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.
Reconstruction from the inertia component
Statement
Let be finite, , and an irreducible complex -module whose restriction contains . Set and . Then is irreducible as an -module, and the canonical map is a -isomorphism. Here is any left transversal for and induction uses functions satisfying , with .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The groups, modules, characters, and hypotheses in the statement. All representations here are finite-dimensional complex left representations.
The nonzero component is stable under . (The stabilizer of a nonzero isotypical component).
The constituents of the normal restriction of an irreducible module form exactly one conjugacy orbit. (Normal restriction has one orbit of constituents).
Evaluation on a finite left transversal identifies the induced function module, as a vector space, with one copy of its inducing module per coset. (A left transversal identifies with a direct sum of copies of ).
Translation carries each normal isotypical component onto the conjugate-type component, and those components form a direct sum. (Translation permutes normal isotypical components).
Proof
The space is nonzero and -stable. Its inclusion into has a corresponding -map under adjunction. In the stated function model this map is : replacing by leaves unchanged. For , write ; then , so reindexing gives .
By transversal evaluation, the functions supported on form a copy of , and restricts there to the invertible linear map onto . Distinct left cosets give distinct types, and the orbit result says these are all components of . Their sum is direct, so is bijective before any irreducibility of is asserted.
Let be an -submodule. The direct sum is -stable: if then . For it is nonzero and hence equals . Its dimension is , whereas step 2.1 gives . Therefore , proving irreducibility. This argument allows and without change.
Depends on
- The stabilizer of a nonzero isotypical component
- Normal restriction has one orbit of constituents
- A left transversal identifies $\operatorname{Ind}_H^G W$ with a direct sum of $[G:H]$ copies of $W$
- Induction is left adjoint to restriction for finite-group modules over a commutative ring
- Translation permutes normal isotypical components
Used by
- Clifford correspondence Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
13 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
- Tammo tom Dieck, Representation Theory — Proposition 4.2.2 p.54 (standard reference, not scraped)