A Why does the Lie group ##SO(N)## have ##n=\frac{N(N-1)}{2}## real parameters?

LagrangeEuler
Messages
711
Reaction score
22
When we have a Lie group, we want to obtain number of real parameters. In case of orthogonal matrices we have equation
R^{\text{T}}R=I,
that could be written in form
\sum_i R_{i,j}R_{i,k}=\delta_{j,k}.
For this real algebra ##SO(N)## there is ##n=\frac{N(N-1)}{2}## real parameters. Why this is the case when unitary matrix is not symmetric?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
LagrangeEuler said:
Why this is the case when unitary matrix is not symmetric?
Why is what the case? ##\dim U_n(\mathbb{C}) =n^2## and with the restriction ##\det =1## we get ##\dim SU_n(\mathbb{C})= n^2-1##
 
Orthogonal matrices are not necessarily symmetric, but since RTR is symmetric, we get at most n(n+1)/2 constraints in n^2 variables. Thus we are left n(n-1)/2 degrees of freedom, with some hand-waving involved.
 
  • Like
Likes WWGD
One approach is to note that the number of real parameters is the same as the dimensions of the Lie algebra. We consider a group element ##R## and linear-ize to first order to produce an element ##R' =R+\epsilon K ## which must obey the group properties up to first order.
$$\begin{align*}
&\Big(R^T + \epsilon K^T\Big)\Big(R+\epsilon K \Big)
=R^T R & + \epsilon(K^T R + R^T K) \\
&\text{at }R=I \text{ we must have }
&K^T + K = 0\end{align*}$$
Thus we must have zeros along the diagonal. The upper triangular matrix part of the matrix is just the negative transpose of the lower triangular matrix, that is ##K_{ij}=-K_{ji}##. So the number of real parameters for K is the same as the number of upper triangular components which is ##n(n-1)/2##. As the dimension of the Lie algebra and the group are the same, the number of parameters for the group is also ##n(n-1)/2##.
 
##\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...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top