direct sum of representation of product groups












2












$begingroup$


Given two finite groups $G_1$ and $G_2$, and some representations $rho_1: G_1 to V_1$ and $rho_2: G_2 to V_2$, it seems the standard way to create a representation for $G_1 times G_2$ is to use the tensor product
$$rho_1(g_1) otimes rho_2(g_2) quad g_1,g_2 in G_1,G_2.$$
It seems to me that one could also use the direct sum
$rho_1(g_1) oplus rho_2(g_2)$,
because the blocks in the matrix form of the representation do not interact and one gets the desired effect. Given that this representation could have a lower dimension than using tensor product, why is it not used?






group-theory finite-groups representation-theory







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    Given two finite groups $G_1$ and $G_2$, and some representations $rho_1: G_1 to V_1$ and $rho_2: G_2 to V_2$, it seems the standard way to create a representation for $G_1 times G_2$ is to use the tensor product
    $$rho_1(g_1) otimes rho_2(g_2) quad g_1,g_2 in G_1,G_2.$$
    It seems to me that one could also use the direct sum
    $rho_1(g_1) oplus rho_2(g_2)$,
    because the blocks in the matrix form of the representation do not interact and one gets the desired effect. Given that this representation could have a lower dimension than using tensor product, why is it not used?






    group-theory finite-groups representation-theory







    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2


      1



      $begingroup$


      Given two finite groups $G_1$ and $G_2$, and some representations $rho_1: G_1 to V_1$ and $rho_2: G_2 to V_2$, it seems the standard way to create a representation for $G_1 times G_2$ is to use the tensor product
      $$rho_1(g_1) otimes rho_2(g_2) quad g_1,g_2 in G_1,G_2.$$
      It seems to me that one could also use the direct sum
      $rho_1(g_1) oplus rho_2(g_2)$,
      because the blocks in the matrix form of the representation do not interact and one gets the desired effect. Given that this representation could have a lower dimension than using tensor product, why is it not used?






      group-theory finite-groups representation-theory







      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      Given two finite groups $G_1$ and $G_2$, and some representations $rho_1: G_1 to V_1$ and $rho_2: G_2 to V_2$, it seems the standard way to create a representation for $G_1 times G_2$ is to use the tensor product
      $$rho_1(g_1) otimes rho_2(g_2) quad g_1,g_2 in G_1,G_2.$$
      It seems to me that one could also use the direct sum
      $rho_1(g_1) oplus rho_2(g_2)$,
      because the blocks in the matrix form of the representation do not interact and one gets the desired effect. Given that this representation could have a lower dimension than using tensor product, why is it not used?






      group-theory finite-groups representation-theory




      group-theory finite-groups representation-theory






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 5 hours ago









      self-educatorself-educator

      5111




      5111






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          7












          $begingroup$

          When $V_1$ and $V_2$ are representations of $G_1$ and $G_2$ respectively, I'll use $V_1 boxtimes V_2$ to mean the representation of $G_1 times G_2$ with underlying vector space $V_1 otimes_{mathbb{C}} V_2$, and $V_1 boxplus V_2$ to mean the representation of $G_1 times G_2$ with underlying vector space $V_1 oplus V_2$.



          If $V$ is an irreducible representation of $G_1 times G_2$, then $V$ is isomorphic to $V_1 boxtimes V_2$ for some irreducible representations $V_1$ and $V_2$ of $G_1$ and $G_2$ respectively. This means that if we know the representations of $G_1$ and $G_2$, then using the $boxtimes$ construction we can get to all the (irreducible) representations of $G_1 times G_2$. Conversely, the $boxtimes$ product of two irreducible representations always produces an irreducible representation of $G_1 times G_2$.



