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.
A representation with kernel containing a normal subgroup factors through the quotient, and irreducibility is unchanged by inflation
Statement
Let be a group, let be a normal subgroup (Normal subgroup: invariance under conjugation), and let be a representation over a field with . Then:
- the formula defines a well-posed representation with , where is the canonical quotient map;
- is irreducible as a representation of if and only if it is irreducible as a representation of .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A group , a normal subgroup , a field , and a representation with .
The kernel of a group homomorphism is the preimage of the identity (The kernel and image of a group homomorphism).
The canonical map , , is a surjective group homomorphism (The canonical projection , , is a surjective group homomorphism).
The cosets form the group under , with identity and inverse (For , the cosets form a group with identity and inverse ).
Proof
If , then by the coset laws of [F3], so by [F1] and the hypothesis ; hence . Therefore is independent of the chosen coset representative.
By [F3], ; applying gives , so is a group homomorphism into , with by [F2]. This proves claim 1.
A subspace is -stable exactly when it is -stable, because of [F2] is surjective and : the two stability conditions quantify over the same operators.
A representation is irreducible exactly when its only stable subspaces are and . By step 3.1 the stable subspaces for and for coincide, so the two irreducibility statements are equivalent, which is claim 2.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
11 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
- Peter Webb, A Course in Finite Group Representation Theory, Section 4.2 (standard reference, not scraped)