In this book I read

Proposition A.1. The irreducible complex representations of a real Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the irreducible complex-linear representations of its complexification $\mathfrak{g}_C$

How can this be correct?

As an example take $\mathfrak{so}(3)$, which is a real Lie algebra. Naturally, the $3$-dimensional representation of $\mathfrak{so}(3)$ is a real representation

$$ \pi : \mathfrak{so}(3) \rightarrow Gl(R^3) $$

We can complexify the representation by considering

$$ \pi : \mathfrak{so}(3) \rightarrow Gl(C^3) $$

This means we have the same $3\times 3$ matrices, but now they act on complex $3$-dimensional vectors. (This is Example 5.32 at page 249 in the book I linked to above. The author writes there: "the complexification of the fundamental representation of $\mathfrak{so}(3)$ is just given by the usual $\mathfrak{so}(3)$ matrices acting on $C^3$ rather than $R^3$.

Alternatively, we can consider the complexified Lie algebra $\mathfrak{so}(3)_C$. This means we now allow complex linear combination of the $\mathfrak{so}(3)$ elements:

$$ \mathfrak{so}(3)_C= \{ x + iy | x,y \in \mathfrak{so}(3) \}$$

The representations of $\mathfrak{so}(3)_C$ are maps to complex vector spaces, for example

$$ \pi : \mathfrak{so}(3)_C \rightarrow Gl(C^3) $$

These are the complex linear combinations of the usual $\mathfrak{so}(3)$ matrices acting on complex vectors.

How can this representation be in "in one-to-one correspondence" to $ \pi : \mathfrak{so}(3) \rightarrow gl(C^3) $?

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Strictly speaking, the author should be talking about the sets of isomorphism classes of irreducible complex representations of $\mathfrak{g}$ vs. its complexification. There is a natural function from one set to the other given by complexifying the action of $\mathfrak{g}$, and the claim is that this is a bijection. This function sends the first complex representation you wrote down to the second one. There's no problem here. $\endgroup$ Aug 25, 2015 at 9:09

1 Answer 1


An irreducible representation $\phi:\mathfrak{g}_\mathbb{C} \rightarrow GL(\mathbb{C,n})$ is a Lie algebra homomorphism by definition. That is, it's linear.

So, to consider your example, we see that for $x,y \in \mathfrak{so}(3)$,

\begin{align} \pi(x+iy) = \pi(x)+i\pi(y) \end{align}

which shows that working with

\begin{align} \pi: \mathfrak{so}(3) \rightarrow GL(\mathbb{C,3}) \end{align}

is the same as working with

\begin{align} \pi: \mathfrak{so}(3)_\mathbb{C} \rightarrow GL(\mathbb{C,3}) \end{align}

(if this doesn't convince you, try to construct a counter example to the proposition and you'll see that it's impossible precisely because any irreducible representation is a homomorphism).

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ where are you using the irreducibility of the representations? $\endgroup$
    – glS
    Oct 14, 2020 at 10:07
  • $\begingroup$ The representation doesn't need to be irreducible. The question was asked with irreducible representations in mind, and if irreducible representations are linear, so are reducible representations. $\endgroup$ Jun 19 at 9:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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