          On the other hand, $V_1 boxplus V_2$ is always reducible as a $G_1 times G_2$ representation, since both vector subspaces $V_1$ and $V_2$ are stable under the $G_1 times G_2$ action. On the $V_1$ subspace, really only the $G_1$ part of the group acts, and the $G_2$ part acts trivially, and similarly for the $V_2$ subspace. We cannot produce all irreducible representations of $G_1 times G_2$ using this construction, which can already be seen in the example $G_1 = G_2 = mathbb{Z} / 2 mathbb{Z}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3140677%2fdirect-sum-of-representation-of-product-groups%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            7












            $begingroup$

            When $V_1$ and $V_2$ are representations of $G_1$ and $G_2$ respectively, I'll use $V_1 boxtimes V_2$ to mean the representation of $G_1 times G_2$ with underlying vector space $V_1 otimes_{mathbb{C}} V_2$, and $V_1 boxplus V_2$ to mean the representation of $G_1 times G_2$ with underlying vector space $V_1 oplus V_2$.



            If $V$ is an irreducible representation of $G_1 times G_2$, then $V$ is isomorphic to $V_1 boxtimes V_2$ for some irreducible representations $V_1$ and $V_2$ of $G_1$ and $G_2$ respectively. This means that if we know the representations of $G_1$ and $G_2$, then using the $boxtimes$ construction we can get to all the (irreducible) representations of $G_1 times G_2$. Conversely, the $boxtimes$ product of two irreducible representations always produces an irreducible representation of $G_1 times G_2$.



            On the other hand, $V_1 boxplus V_2$ is always reducible as a $G_1 times G_2$ representation, since both vector subspaces $V_1$ and $V_2$ are stable under the $G_1 times G_2$ action. On the $V_1$ subspace, really only the $G_1$ part of the group acts, and the $G_2$ part acts trivially, and similarly for the $V_2$ subspace. We cannot produce all irreducible representations of $G_1 times G_2$ using this construction, which can already be seen in the example $G_1 = G_2 = mathbb{Z} / 2 mathbb{Z}$.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              7












              $begingroup$

              When $V_1$ and $V_2$ are representations of $G_1$ and $G_2$ respectively, I'll use $V_1 boxtimes V_2$ to mean the representation of $G_1 times G_2$ with underlying vector space $V_1 otimes_{mathbb{C}} V_2$, and $V_1 boxplus V_2$ to mean the representation of $G_1 times G_2$ with underlying vector space $V_1 oplus V_2$.



              If $V$ is an irreducible representation of $G_1 times G_2$, then $V$ is isomorphic to $V_1 boxtimes V_2$ for some irreducible representations $V_1$ and $V_2$ of $G_1$ and $G_2$ respectively. This means that if we know the representations of $G_1$ and $G_2$, then using the $boxtimes$ construction we can get to all the (irreducible) representations of $G_1 times G_2$. Conversely, the $boxtimes$ product of two irreducible representations always produces an irreducible representation of $G_1 times G_2$.



              On the other hand, $V_1 boxplus V_2$ is always reducible as a $G_1 times G_2$ representation, since both vector subspaces $V_1$ and $V_2$ are stable under the $G_1 times G_2$ action. On the $V_1$ subspace, really only the $G_1$ part of the group acts, and the $G_2$ part acts trivially, and similarly for the $V_2$ subspace. We cannot produce all irreducible representations of $G_1 times G_2$ using this construction, which can already be seen in the example $G_1 = G_2 = mathbb{Z} / 2 mathbb{Z}$.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                7












                7








                7





                $begingroup$

                When $V_1$ and $V_2$ are representations of $G_1$ and $G_2$ respectively, I'll use $V_1 boxtimes V_2$ to mean the representation of $G_1 times G_2$ with underlying vector space $V_1 otimes_{mathbb{C}} V_2$, and $V_1 boxplus V_2$ to mean the representation of $G_1 times G_2$ with underlying vector space $V_1 oplus V_2$.



                If $V$ is an irreducible representation of $G_1 times G_2$, then $V$ is isomorphic to $V_1 boxtimes V_2$ for some irreducible representations $V_1$ and $V_2$ of $G_1$ and $G_2$ respectively. This means that if we know the representations of $G_1$ and $G_2$, then using the $boxtimes$ construction we can get to all the (irreducible) representations of $G_1 times G_2$. Conversely, the $boxtimes$ product of two irreducible representations always produces an irreducible representation of $G_1 times G_2$.



