direct sum of representation of product groups












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









$endgroup$

















    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









    $endgroup$















      1












      1








      1


      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 4 hours ago









      self-educatorself-educator

      4611




      4611






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          6












          $begingroup$

          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









            6












            $begingroup$

            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









            $endgroup$


















              6












              $begingroup$

              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









              $endgroup$
















                6












                6








                6





                $begingroup$

                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

                5,818421




                5,818421






























                    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

                    What other Star Trek series did the main TNG cast show up in?

                    Image
                    .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 4 I'm referring to Picard, Riker, Data, Worf, Geordi, Dr. Crusher, Wesley Crusher, Chief O'Brien and family, Deanna Troi, Guinan. I know Picard and Worf show up on DS9, though I haven't seen it myself. I'm curious what happened to the characters after that last episode of TNG? star-trek star-trek-tng share | improve this question edited 10 hours ago Ham Sandwich 6,051 2 25 75
                    Read more

                    Berlina muro

                    Image
                    La berlina muro ĉe Bethaniendamm, 1986 La berlina muro aŭ simple la muro [1] , nomita ankaŭ "kontraŭfaŝisma remparo" en propaganda lingvo de la iama Germana Demokratia Respubliko, estis parto de la interngermana limo, kiu dividis de la 13-a de aŭgusto 1961 ĝis la 9-a de novembro 1989 okcidentan Berlinon de la orienta parto de la urbo kaj de la ĉirkaŭa tereno de la GDR. Ĝi estis unu el la plej famaj simboloj de la malvarma milito kaj de la disdivido de Germanio. Pli ol simpla muro, la berlina muro estis fakte tuta defendokonstruaĵo kun du muroj, ena malplena strio, rondirvojo, gardturoj kaj alarmsistemoj. Dum la provo transiri la severe garditan limon al okcidenta Berlino multaj homoj estis mortigitaj. La preciza nombro de viktimoj estas pridisputita kaj ne certa; la nombroj anoncataj varias inter 86 kaj 238 mortintoj. La malplifortiĝo de Sovetunio kaj la politiko de liberigo gvidita de Miĥail Gorbaĉov ebligis al la orientgermanoj faligi la 9-an de novembro 1989 l
                    Read more

                    Berlina aerponto

                    Image
                    Flugkoridoroj dum la blokado de Berlino La Berlina aerponto estas la provizigo de okcidenta Berlino per aviadiloj fare de la aliancanoj inter la 23-a de junio 1948 kaj la 12-a de majo 1949 dum la blokado de Berlino fare de la sovetia armeo. Enhavo 1 Historio 1.1 La aerkoridoroj 1.2 Unuaj flugoj 1.3 Plibonigo de la aerponto 1.4 Fino de la aerponto 1.5 Rozinbombiloj 1.6 Bilanco 2 Flughavenoj 2.1 Berlino 2.2 Okcidenta Germanio 3 Aviadiloj de la berlina aerponto 4 15-a datreveno de la aerponto 5 Bibliografio 6 Referencoj 7 Eksteraj ligiloj Historio | General Lucius D. Clay, militguberniestro de la usona okupadzono Jam antaŭ la berlina aerponto estiĝis la malgranda aerponto . La estro de la sovetia militadministracio en Germanio, Vasili Daniloviĉ Sokolovski, ordonis la 1-an de aprilo 1948, kiel reago al la konferenco de Londono inter britoj, francoj kaj reprezentantoj de Benelukso pri aligo de Germa
                    Read more