How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
The Group Algebra and Representations of Finite Groups
1 · Prerequisites
- Algebraic Extensions, Extension Degree, and Finite Fields
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Chain Conditions, Semisimple Modules and the Wedderburn–Artin Theorem
- Composition Series, the Jordan–Hölder Theorem and Solvable Groups
- Congruences, the Integers Modulo n and the Chinese Remainder Theorem
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Cosets, Index and Lagrange's Theorem
- Countability and Uncountability
- Cyclic Groups and Direct Products
- Determinants of Matrices over a Commutative Ring
- Diagonalisation and the Minimal Polynomial
- Divisibility, Euclidean Domains, Principal Ideal Domains and Unique Factorisation
- Divisibility, Greatest Common Divisors and Bézout's Identity
- Eigenvalues, Eigenvectors and the Characteristic Polynomial
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Finite Fields and Cyclotomic Extensions
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Free Modules, Exact Sequences, Projective and Injective Modules
- Group Actions, Orbits, Stabilisers and Cayley's Theorem
- Group Homomorphisms and the Isomorphism Theorems
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- Linear Independence, Bases and Dimension
- Linear Transformations, Rank-Nullity and Quotient Spaces
- Matrices, the Matrix of a Linear Map, and Change of Basis
- Modules, Submodules, Quotient Modules and the Isomorphism Theorems
- Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Polynomial Rings, the Division Algorithm and Roots
- Primes, Euclid's Lemma and the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Simple Field Extensions and the Construction of the Complex Numbers
- Splitting Fields
- Symmetric Groups, Cycle Decomposition and the Sign Homomorphism
- Tensor Products of Modules
- The Determinant of a Linear Operator, Cofactors and Cramer's Rule
- The Fundamental Theorem of Finite Abelian Groups
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Triangularisation, Generalised Eigenspaces and Jordan Canonical Form
- Vector Spaces, Linear Subspaces, Span and Direct Sums
2 · Summary
This page builds the finite-group representation language from the group algebra upward. It starts at the arbitrary commutative-ring seam: the free module , the augmentation map, and the dictionary between -linear -actions and left -modules. That bridge is load-bearing for later pages, so the representation and module viewpoints are identified explicitly rather than mixed informally.
Once the dictionary is in place, the page turns to finite-dimensional representations over fields: subrepresentations, intertwiners, the regular and permutation representations, Schur's lemma, splitting fields, and the abelian case. The endpoint is the classification of equivalence classes of degree-one representations by homomorphisms into , with the abelianisation factor visible at the statement level.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
The group ring of finitely supported formal -linear combinations of group elements
Definition
Let be a commutative ring (Commutative ring) and let be a group (Group and abelian group). The group ring is the free left -module on the set (The free module on a set and its standard basis).
For each , write for the standard basis vector indexed by . Thus every element of has a unique expression with finite and .
The notation is deliberately that of formal finite sums: at this stage is only the underlying free -module with its distinguished basis. The multiplication satisfying and the resulting -algebra structure are constructed in The group ring is a unital -algebra with basis , and each is a unit of .
Remarks
-
The support is finite by definition because is the direct sum, not the full product, of copies of indexed by .
-
The basis vectors are written to keep the group element distinct from its basis image in the free module.
The group ring is a unital -algebra with basis , and each is a unit of
Statement
Let be a commutative ring and let be a group. Write for the basis vector of The group ring of finitely supported formal -linear combinations of group elements indexed by .
There is a unique -bilinear multiplication on satisfying With this product, is a unital -algebra whose underlying -module has basis . Its identity is , where is the identity of , and every basis element is a unit with inverse .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring and a group with identity .
The module is free on the set , with basis vectors , and every element has a unique finite expansion (The group ring of finitely supported formal -linear combinations of group elements).
Every set map from a set to a left -module extends uniquely to an -module homomorphism from the free module (Universal property of the free module on a set).
An -algebra is a unital ring equipped with a central unital map , and the multiplication is -bilinear (Algebras over a commutative ring, central structure maps, and algebra homomorphisms).
