What can the multiplication table tell us about the representation?

sadness
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
In the appendix B of Goldstein's classical mechanics (3rd edition), the authors discussed the dihedral group and said:

"Notice how the group elements in class 3 involve only \sigma_1 and \sigma_3. Thus, they are independent of the matrices I and \sigma_2, as is expected from the structure of the multiplication table. However, since each representation has an identity element, there is no simple association between classes and representations."

Why does the structure of the multiplication table indicate this independence? And what does the last sentence mean? I've attached the multiplication table and the representations.
 

Attachments

  • 1.PNG
    1.PNG
    25.3 KB · Views: 519
Physics news on Phys.org
This is just a clumsy way to say that the Dihedral groups are semidirect products ##\mathbb{Z}_2 \ltimes \mathbb{Z}_n\,.##

Elements of order ##2## do not occur in (the multiplication table of) ##\mathbb{Z}_3 \triangleleft D_3##, and there is no "simple association between classes and representations" means, that the product isn't direct: ## \mathbb{Z}_2## operates non trivially on ##\mathbb{Z}_3##.
 
##\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
14
Views
2K
  • Poll Poll
Replies
4
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • Poll Poll
Replies
5
Views
8K
Replies
20
Views
6K
4
Replies
175
Views
25K
Back
Top