Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

Why does the universal cover of $SL_{2}(\mathbb{R})$ have no finite dimensional representations?

share|improve this question
5  
It hasn't? I could perhaps believe it has no faithful finite-dimensional representation, though. –  Henning Makholm Apr 9 '12 at 13:52

2 Answers 2

up vote 10 down vote accepted

Here's a slightly different way of seeing that $\DeclareMathOperator{\SL}{SL(2,\mathbb{R})}\DeclareMathOperator{\USL}{\widetilde{SL}(2,\mathbb{R})}\DeclareMathOperator{\SLC}{SL(2,\mathbb{C})}\DeclareMathOperator{\sl}{\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{R})}\DeclareMathOperator{\slc}{\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})}\USL$ has no faithful finite-dimensional representations:

Start with a representation $\Phi$ of $\USL$ on a finite-dimensional real vector space. The associated representation $\phi=d\Phi(1)$ of $\sl$ can be complexified to yield a representation of $\slc$. Since $\SLC$ is simply connected, this corresponds to a representation $\Psi_{\mathbb{C}}$ of $\SLC$. Since $\SL$ is a subgroup of $\SLC$, we get a representation $\Psi$ of $\SL$. The covering projection $\pi:\USL \to \SL$ yields another representation $\Psi\circ\pi$ of $\USL$. It is straightforward to check that $\phi = \psi$ ($= d(\Psi\circ\pi)(1)$). Since $\USL$ is simply connected, this means that $\Phi$ and $\Psi\circ\pi$ are actually the same representation. This shows that $\Phi$ factors over $\pi$, and hence has non-trivial kernel.

share|improve this answer
    
To show that $d\Phi(1) = d(\Psi \circ \pi)(1)$, is it just $d(\Psi \circ \pi)(1) = d\Psi(1)\circ d\pi(1) = d\Psi(1) = d\Phi(1)$ where the last equality is because of how $\Psi$ is defined? –  h.j.s Apr 9 '12 at 23:39
    
Yes, exactly.${}$ –  t.b. Apr 9 '12 at 23:41
    
By the way the same argument applies to every non trivial cover of $SL(2\mathbb{R})$, since morphisms of connected Lie groups are determined by their differential at the identity (even without simply connectedness). –  Lor Apr 19 '13 at 16:06

I don't have a deep answer -- just a proof.

First, I assume you want to know why $\widetilde{SL}_2(\mathbb{R})$ has no finite-dimensional faithful representations, i.e. why it cannot be expressed as a matrix group.

The proof is that the Lie algebra of $\widetilde{SL}_2(\mathbb{R})$ is $\mathfrak{sl}_2(\mathbb{R})$, so any representation of $\widetilde{SL}_2(\mathbb{R})$ must induce a representation of $\mathfrak{sl}_2(\mathbb{R})$ at the tangent space to the identity. Moreover, since $\widetilde{SL}_2(\mathbb{R})$ is connected, the representation of $\widetilde{SL}_2(\mathbb{R})$ is entirely determined by the representation of $\mathfrak{sl}_2(\mathbb{R})$.

Now, the representations of $\mathfrak{sl}_2(\mathbb{R})$ have been completely classified, and it is easy to check that none of them induce a faithful representation of $\widetilde{SL}_2(\mathbb{R})$. So that's that.

On a more philosophical level, there's no reason to think that every Lie group would be a matrix group, so it's not surprising that $\widetilde{SL}_2(\mathbb{R})$ turns out not to be. This happens a lot for covers of matrix groups. For example, the universal covers of the symplectic groups are the metaplectic groups, which also have no faithful finite-dimensional representations.

share|improve this answer
2  
Instead of using the classification of representations you can complexify to a representation of $\mathfrak{sl}_2(\mathbb{C})$ and use that $SL_2(\mathbb{C})$ is simply connected to get a representation of $SL_2(\mathbb{C})$. This restricts to a representation of $SL_2(\mathbb{R})$ and you can precompose this new one with the covering projection of $\widetilde{SL}_2(\mathbb{R}) \to SL_2(\mathbb{R})$. Then you can check on the level of Lie algebras that nothing happened, that is every representation of $\widetilde{SL}_2(\mathbb{R})$ factors over a representation of $SL_2(\mathbb{R})$. –  t.b. Apr 9 '12 at 14:02
1  
@t.b. Yes, that is a nice way to see it. Why not post it as your own answer? –  Jim Belk Apr 9 '12 at 14:06
    
Okay, done. I haven't checked right now, but I think similar arguments work in the other non-matrix groups you mentioned. –  t.b. Apr 9 '12 at 14:25
3  
It may be worth pointing out that every compact Lie group is a matrix group, but that the proof is nontrivial. –  Jason DeVito Apr 9 '12 at 14:41

Your Answer

 
discard

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.