                On the other hand, $V_1 boxplus V_2$ is always reducible as a $G_1 times G_2$ representation, since both vector subspaces $V_1$ and $V_2$ are stable under the $G_1 times G_2$ action. On the $V_1$ subspace, really only the $G_1$ part of the group acts, and the $G_2$ part acts trivially, and similarly for the $V_2$ subspace. We cannot produce all irreducible representations of $G_1 times G_2$ using this construction, which can already be seen in the example $G_1 = G_2 = mathbb{Z} / 2 mathbb{Z}$.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                When $V_1$ and $V_2$ are representations of $G_1$ and $G_2$ respectively, I'll use $V_1 boxtimes V_2$ to mean the representation of $G_1 times G_2$ with underlying vector space $V_1 otimes_{mathbb{C}} V_2$, and $V_1 boxplus V_2$ to mean the representation of $G_1 times G_2$ with underlying vector space $V_1 oplus V_2$.



                If $V$ is an irreducible representation of $G_1 times G_2$, then $V$ is isomorphic to $V_1 boxtimes V_2$ for some irreducible representations $V_1$ and $V_2$ of $G_1$ and $G_2$ respectively. This means that if we know the representations of $G_1$ and $G_2$, then using the $boxtimes$ construction we can get to all the (irreducible) representations of $G_1 times G_2$. Conversely, the $boxtimes$ product of two irreducible representations always produces an irreducible representation of $G_1 times G_2$.



                On the other hand, $V_1 boxplus V_2$ is always reducible as a $G_1 times G_2$ representation, since both vector subspaces $V_1$ and $V_2$ are stable under the $G_1 times G_2$ action. On the $V_1$ subspace, really only the $G_1$ part of the group acts, and the $G_2$ part acts trivially, and similarly for the $V_2$ subspace. We cannot produce all irreducible representations of $G_1 times G_2$ using this construction, which can already be seen in the example $G_1 = G_2 = mathbb{Z} / 2 mathbb{Z}$.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered 4 hours ago









                JoppyJoppy

                5,828421




                5,828421






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3140677%2fdirect-sum-of-representation-of-product-groups%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    -

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    A CLEAN and SIMPLE way to add appendices to Table of Contents and bookmarks

                    Image
                    0 I found a lot of questions abount appendices and ToC. Many users want appendices to be grouped in an Appendix part, however some problems arise with ToC, hyperref, PDF viewer bookmarks, and so on. There are different solutions which require extra packages, command patching and other extra code, however none of them satisfies me. I almost found an easy way to accomplish a good result, where appendices are added to bookmarks in the right way and hyperref links point to the right page. However, the number of the "Appendix" part page is wrong (it's the number of appendix A). Is there any EASY way to fix that? This is a MWE: documentclass{book} usepackage[nottoc,notlot,notlof]{tocbibind} usepackage{hyperref} begin{document} frontmatter tableofcontents mainmatter part{First} chapter{...
                    Read more

                    Calculate evaluation metrics using cross_val_predict sklearn

                    Image
                    1 In the sklearn.model_selection.cross_val_predict page it is stated: Generate cross-validated estimates for each input data point. It is not appropriate to pass these predictions into an evaluation metric. Can someone explain what does it mean? If this gives estimate of Y (y prediction) for every Y (true Y), why can't I calculate metrics such as RMSE or coefficient of determination using these results? python scikit-learn cross-validation share | improve this question edited Nov 28 '18 at 17:52 desertnaut 20.3k 7 43 79 ...
                    Read more

                    Insert data from modal to MySQL (multiple modal on website)

                    Image
                    0 I have problem with inserting data to MySQL from modal. My modal: <a href="#" class="badge badge-pill badge-success">6 komentarzy</a> <a href="#" class="badge badge-pill badge-danger">brak komentarzy</a> <a data-toggle="modal" href="#add_desk_comm_{$desk_['desk_id']}" data-target="#add_desk_comm_{$desk_['desk_id']}" class="ediiit">(dodaj)</a> <div class="modal fade" id="add_desk_comm_{$desk_['desk_id']}" tabindex="-1" role="dialog" aria-labelledby="edit_printer" aria-hidden="true"> <div class="modal-dialog" role="document"> ...
                    Read more