Proof
For each fixed , the set map , , extends uniquely by [L2] to an -linear map with for every .
For each fixed , the set map , , extends uniquely by [L2] to an -linear map . Define the product by .
By construction, . The map is -linear because is, and if then , so the -linearity of each makes linear as well. Thus the product is -bilinear.
For fixed , the maps and are -linear by step 3.1, so it is enough to compare them on basis elements . For fixed the maps and are likewise linear, so it is enough to compare them on basis elements . Repeating once more in the variable reduces associativity to basis triples, where by associativity in . Hence the product on is associative.
The same bilinear reduction shows that is a two-sided identity, because and for every basis element. Likewise , so each is a unit with inverse .
The map defined by is additive and satisfies and by steps 3.1 and 4.2. For every basis element , one has ; bilinearity extends this equality to every element of .
If is any other -bilinear product with , then for and bilinearity forces , which is exactly the product already constructed in steps 1.1-3.1. Therefore the multiplication is unique, and with steps 4.1-5.1 it makes a unital -algebra as in [L3].
The augmentation map and the augmentation ideal
Definition
Let be a commutative ring and let be a group. For an element of written uniquely as a finite sum (The group ring of finitely supported formal -linear combinations of group elements), define the augmentation map
Because the expansion in the basis is unique, this is a well-defined -linear map. It is also a ring homomorphism in the sense of Ring homomorphism: additive, multiplicative, and required to send to : additivity is immediate, it sends to , and if and , then by the multiplication formula supplied by The group ring is a unital -algebra with basis , and each is a unit of .
The augmentation ideal of is the kernel which is a two-sided ideal by The kernel of a ring homomorphism is a two-sided ideal.
Remarks
-
The basis element always satisfies .
-
When is finite, the element is the image under the basis sum of the constant function on .
If is finite then
Statement
Let be a field and let be a finite group. Then the group algebra is finite-dimensional over , with
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A field and a finite group .
The module is free on the set , with basis (The group ring of finitely supported formal -linear combinations of group elements).
The dimension of a finite-dimensional vector space is the size of any finite basis (Finite-dimensional vector space, and its dimension ; infinite-dimensional means having no finite basis).
Proof
By [L1], the set is a basis of indexed by the finite set , so it has exactly elements.
Applying [L2] to that finite basis gives .
For a field , the group algebra is commutative if and only if is abelian
Statement
Let be a field and let be a group. Then the group algebra is commutative if and only if is abelian.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A field and a group .
The basis vectors of satisfy , and every element of is a unique finite -linear combination of them (The group ring is a unital -algebra with basis , and each is a unit of , The group ring of finitely supported formal -linear combinations of group elements).
Proof
If is abelian, then for all . Bilinearity of multiplication then makes every two finite -linear combinations commute, so is commutative.
Conversely, if is commutative, then for every one has . By the uniqueness of the basis expansion in [L1], this forces . Hence is abelian.
Steps 1.1 and 1.2 prove the two directions of the equivalence.
An -linear action of on a left -module, and a -module over
Definition
Let be a commutative ring (Commutative ring), let be a group (Group and abelian group), and let be a left -module (Unital left and right modules over a ring; unqualified module means left module).
A left -action on by -linear maps is a left group action , , in the sense of Left group actions, transitive actions, and faithful actions, such that for every the map is an -module homomorphism (Module homomorphism and isomorphism, kernel, image and cokernel).
Equivalently, the action satisfies for all , , and .
An -linear -module, or simply a -module over , is a left -module together with such an action.
Remarks
-
Because acts as an inverse in the group-action sense, each map is automatically an -module automorphism.
-
When is a field, this is the module-language form of a representation.
A finite-dimensional representation over a field, and its degree
Definition
Let be a field (Field) and let be a group. A finite-dimensional representation of over is a finite-dimensional -vector space (Vector space over a field, Finite-dimensional vector space, and its dimension ; infinite-dimensional means having no finite basis) together with a group homomorphism where denotes the group of invertible -linear maps (Invertible linear maps, linear isomorphisms, and inverse linear maps, Monoid homomorphism and group homomorphism).
