Given two finite groups $G_1$ and $G_2$, and some representations $\rho_1: G_1 \to V_1$ and $\rho_2: G_2 \to V_2$, it seems the standard way to create a representation for $G_1 \times G_2$ is to use the tensor product $$\rho_1(g_1) \otimes \rho_2(g_2) \quad g_1,g_2 \in G_1,G_2.$$ It seems to me that one could also use the direct sum $\rho_1(g_1) \oplus \rho_2(g_2)$, because the blocks in the matrix form of the representation do not interact and one gets the desired effect. Given that this representation could have a lower dimension than using tensor product, why is it not used?
2026-03-30 02:11:37.1774836697
direct sum of representation of product groups
1.1k Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in GROUP-THEORY
- What is the intersection of the vertices of a face of a simplicial complex?
- Group with order $pq$ has subgroups of order $p$ and $q$
- How to construct a group whose "size" grows between polynomially and exponentially.
- Conjugacy class formula
- $G$ abelian when $Z(G)$ is a proper subset of $G$?
- A group of order 189 is not simple
- Minimal dimension needed for linearization of group action
- For a $G$ a finite subgroup of $\mathbb{GL}_2(\mathbb{R})$ of rank $3$, show that $f^2 = \textrm{Id}$ for all $f \in G$
- subgroups that contain a normal subgroup is also normal
- Could anyone give an **example** that a problem that can be solved by creating a new group?
Related Questions in FINITE-GROUPS
- List Conjugacy Classes in GAP?
- For a $G$ a finite subgroup of $\mathbb{GL}_2(\mathbb{R})$ of rank $3$, show that $f^2 = \textrm{Id}$ for all $f \in G$
- Assuming unitarity of arbitrary representations in proof of Schur's lemma
- existence of subgroups of finite abelian groups
- Online reference about semi-direct products in finite group theory?
- classify groups of order $p^2$ simple or not
- Show that for character $\chi$ of an Abelian group $G$ we have $[\chi; \chi] \ge \chi(1)$.
- The number of conjugacy classes of a finite group
- Properties of symmetric and alternating characters
- Finite group, How can I construct solution step-by-step.
Related Questions in REPRESENTATION-THEORY
- How does $\operatorname{Ind}^G_H$ behave with respect to $\bigoplus$?
- Minimal dimension needed for linearization of group action
- How do you prove that category of representations of $G_m$ is equivalent to the category of finite dimensional graded vector spaces?
- Assuming unitarity of arbitrary representations in proof of Schur's lemma
- Are representation isomorphisms of permutation representations necessarily permutation matrices?
- idempotent in quiver theory
- Help with a definition in Serre's Linear Representations of Finite Groups
- Are there special advantages in this representation of sl2?
- Properties of symmetric and alternating characters
- Representation theory of $S_3$
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
When $V_1$ and $V_2$ are representations of $G_1$ and $G_2$ respectively, I'll use $V_1 \boxtimes V_2$ to mean the representation of $G_1 \times G_2$ with underlying vector space $V_1 \otimes_{\mathbb{C}} V_2$, and $V_1 \boxplus V_2$ to mean the representation of $G_1 \times G_2$ with underlying vector space $V_1 \oplus V_2$.
If $V$ is an irreducible representation of $G_1 \times G_2$, then $V$ is isomorphic to $V_1 \boxtimes V_2$ for some irreducible representations $V_1$ and $V_2$ of $G_1$ and $G_2$ respectively. This means that if we know the representations of $G_1$ and $G_2$, then using the $\boxtimes$ construction we can get to all the (irreducible) representations of $G_1 \times G_2$. Conversely, the $\boxtimes$ product of two irreducible representations always produces an irreducible representation of $G_1 \times G_2$.
On the other hand, $V_1 \boxplus V_2$ is always reducible as a $G_1 \times G_2$ representation, since both vector subspaces $V_1$ and $V_2$ are stable under the $G_1 \times G_2$ action. On the $V_1$ subspace, really only the $G_1$ part of the group acts, and the $G_2$ part acts trivially, and similarly for the $V_2$ subspace. We cannot produce all irreducible representations of $G_1 \times G_2$ using this construction, which can already be seen in the example $G_1 = G_2 = \mathbb{Z} / 2 \mathbb{Z}$.