## Representation Theory: Definitions and Basics

**Point of post: **In this post I will start my discussion of the representation theory of finite groups from a simplistic point of view

*Motivation*

The beginnings of representation theory can be traced all the way back to the likes of Gauss, Lagrange, et al. From then it’s spread like wildfire to the point where one would be hard-pressed to find any subject in modern mathematics which doesn’t benefit substantially from some aspect of representation theory. What is representation theory, this mystical subject? Representation theory is just another instance of a common technique in mathematics. This technique can be badly verbalized as “simplification through transfer”. In essence, one takes a complex object/structure and associates with it another object/structure which is more tractable. For example, given the -sphere it is possible to extract by purely topological means books upon books of information: it’s compact, connected, path connected, second countable, etc. But, it happens that , such an ostensibly simple structure, does not yield all of its secrets to purely topological methods. For example, using all of these properties it’s impossible (in any practical sense) to decide whether (where is the torus). Out of this was born algebraic topology, where we learned that we could tell much about a topological space by associating to it certain groups: homotopy groups and homology groups for example. In short, we turned damn near intractable questions in point-set topology into questions about groups.

Representation theory lives in the same vein. We aim to take complicated problems in group theory and transform them magically into questions in the tamer field of linear algebra. Put explicitly, a *representation *of a group is a homomorphism where is the group of invertible linear transformations on some complex vector space , thought of as a group under the usual multiplication (composition). With this in mind, let’s begin

*Representation Definition*

Let be a finite group and be a finite-dimensional complex vector space. Then a *representation of on *is a homomorphism

where is defined, as usual, to be the set of invertible endomorphisms on under composition. Often when dealing explicitly with images of group elements we will tend to write (or whatever symbol we use for the representation with) in lieu of . We define the *degree *of to be the dimension of , or symbolically . We call to be a *representation space *of , or more commonly (indulging in somewhat of a notational inaccuracy) a *representation *of .

*Unitary Representations*

Recall that an *inner product* on a complex vector space of finite dimension is defined to be map such that the following axioms hold:

(note that these axioms aren’t logically independent, see here for more information). We call a complex vector space with a designated inner product an *inner product space* or a *pre-Hilbert space*. Assuming you already have a fair background in the theory of inner product spaces (once I actually get to blogging about them with my concurrently running lin. alg. series I’ll link to them) we just remind the reader of a few key facts and definitions. Let and be two pre-Hilbert spaces. Then, is called *unitary *if for all we have

We reserve the term *unitary endomorphism* when both the domain and codomain of the endomorphism not only coincide as vector spaces but also as pre-Hilbert spaces. We denote the set of all unitary endomorphisms on a pre-Hilbert space by . We first note that for any pre-Hilbert space one has that . Indeed, it’s clear that since invertibility is equivalent to injectivity for endomorphisms on finite-dimensional spaces and for any and distinct we have that

and thus and thus , from where injectivity and thus invertibility follow. The fact that is a subgroup follows from the fact that if then evidently for any we have that

and if then since

With this in mind we define a homomorphism where is a finite group and a finite-dimensional complex pre-Hilbert space a *unitary representation of in .*

Our first theorem regarding representations is that given any representation where is a pre-Hilbert space then we can canonically define an inner product on for which is unitary under this new inner product. More formally:

**Theorem: ***Let be a pre-Hilbert space and a representation then*

*is an inner product on for which is a unitary endomorphism on for each .*

**Proof: **It’s clear that is, in fact, an inner product on . To see that each of the are unitary it suffices to note that for every we have that

from where the conclusion follows.

With this in mind we now make the convention that when we say “representation” it’s always meant to be interpreted as “unitary representation”. The above theorems says that there is really no loss is making this restriction since using the above one can show for any homomorphism where is finite and is some finite-dimensional complex pre-Hilbert space there exists some such that for all .

**References:**

1.Simon, Barry. *Representations of Finite and Compact Groups*. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 1996. Print.

2. Serre, Jean Pierre. *Linear Representations of Finite Groups*. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1977. Print.

[…] Point of post: This post is a continuation of this one. […]

Pingback by Representation Theory: Definitions and Basics (Pt. II Equivalent Representations) « Abstract Nonsense | January 18, 2011 |

[…] and for all some ordered orthonormal basis . We then define the map (where we’ve denoted the degree of by for notational convenience) by . We call this the matrix realization of . We first claim […]

Pingback by Representation Theory: Matrix Entry Functions « Abstract Nonsense | February 22, 2011 |

[…] has the usual inner product ,denoted just when no confusion will arise, given […]

Pingback by Structure of Euclidean Space « Abstract Nonsense | May 22, 2011 |

Some typos to be fixed:

Motivation

“we could tell must” to “we could tell much”

“poin-set” to “point-set”

“Put explicit” to “Put explicitly”

Unitary Representation

inner product mapping “V x V -> V” changed so the map is to the complex numbers

Comment by Stephen Tashiro | September 19, 2011 |

Stephen,

Thank you very much for the corrections! They have been changed!

Best,

Alex

Comment by Alex Youcis | September 19, 2011 |

[…] as nothing more than a functor where is the one-element category associated to . Similarly, any complex group representation can be seen as a functor […]

Pingback by Functors (Pt. I) « Abstract Nonsense | December 27, 2011 |

[…] What we’d now like to take a look at is, given a group thought of as a category with one object where all the arrows are invertible, the functor category where is some field and interpret in a more hospitable way. Namely, similar to the case we see that we can interpret a functor as being equivalent to an ordered pair where is some finite dimensional -space and is a homomorphism . In other words, a functor is nothing more than a finite-dimensional representation of . In particular, we can easily interpret as being the category of finite dimensional -representations of . […]

Pingback by Functor Categories (Pt. I) « Abstract Nonsense | January 7, 2012 |

[…] –of course, this is wholly true as is seen in the beautiful and useful study of (complex) representation theory of finite groups. As a last example, let’s consider unital rings. We know then that every ring embeds into […]

Pingback by Yoneda’s Lemma (Pt. I) « Abstract Nonsense | January 14, 2012 |