The associated action is This makes into a -module over in the sense of An -linear action of on a left -module, and a -module over .
The degree of the representation is the dimension of its underlying vector space:
Remarks
-
The finite-dimensionality convention is part of the definition on this page, not a later standing assumption.
-
The representation is determined equally well by the homomorphism or by the associated -linear action of on .
Subrepresentations, direct sums of representations, and irreducibility
Definition
Let be a finite-dimensional representation of over a field (A finite-dimensional representation over a field, and its degree).
A subrepresentation is a linear subspace (Linear subspace of a vector space) such that for every . Equivalently, for all and .
If is another representation, the direct sum representation on is defined by
The representation is irreducible when and its only subrepresentations are and itself.
Remarks
-
The zero representation on the zero vector space is not irreducible, by the explicit nonzero requirement.
-
A decomposition into nonzero subrepresentations is exactly a nontrivial decomposition of the representation as a direct sum.
Intertwiners, the spaces and , equivalent representations, and faithful representations
Definition
Let and be representations of over the same field .
A linear map (Linear map between vector spaces over the same field) is an intertwiner, or -equivariant map, when Equivalently,
Write for the set of all intertwiners. It is a subset of the vector space of all linear maps (The space of linear maps with pointwise addition and scalar multiplication). When , write
The two representations are equivalent if there is an invertible intertwiner .
A representation is faithful when implies .
Remarks
-
Faithfulness says that the action remembers every group element.
-
The equality is the representation-language form of a module homomorphism condition.
For a commutative ring , -linear -actions are exactly the compatible left -module structures
Statement
Let be a commutative ring, let be a group, and let be a left -module. Then:
- every -linear action of on extends uniquely to a left -module structure on satisfying
- every left -module structure on satisfying restricts to an -linear action of on ;
- these two constructions are inverse to each other.
Moreover, if and carry the corresponding structures, then an -linear map is -equivariant if and only if it is an -module homomorphism.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , a group , and left -modules and .
The group ring has basis vectors , multiplication , identity , and central scalar copy (The group ring is a unital -algebra with basis , and each is a unit of , The group ring of finitely supported formal -linear combinations of group elements).
An -linear -module is a left -module together with a group action whose each -operator is -linear (An -linear action of on a left -module, and a -module over ).
Every set map from to a left -module extends uniquely to an -module homomorphism from (Universal property of the free module on a set).
An -module homomorphism is a map compatible with addition and with the scalar action of every element of (Module homomorphism and isomorphism, kernel, image and cokernel, Unital left and right modules over a ring; unqualified module means left module).
Proof
Assume first that is an -linear -module. For each , the map , , extends uniquely by [L3] to an -linear map . Define for .
For basis elements, by construction. If , then , so the action is additive in and, because each -operator is -linear by [L2], also additive in and compatible with the scalar action of on .
For , one has . Since both sides are -bilinear in the two group-ring variables, the equality extends to for all . Also , so the identity of acts as the identity on , and . Thus the construction of steps 1.1-2.1 gives a compatible left -module structure on .
Conversely, assume is a left -module compatible with the given -module structure, meaning that for all and . Define . Then , and , so this is a group action. For , one has . Thus the restricted action is -linear.
Let be -linear. If is an -module homomorphism, then , so is -equivariant. Conversely, if is -equivariant and , then , so is an -module homomorphism.
In the first construction, the recovered action of a basis element is the original action of by step 2.1, so the recovered -action is unchanged. In the second construction, the recovered -action agrees with the original one on each basis element , and it has the same scalar action because the compatibility condition fixes . Therefore the two constructions are inverse.
