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.
Finite semisimple matrix density and the double commutant over Q
Statement
Let be a finite group, a finite-dimensional rational representation, and the image of . Then No algebraic-closure, splitting, or commutativity hypothesis on the division algebras of simple summands is required.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite group , a finite-dimensional left -module , and the finite-complement result below.
Every submodule of a finite direct sum of simple modules is a direct sum of a subfamily and has a complement; finite-dimensional modules have finite composition series (Finite matrix and module preliminaries: right inverses, rank invariance, finite length and nilpotent trace).
Proof
Given: The data in [F1].
Let be a -submodule and choose a rational linear projection that is the identity on . The average has image in , restricts to the identity on , and satisfies for every by reindexing the finite sum. Thus is a -linear projection and complements . Selecting a nonzero submodule of least positive rational dimension makes it simple; splitting it off and inducting on dimension writes with finitely many pairwise nonisomorphic simple modules .
For a simple , is a division ring: a nonzero module map has zero kernel and nonzero image, so is bijective and its inverse is again a module map. Give the right -action . It has a finite basis over this division ring: a -independent list is rationally independent because , so its length is bounded by ; a list of maximal length spans. Write this basis as .
The evaluation image is a -submodule. If it were proper, [F1] would give a nonzero complement; projecting onto one simple summand of that complement and identifying it with gives a nonzero -map that vanishes on . Every such map has the form with . For , , so at one gets . The chosen right -basis forces every , contradicting . Hence evaluation is onto. Any -linear endomorphism of is therefore the action of some : choose with the prescribed values on the basis, then both maps are -linear and agree on that basis. Thus the image of on is .
Apply the same evaluation argument simultaneously to one chosen -basis of each . The target is . If the image of , , were proper, [F1] would provide a nonzero -map killing that image for some simple type . A map from to is zero for , since a nonzero map between simple modules is an isomorphism; the remaining coordinates of are maps . Evaluating at contradicts the -independence of the chosen basis of , exactly as in step 2.1. Therefore every tuple of target values on all these bases is attained by one , and the image of on the distinct simple types is the full independent product .
On this product acts by the same full algebra on each copy. Its commutant on is exactly : a map commutes with iff it commutes with the image of , which is equivalent to being in . Hence . To take its commutant on , first commute with the diagonal and off-diagonal copy matrix units; this forces zero off-diagonal blocks and the same map on every diagonal block. Commuting with the diagonal maps is exactly the condition , so . The independent central block projections eliminate maps between distinct . Thus the commutant of is precisely acting diagonally on the multiplicity copies, which is the image of from step 3.1.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
33 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Pavel Etingof et al., Introduction to representation theory (standard reference, not scraped)