Undergrad Tensor decomposition, Sym representations and irreps.

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the relationship between tensor decomposition, symmetric representations, and irreducible representations (irreps) in group theory. The first question addresses whether tensor decomposition implies that the resulting subrepresentations are irreducible, but responses indicate uncertainty about the clarity of the question. The second question posits that Symn representations are irreps, but participants clarify that finite groups have a limited number of irreducible representations, suggesting that not all Symn representations can be irreducible. Lastly, the connection between Symn representations and tensor decomposition remains unclear, with participants expressing confusion about the specifics of the inquiry. Understanding these concepts requires a deeper exploration of the properties of finite group representations.
knowwhatyoudontknow
Messages
30
Reaction score
5
TL;DR
Tensor decomposition, Sym[SUB]n[/SUB] representations and irreps.
New to group theory. I have 3 questions:

1. Tensor decomposition into Tab = T[ab] +T(traceless){ab} + Tr(T{ab}) leads to invariant subspaces. Is this enough to imply these subreps are irreducible?

2. The Symn representations of a group are irreps. Why?

3. What is the connection between Symn representations and tensor decomposition?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You need to give more details and context. Are you looking at representations of finite groups?

1. I am not sure what the question is.

2. This doesn't seem right. A finite group has only finitely many irreducible representations. So the ##Sym^n## cannot be all irreducible.

3. Also not sure what you are asking.
 
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 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K