Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

My notes ask me to confirm the result:

$\mathrm{Hom}(V \otimes W, U) \cong \mathrm{Hom}(V, \mathrm{Hom}(U,W))$ as $\mathbb C$-representations of a finite group $G$.

But it seems to be incorrect. $\chi_{\mathrm{Hom}(V \otimes W, U)} = \overline{\chi_{V \otimes W}} \chi_U = \overline{\chi_V}\ \overline{\chi _ W} \chi_U$, whilst $\chi_{\mathrm{Hom}(V, \mathrm{Hom}(U,W))} = \overline{\chi_V} \chi_{\mathrm{Hom}(U,W)} = \overline{\chi_V} \ \overline{\chi_U} \chi_W$. So it looks like $U$ and $W$ should be switched in the RHS of the isomorphism.

Am I right?


share|cite|improve this question
Yes, you are right. – Qiaochu Yuan Mar 22 '12 at 20:17
up vote 2 down vote accepted

Yes, you're right. This is a version of hom-tensor adjunction. Instead of equality of characters you could also write down an ismorphism of vector spaces: in one direction it should send $f: V\otimes W \to U$ to the map that sends $v\in V$ to $w \mapsto f(v\otimes w) \in \hom(W,U)$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.