Under the dictionary, subrepresentations are exactly submodules and irreducible representations are exactly simple modules
Statement
Let be a field, let be a group, and let be a finite-dimensional representation of over . Under the correspondence of For a commutative ring , -linear -actions are exactly the compatible left -module structures:
- the subrepresentations of are exactly the -submodules of ;
- is irreducible if and only if it is simple as a -module.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite-dimensional representation of over .
A subrepresentation is a linear subspace stable under every group element, and irreducible means nonzero with no proper nonzero subrepresentation (Subrepresentations, direct sums of representations, and irreducibility).
A -action on a -vector space is the same thing as a left -module structure, and -equivariant maps are exactly -module homomorphisms (For a commutative ring , -linear -actions are exactly the compatible left -module structures).
A simple module is a nonzero module whose only submodules are and the whole module (Simple module: a nonzero module with no proper nonzero submodule).
Proof
A linear subspace is stable under every if and only if it is stable under every basis element of under the action of [L2]. Because the action of an arbitrary is the corresponding -linear combination of the actions of the basis elements, this is equivalent to stability under every element of . So the subrepresentations of are exactly the -submodules.
By [L1], irreducibility means that is nonzero and has no proper nonzero subrepresentation. By step 1.1 those are exactly the proper nonzero -submodules, and [L3] is the same condition in module language. Therefore is irreducible if and only if it is simple as a -module.
is a -vector space and is a -algebra
Statement
Let and be representations of a group over a field .
- The intertwiner space is a -vector space.
- The endomorphism space is a -algebra.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Representations and over a field .
An intertwiner satisfies for every , and (Intertwiners, the spaces and , equivalent representations, and faithful representations).
The space of all linear maps is a -vector space ( is a vector space over the common scalar field).
Pointwise addition and composition make a unital ring (Module endomorphisms form a ring under pointwise addition and composition, The endomorphism ring under addition and composition).
A -algebra is a unital ring whose multiplication is -bilinear and whose scalar copy of is central (Algebras over a commutative ring, central structure maps, and algebra homomorphisms).
Proof
The zero map satisfies for every . If and , then and . So contains and is closed under the pointwise operations of .
When , the identity map satisfies , and if then . Thus is closed under composition and contains the identity.
Step 1.1 exhibits as a linear subspace of the vector space of [L2]. Therefore is itself a -vector space.
By step 2.1, is a -vector space. By step 1.2 and [L3], it is also a unital subring of . For and , the usual identities show that multiplication is -bilinear and the scalar copy of is central. Therefore [L4] makes a -algebra.
The trivial representation, the regular representation, and permutation representations from finite -sets
Definition
Let be a field and let be a finite group.
The trivial representation of over is the one-dimensional representation on the vector space in which every acts as the identity map.
The regular representation of over is the representation on the vector space (The group ring of finitely supported formal -linear combinations of group elements) given by left multiplication by the basis units: Equivalently, on the basis vectors of , This uses the ring structure and unit property proved in The group ring is a unital -algebra with basis , and each is a unit of .
More generally, if is a finite left -set (Left group actions, transitive actions, and faithful actions), the free -module on (The free module on a set and its standard basis) becomes a representation by This is the permutation representation attached to the action of on .
Remarks
-
The regular representation is the permutation representation of acting on itself by left translation.
-
Because and are finite, these constructions are finite-dimensional.
The sign representation of and the restriction of a representation to a subgroup
Definition
Let be a field.
For the symmetric group (The symmetric group : the bijections of a set under composition), the sign representation over is the one-dimensional representation on in which This is a representation because is a group homomorphism (The sign is a homomorphism , surjective exactly when ).
Now let be a representation of a group over , and let be a subgroup (Subgroup). The restriction of to is the representation It has the same underlying vector space and only forgets the action of the elements outside .
Remarks
-
In characteristic , the sign representation coincides with the trivial representation because in the field.
-
Restriction changes the acting group, not the underlying vector space.
The regular representation is faithful
Statement
Let be a finite group and let be a field. Then the regular representation of over is faithful.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite group and its regular representation on .
