Sorry to ask that since I could just probably workout the answer myself, but I read this phrase on wikipedia
In abstract algebra, a representation of an associative algebra is a module for that algebra. article>>
Is there a good reason why they said associative algebra? What is that goes wrong in the definition of a module for a non-associative algebra? If so when we say for example an sl(2)-module we just intend the U(sl(2))-module and it's just a sloppy notation?
Let $A$ be a $K$-algebra (arbitrary $K$-bilinear product), $M$ a $K$-module and fix a $K$-module homomorphism $f$ from $A$ to the ring $\mathrm{End}_K(M)$ of $K$-module endomorphisms of $M$ (regardless of the algebra structures). This defines an external law $A\times M\to M$ given by $(a,m)\mapsto a.m:=f(a)(m)$.
Say that $M$ is $A$-faithful if $f$ is injective. Say that this is
First, these definition do not coincide. Moreover, although I didn't assume $A$ to be associative in the first case and Lie in the second, these are very mild assumptions. Indeed, for an associative algebra representation, $f$ is a $K$-algebra homomorphism $A\to(\mathrm{End}_K(M),.)$ and hence its image is associative; in particular if $M$ is $A$-faithful then $A$ is associative. Similarly, for a Lie algebra representation, $f$ is a $K$-algebra homomorphism $A\to(\mathrm{End}_K(M),[.,.])$ and hence its image is a Lie algebra; in particular if $M$ is $A$-faithful then $A$ is a Lie algebra.
So this just means that the definition of representation is adapted to the context, and the two previous examples (associative/Lie) are just the most celebrated.