## Schur’s Lemma (First and Second Forms)

**Point of post: **In this post we discuss Schur’s lemma, and the necessary prerequisite concepts, such as intertwinors.

*Motivation*

Schur’s lemma will function as one of the main tools in proving theorems. In essence, Schur’s lemma says that the kinds of maps between two representation spaces of a finite group which “commute” with irreps (in a sense made precise below) are very limited. In essence, any such map is either the zero map or invertible. We shall use this basic concept to prove other “versions” of Schur’s lemma which will prove useful in different situations.

*Intertwinors*

Let be a finite group and and two representations. Then a map is called an *interwinor *for and if for each the following diagram commutes:

Our first theorem regarding intertwinors will play a pivotal role in our proof of the first form of Schur’s lemma.

**Theorem: ***Let be a finite group and and be two representations of . Then, if is an intertwinor for and then is invariant under and is invariant under .*

**Proof: **Suppose that then for each one has that and thus . Since was arbitrary it follows that is invariant under .

Secondly, assume that then . The conclusion follows.

*Schur’s Lemma*

With just this simple fact about intertwinors we can prove the first form of Schur’s lemma:

**Theorem(Schur’s Lemma First Form): ***Let be a finite group and and be irreps with **. If is an intertwinor for and then either or is invertible.*

**Proof: **Suppose that then is a proper -invariant subspace of and since is an irrep it follows that and thus is injective. Suppose then that isn’t surjective and , then is a proper -invariant subspace of and thus by assumption that is an irrep it follows that which contradicts that . It follows that and thus is surjective. Combining the two gives the desired result.

**Corollary: ***If and are irreps and there exists a non-zero intertwinor then . *

**Proof: **Indeed, by Schur’s lemma we know that must be an isomorphism such that , and thus by earlier theorem it follows that as desired.

We now prove a somewhat stronger version of Schur’s lemma when we are only interested in the case when and . Put more directly:

**Theorem(Schur’s Lemma Second Form): ***Let and be an intertwinor for and itself. Then, for some .
*

**Proof:** Since is a complex vector space we know that admits at least one eigenvalue . Let . We note then that is non-trivial since if is an eigenvalue corresponding to then . This said we see that

and thus is an intertwinor, but since can’t be an isomorphism since it’s kernel is non-trivial it follows from Schur’s lemma that from where it follows that as desired.

**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

[...] a exists then , we merely note that is unitary and for every . It follows by the second form of Schur’s lemma that for some . But, since is unitary we must have that . Note though that since we may apply [...]

Pingback by Representation Theory: Complex Conjugate Representation (A Characterization of Self-Conjugate Maps) « Abstract Nonsense | February 6, 2011 |

[...] note then that is an intertwinor for and . Indeed, for [...]

Pingback by Representation Theory: Matrix Entry Functions Form an (almost) Orthonormal Basis « Abstract Nonsense | February 23, 2011 |

[...] has that is such that for any one has that and thus is an intertwinor for and itself and so by Schur’s Lemma we may conclude that for some . Since was arbitrary it follows that for every and thus every [...]

Pingback by Representation Theory: The Number of Degree One Irreps « Abstract Nonsense | February 28, 2011 |

[...] so by previous theorem we have that is irreducible. Let . One clearly has that and thus by Schur’s lemma one has that . Moreover, it’s clear that for any one has [...]

Pingback by Representation Theory: The Dimension Theorem (Strong Version) « Abstract Nonsense | March 7, 2011 |

[...] If is irreducible and it clearly follows that and so by Schur’s Lemma it follows that and so [...]

Pingback by Representation Theory: The Center of a Character « Abstract Nonsense | March 8, 2011 |

[...] If is irreducible and it clearly follows that and so by Schur’s Lemma it follows that and so [...]

Pingback by Representation Theory: The Center of a Character (Pt. II) « Abstract Nonsense | March 9, 2011 |

[...] -representations we have that for any (i.e. a class function) one has that for any . Thus, by Schur’s lemma we may conclude that for some . Since this mapping is conjugation invariant (i.e. for every for [...]

Pingback by Representation Theory: A ‘Lemma’ « Abstract Nonsense | March 10, 2011 |

[...] to the order of the group. This turns out mostly to be the fault of one tantalizing fact–Schur’s lemma doesn’t necessarily hold for non-complex representations. So, in this post we shall just [...]

Pingback by Representation Theory: Representations on Real and Quaternionic Vector Spaces (Examples and Basics) « Abstract Nonsense | March 28, 2011 |

[...] if is given by then is an intertwinor for and and since is non-zero by prior discussion we may conclude by Schur’s lemma that . [...]

Pingback by Representation Theory: A Classification of C-representations With No (rho,J)-invariant Subspaces « Abstract Nonsense | April 4, 2011 |