0
$\begingroup$

The following is a question on a passage in the book A Course in the Theory of Groups by Derek Robinson. There he constructs the induced module $M^G$ from a $FH$-module for some subgroup $H \le G$ of finite index. The proof shows in some sense that this module is $F$-vector space isomorphic to $M^r$ with $r = |G : H|$, but it starts from a tensor product construction where $M$ and $FG$ are considered as $FH$ modules, but then suddenly speaks about vector space isomorphisms, but I do not see how this is transition is justified. I see that if $M$ and $FG$ have finite $F$-dimension, then the $FH$-dimension of both must be smaller of course, and every direct sum decomposition as $FH$-modules is also a direct sum decomposition as $F$-subspaces (as every $FH$-module obviously is an $F$-vector space) and that the $FH$-bilinearity of the tensor product implies $F$-bilinearity too. But in the argument I do not see if this might be relevant.

Suppose that $G$ is a group and $H$ is a subgroup of $G$ with finite index $r$. Let there be given an $F$-representation $\rho$ of $H$ arising from a right $FH$-module $M$. We proceed to form the tensor product over $FH$, $$ M^G = M \otimes_{FH} FG, $$ wherein $FG$ is to be regarded as a left $FH$-module by means of left multiplication. So far $M^G$ is only an $F$-module. However $FG$ is also a right $FG$-module via right multiplication. Consequently $M^G$ becomes a right $FG$-module by means of the rule $$ (a\times r)s = a \otimes (rs), \qquad (a \in M, r,s \in FG). $$ The $FH$-bilinearity of the map $(a,r) \mapsto a \oplus (rs)$ shows this action to be well-defined. The right $FG$-module is called the induced module of $M$, and the $F$-representation which arises from $M$ is called the induced representation $\rho^G$ of $\rho$. If $\rho$ has character $\chi$, we shall write $\chi^G$ for the induced character, that is, the character of $\rho^G$.

We plan now to investigate the nature of the module $M^G$. Choosing a right transversal $\{t_1, \ldots, t_r\}$ of $H$ in $G$, we may write each element of $FG$ uniquely in the form $\sum_{i=1}^r u_i t_i$ with $u_i \in FH$. Hence there is a decomposition of $FG$ into left $FH$-modules $FG = (FH)t_1 \oplus \ldots \oplus (FH)t_r$. By the distributive property of tensor products there is an $F$-isomorphism. $$ M^G \cong M \otimes_{FH} ((FH)t_1)) \oplus \ldots \oplus M \otimes_{FH} ((FH)t_r). $$ By virtue of the equation $a \otimes ut_i = au \otimes t_i$ we can write the above as $$ M^G \cong M \otimes t_1 \oplus \ldots \oplus M\otimes t_r. $$ Hence if $\{ a_1, \ldots, a_n \}$ is a basis of $M$ over $F$, the elements $a_i \otimes t_j, i = 1,2,\ldots, n, j = 1,2,\ldots, r$ form a basis for $M^G$ over $F$.

I do not understand what is happening in the last step. There suddenly everything switches from tensor products of $FH$-modules to tensor products over $F$ (guess if $FH$ is not written at the symbol $\otimes$ this is meant). But how is this possible? How can he suddently talk about $M$ as a $F$-vector space inside the tensor product, and hence claim that $a_i\otimes t_j$ forms a $F$-basis? I see by definition that $M \cong M\otimes t_j$ for all $j = 1,\ldots, r$?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

A direct sum of $FH$-modules is also a direct sum of vector spaces, so it is enough to consider a single term $M \otimes t_i$ in the decomposition.

Now $M \otimes t_i = \{ m \otimes t_i : m \in M \}$. So, if $a_1,\ldots,a_n$ is a basis of $M$ as a vector space over $F$, then every element of $M$ can be written uniquely as $\sum_{i=1}^n f_i a_i$ with $f_i \in F$. Hence every element of $M \otimes t_i$ can be written uniquely as $\sum_{i=1}^n f_i(a_i \otimes t_i)$, which is saying exactly that $a_1 \otimes t_i,\ldots,a_n \otimes t_i$ is a basis of $M \otimes t_i$ as a vector space over $F$.

$\endgroup$

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.