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'm learning about Representation Theory, and I've come across a statement I don't understand:

"If $\rho$ and $\rho'$ are isomorphic representations, then they have the same dimension. However, the converse is not true: in $C_4$, there are four non-isomorphic 1-dimensional representations. If $\omega = e^{2 i \pi /4}$, then we have $\rho_j(\omega^i) = \omega^{ij} \ (0 \leq i \leq 3)$"

I do not understand how the $p_j$ are representations of $C_4$; as I understood it, a representation of a group was a homomorphism from the group into a group of linear transformations of vector spaces (or at least into the automorphism group of some object). But these are homomorphisms from $C_4$ into some subgroup of $C_4$. Any explanation would be appreciated.

share|improve this question
1  
You do notice that $\omega$ is a complex number. A complex number can be identified with a 1x1 matrix. Granted, this was unnecessarily confusing. I would use a different notation for the generator of $C_4$, say $g$, when we would have $\rho_j(g^i)=\omega^{ij}$. So I am siding with you to that extent! –  Jyrki Lahtonen Jan 17 '12 at 20:12
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

The map in that statement is $\rho_j:C_4\to\mathrm{GL}(1,\mathbb C)$. Now $\mathrm{GL}(1,\mathbb C)$ is canonically isomorphic to the multiplicative group $\mathbb C^\times$, so to give $\rho_j$ we may just as well given an homomorphism $\rho_j:C_4\to\mathbb C^\times$.

You seem to have defined $C_4$ as the group of $4$th roots of unity, which is a subgroup of $\mathbb C^\times$, and then it is easy tosee that the image of a group homomorphism $C_4\to\mathbb C^\times$ will always have —as you noticed— its image contained in $C_4$.

share|improve this answer
    
This makes perfect sense. If only "$\mathrm{GL}(1,\mathbb C)$" had appeared somewhere in the sentence... (it's on the 4th page of introductory notes on Representation Theory; I would have expected a bit more clarity!) –  Matt Jan 17 '12 at 20:24
    
I agree that the way that was written in your quote is suboptimal! :D –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Jan 17 '12 at 20:26
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.