In the regular representation, for all (The trivial representation, the regular representation, and permutation representations from finite -sets).
A representation is faithful when the only group element acting as the identity linear map is the identity element of the group (Intertwiners, the spaces and , equivalent representations, and faithful representations).
Proof
Suppose acts as the identity in the regular representation. Applying that operator to the basis vector gives by [L1].
The basis vectors of are indexed by the elements of , so forces . By [L2], this is exactly faithfulness.
Every irreducible representation of a finite group is a quotient of the regular representation
Statement
Let be a finite group and let be an irreducible representation of over a field . Then there is a surjective morphism from the regular representation of over onto .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite group , a field , and an irreducible representation of over .
Under the group-ring dictionary, subrepresentations are exactly -submodules, and irreducible representations are exactly simple -modules (Under the dictionary, subrepresentations are exactly submodules and irreducible representations are exactly simple modules).
The regular representation is the action of on by left multiplication on the basis vectors (The trivial representation, the regular representation, and permutation representations from finite -sets).
-equivariant maps are exactly -module homomorphisms (For a commutative ring , -linear -actions are exactly the compatible left -module structures).
Proof
By [L1], the representation is a simple -module.
Choose . The submodule is nonzero, so simplicity from step 1.1 forces .
Define by . Then is a -module homomorphism, and its image is exactly by step 2.1. So is surjective.
By [L2] and [L3], the map is a surjective morphism from the regular representation onto . Hence is a quotient of the regular representation.
Every irreducible representation of a finite group has degree at most
Statement
Let be a finite group and let be an irreducible representation of over a field . Then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite group , a field , and an irreducible representation of over .
The group algebra has dimension over (If is finite then ).
The representation is a quotient of the regular representation (Every irreducible representation of a finite group is a quotient of the regular representation).
In a vector space with a spanning set of size , every linearly independent set has size at most (If has a spanning set with elements, then every linearly independent subset of is finite with at most elements; in particular has no linearly independent subset equinumerous with ).
The degree of a representation is the dimension of its underlying vector space, and that dimension is the size of any basis (A finite-dimensional representation over a field, and its degree, Finite-dimensional vector space, and its dimension ; infinite-dimensional means having no finite basis).
Proof
By [L2], there is a surjective linear map .
The images under of the basis vectors of span , so has a spanning set with elements by [L1].
Let be a basis of . Then is linearly independent, and step 2.1 together with [L3] shows that . By [L4], . Therefore .
A splitting field for a finite group: every irreducible representation has scalar endomorphism ring
Definition
Let be a finite group and let be a field. The field is a splitting field for when every irreducible representation of over satisfies meaning that every -endomorphism of is a scalar operator with (A finite-dimensional representation over a field, and its degree, Intertwiners, the spaces and , equivalent representations, and faithful representations).
Remarks
-
This is the representation-theoretic condition used on the next pages. It is weaker than algebraic closedness, and Brauer's theorem records one sufficient roots-of-unity criterion for it without making that criterion the definition.
-
The definition quantifies only over irreducible representations of the fixed finite group .
Brauer's cyclotomic criterion for splitting fields is recorded here only as an external theorem
Statement
Let be a finite group, and let be its exponent (The exponent of a finite group). Brauer's roots-of-unity criterion says that if a field contains a primitive -th root of unity (The group of -th roots of unity in a field, and primitive -th roots of unity, is separable over exactly when the characteristic does not divide , and then a splitting field carries distinct -th roots of unity), then is a splitting field for (A splitting field for a finite group: every irreducible representation has scalar endomorphism ring).
This theorem is recorded but not proved here.
Remarks
The criterion is stronger than the algebraically closed-field consequence used later on this page, and it is genuinely external here. Its standard proof uses Brauer induction and the later character theory of finite groups, not only the group-ring dictionary and Schur's lemma developed on RT-1. The point of this remark is therefore negative: it blocks a tempting but unproved shortcut.
