Tell me more ×
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.

I'm reading through the proof in Artin's "Algebra" of Schur's lemma (second statement): if $T:V \to V$ is a $G$-invariant linear operator with respect to $\rho$ an irreducible representation, then $T = \lambda I$ for some $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}$.

The proof is simple, we let $\lambda$ be an eigenvalue of $T$ and see that $S = T - \lambda I$ is both $G$-invariant and non-invertible, and therefore zero. Thus $T = \lambda I$.

My question is in regards to $\lambda$. Since $T = \lambda I$ one can see that $T$ has in fact only one eigenvalue, with multiplicity $\text{dim}V$. So when we say

"let $\lambda$ be an eigenvalue of $T$..."

we could have said,

"let $\lambda$ be the eigenvalue of $T$...".

If only we knew that $\lambda$ was the only option. Or what? How could one find out that there is only one eigenvalue for $T$ without using this proof?

Thank you

share|improve this question
2  
We don't know that $\lambda$ is the only eigenvalue until we complete the proof, and then we do. The statement that $T$ has only one eigenvalue is already fairly close to Schur's lemma so I don't see the problem here. – Qiaochu Yuan May 1 '12 at 16:14
@QiaochuYuan right, I am just wondering if there is a way to see this before the proof... – user19447 May 1 '12 at 16:27
The proof is so short I can't imagine a reasonable way of proving that $T$ has only one eigenvalue which doesn't end up proving Schur's lemma. – Qiaochu Yuan May 1 '12 at 16:28
alright. That seems fair! Thank you for the help. – user19447 May 1 '12 at 16:28

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Okay, so I lied slightly. There's a fairly natural way to see that $T$ has only one eigenvalue which doesn't prove Schur's lemma, but only because it doesn't use the full strength of the hypothesis: we only assume that $V$ is indecomposable (is not the direct sum of two non-trivial submodules) rather than irreducible.

Generally, let $R$ be a $k$-algebra where $k$ is an algebraically closed field and let $M$ be an indecomposable left module over $R$. (To get a group representation from this setup, let $R$ be a group algebra $k[G]$). Then $M$ is in particular a $k$-vector space. If $T : M \to M$ is a module endomorphism, then we know (e.g. by the theory of Jordan normal form) that $M$ breaks up into a direct sum of the generalized eigenspaces of $T$, and since every operator in $R$ commutes with $T$, this exhibits $M$ as a direct sum of submodules. By assumption $M$ is indecomposable, so there must only be one such nontrivial submodule, hence $T$ can have only one eigenvalue.

Since every irreducible module is indecomposable, the conclusion follows. Note that by Maschke's theorem, every indecomposable module is also irreducible when considering finite groups $G$ over a field of characteristic not dividing $|G|$, but in general there are indecomposable modules which are not irreducible. For example, $\mathbb{Z}$ acts on $\mathbb{C}^2$ by $$n \mapsto \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 1 & n \\\ 0 & 1 \end{array} \right]$$

and this representation is indecomposable but not irreducible (exercise). $1$ acts by a matrix which is an intertwining operator that has one eigenvalue but is not scalar.

share|improve this answer
cool! Thanks again. – user19447 May 2 '12 at 9:16

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.