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.
  • I guess that conventionally one thinks of the fundamental representation and the anti-fundamental representation of $U(n)$ as the complex $n-$dimensional representation and its complex conjugate.

    But $U(n)$ being a rank $n$ group shouldn't there be $n$ fundamental representations of it corresponding to the $n$ fundamental weights of it (dual to its $n$ simple roots)?

  • In the fundamental representation I think of the Cartan of ${\cal u}(n)$ to be spanned by the $n$ diagonal matrices of ${\cal u}(n)$ which have all $0$s except a $1$ then I guess the $n$ vectors $(0,..,1,..0)$ (the $1$ shifting through the $n$ positions) can be thought of as the $n$ weight-vectors of the representation?

    • And the same vectors with the $1$ replaced by $-1$ be thought of as the weight vectors of the anti-fundamental representation? (since conjugate transpose of any element of ${\cal u}(n)$ is negative of it?)

    Naively the above does seem to depend on whether I think of the Lie algebra of $U(n)$ to be $n\times n$ Hermitian or skew-Hermitian matrices depending on whether or not I have an "$i$" while taking the exponentiation from the Lie algebra.

    It would be helpful if someone can help disentangle this (possibly there is being a mix of what is an intrinsic property of the group and what is convention)

    • Is there an analogoue of the above construction for $U(n)$?
share|improve this question
1  
What is a fundamental representation (in the phrase "$n$ fundamental representations")? –  Qiaochu Yuan Aug 9 '12 at 19:46
    
@Qiachu Yuan I guess one definition of a "fundamental representation" is that these are those whose highest weights are fundamental weights. Now there is one fundamental weight corresponding to every simple co-root and there will be as many simple co-roots as the rank of the Lie algebra and hence my guess about that count. –  user6818 Aug 9 '12 at 20:00
add comment

1 Answer

In some contexts, the repns $\bigwedge^k \mathbb C^n$ for $k=1,\ldots,n$ are called "fundamental". The highest weight on the group is $(h_1,\ldots,h_n)\rightarrow h_1\ldots h_k$. These are not the standard positive simple roots $h_i/h_{i+1}$, but are obviously mutually expressible.

In somewhat more detail: perhaps it is best to use $SU(n)$, rather than $U(n)$, so that the group and algebra are semi-simple, rather than merely reductive, so certain terminologies are completely correct, etc.

First, irreducibility can be proven by the highest-weight criterion: there is a unique vector in $\bigwedge^\ell \mathbb C$, namely, up to scalars, $e_1\wedge\ldots\wedge e_\ell$, annihilated by the standard unipotent radical, upper-triangular matrices (in the Lie algebra). This is not instantaneous, but is a do-able exercise.

Second, then, that vector has the obvious, expected eigenvalue: diagonal $h_1,\ldots,h_n$ in the group acts by $h_1\ldots h_\ell$. [Edit: previously, the $\ell$ was an erroneous superscript...]

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for your answer! Could you kindly elaborate on your answer a bit? Like if you give a few lines of explanation as to why the anti-symmetric powers of $\mathbb{C}^n$ are at all irreducible representations of $U(n)$ and in what sense they are "fundamental" and what are their weights (..like what is the eigenvalue way of defining the $h_i$s..) –  user6818 Aug 12 '12 at 17:27
    
garret Thanks for the update. I didn't understand the notation you used in the last line when you say, ``$h_1...h^l$". Could you explain that? And what is the choice of Cartan subalgebra that you are using to specify your weights? So is there any sense in which all representations of $U(n)$ can be constructed from $\wedge ^k \mathbb{C}^n$ for various $k$? –  user6818 Aug 13 '12 at 23:06
    
Oop, sorry, that should have been subscript $\ell$, not superscript. The Cartan subalgebra is diagonal things. Yes, the idea was to say that all repns can be constructed in a "virtual" sense that we must allow "subtractions" of (direct summand) repns to obtain everything from direct sums of multiples of the exterior-power repns. –  paul garrett Aug 13 '12 at 23:19
add comment

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.