Schur's lemma for irreducible representations: a nonzero intertwiner is an isomorphism, and is a division ring
Statement
Let and be irreducible representations of a group over a field . Then every nonzero intertwiner is an isomorphism. Consequently is a division ring.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Irreducible representations and of over a field .
Irreducible representations are exactly simple -modules (Under the dictionary, subrepresentations are exactly submodules and irreducible representations are exactly simple modules).
-equivariant maps are exactly -module homomorphisms (For a commutative ring , -linear -actions are exactly the compatible left -module structures).
A nonzero homomorphism between simple modules is an isomorphism, and the endomorphism ring of a simple module is a division ring (Schur's lemma for simple modules).
Proof
By [L1], the irreducible representations and are simple -modules, and by [L2] a nonzero intertwiner is a nonzero -module homomorphism between them.
Applying [L3] to that module homomorphism shows that is an isomorphism. Applying [L3] with shows that is a division ring.
Over a splitting field, every -endomorphism of an irreducible representation is scalar
Statement
Let be a finite group, let be a splitting field for , and let be an irreducible representation of over . Then every endomorphism in has the form with .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite group , a splitting field for , and an irreducible representation of over .
For an irreducible representation, is a division ring (Schur's lemma for irreducible representations: a nonzero intertwiner is an isomorphism, and is a division ring).
By definition, a splitting field for is a field over which every irreducible representation has endomorphism ring exactly (A splitting field for a finite group: every irreducible representation has scalar endomorphism ring).
Proof
By [L2], the endomorphism ring is exactly the scalar copy of inside .
Therefore every -endomorphism of is for a unique . Step 1.1 is compatible with the division-ring conclusion of [L1], which is why the scalar copy is a field.
Over an algebraically closed field, every endomorphism of an irreducible representation is scalar
Statement
Let be an algebraically closed field, let be a group, and let be an irreducible representation of over . Then every is of the form for some .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An algebraically closed field , a group , an irreducible representation of over , and an endomorphism .
Every finite-dimensional endomorphism over an algebraically closed field is triangularisable (Every finite-dimensional endomorphism over an algebraically closed field is triangularisable).
For an irreducible representation, every nonzero -endomorphism is an isomorphism and is a division ring (Schur's lemma for irreducible representations: a nonzero intertwiner is an isomorphism, and is a division ring).
Proof
The representation is nonzero because it is irreducible, so [L1] applies to and yields a basis in which is upper triangular. Let be one diagonal entry. Then is upper triangular with a zero diagonal entry, hence is not invertible.
For every , the identity map commutes with the action of , so is still a -endomorphism. By [L2], a nonzero -endomorphism of an irreducible representation must be invertible. Therefore the noninvertible endomorphism is zero.
Hence , as required.
Every irreducible representation of a finite abelian group over a splitting field is one-dimensional
Statement
Let be a finite abelian group and let be a splitting field for . Then every irreducible representation of over has degree .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite abelian group , a splitting field for , and an irreducible representation over .
Over a splitting field, every endomorphism of an irreducible representation is scalar (Over a splitting field, every -endomorphism of an irreducible representation is scalar).
A representation is irreducible exactly when every nonzero invariant subspace is the whole space (Subrepresentations, direct sums of representations, and irreducibility).
Proof
Because is abelian, for every one has . So each operator commutes with every and therefore lies in .
By [L1], each is a scalar operator. Hence for every nonzero , the line is stable under every and is therefore a nonzero subrepresentation.
Irreducibility from [L2] forces that nonzero line to be all of . Therefore is one-dimensional.
Equivalence classes of degree-one representations are exactly homomorphisms ; equivalently they factor through , and they form an abelian group
Statement
Let be a field and let be a group.
- choosing a basis of a degree-one representation of over produces a homomorphism , and every such homomorphism produces a normalized degree-one representation on the one-dimensional space ;
- two degree-one representations are equivalent if and only if they produce the same homomorphism, so equivalence classes of degree-one representations are in bijection with the homomorphisms ;
- equivalently, those equivalence classes are in bijection with the homomorphisms that factor through the abelianisation quotient ;
- under pointwise multiplication and inversion of the corresponding homomorphisms, these equivalence classes form an abelian group.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A field and a group .
