads

Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Back
Top