A degree-one representation is a finite-dimensional representation whose underlying vector space has dimension (A finite-dimensional representation over a field, and its degree).
The units of the field form a group under multiplication (The units of a ring are the invertible elements of its multiplicative monoid, and is a group under multiplication; only in the zero ring, Left inverse, right inverse, and invertible element of a monoid), and field multiplication is commutative (Field).
Every homomorphism from to an abelian group factors uniquely through the quotient (The derived subgroup is characteristic and the abelianization is universal, Monoid homomorphism and group homomorphism).
Two representations are equivalent when there is an invertible intertwiner between them (Intertwiners, the spaces and , equivalent representations, and faithful representations).
Proof
Let be a degree-one representation. By [L1], choose a basis vector of the one-dimensional space . For each there is a unique scalar with , and because is invertible, that scalar lies in .
The representation law gives , so . Thus is a group homomorphism. Under the identification sending to , the representation becomes the normalized action on the one-dimensional space .
Conversely, if is a group homomorphism, define by . Each is invertible with inverse multiplication by , and the homomorphism law for gives . So is a degree-one representation.
If two degree-one representations are equivalent, an invertible intertwiner sends a chosen basis vector of one space to a nonzero scalar multiple of a basis vector of the other, so the character extracted in step 2.1 is unchanged; conversely, if two degree-one representations produce the same homomorphism , then step 2.1 identifies each of them with the same normalized representation of step 3.1, so they are equivalent by [L4]. Therefore equivalence classes of degree-one representations are in bijection with homomorphisms .
Because is abelian by [L2], [L3] identifies the same equivalence classes with the homomorphisms factoring through . If are homomorphisms, then and are again homomorphisms. Thus the equivalence classes of degree-one representations form an abelian group under pointwise multiplication and inversion of their corresponding homomorphisms.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
None yet.
Sources
- Peter Webb, A Course in Finite Group Representation Theory, Chapter 1 Section 1.1
- Peter Webb, A Course in Finite Group Representation Theory, Chapter 6 Section 6.3
- Pavel Etingof et al., Introduction to Representation Theory, Section 1.1
- Pavel Etingof et al., Introduction to Representation Theory, Section 1.3
- Peter Webb, A Course in Finite Group Representation Theory, Chapter 1 Section 1.2
- Peter Webb, A Course in Finite Group Representation Theory, Chapter 2 Section 2.1
- Peter Webb, A Course in Finite Group Representation Theory, Proposition 1.1.5
- Peter Webb, A Course in Finite Group Representation Theory, Examples 1.1.1 and 4.3.4
- Peter Webb, A Course in Finite Group Representation Theory, Chapter 4 Section 4.3
- Peter Webb, A Course in Finite Group Representation Theory, Example 4.3.4
- Peter Webb, A Course in Finite Group Representation Theory, Theorem 2.1.1 and its regular-module corollaries
- Peter Webb, A Course in Finite Group Representation Theory, Theorem 2.1.1 and regular-module consequences
- Peter Webb, A Course in Finite Group Representation Theory, Chapter 9 Sections 9.1-9.2
- Peter Webb, A Course in Finite Group Representation Theory, Theorem 9.2.7
- Peter Webb, A Course in Finite Group Representation Theory, Theorem 2.1.1
- Pavel Etingof et al., Introduction to Representation Theory, Proposition 1.16
- Peter Webb, A Course in Finite Group Representation Theory, Proposition 9.2.5
- Pavel Etingof et al., Introduction to Representation Theory, Corollary 1.17
- Peter Webb, A Course in Finite Group Representation Theory, Corollary 2.1.7
- Pavel Etingof et al., Introduction to Representation Theory, Corollary 1.18
- Peter Webb, A Course in Finite Group Representation Theory, Example 1.1.2 and Proposition 4.2.1