$\newcommand{\GLp}{\operatorname{GL}_n^+}$ $\newcommand{\SO}{\operatorname{SO}_n}$

Let $n>2$, and Let $A \in \GLp$ be an invertible real $n \times n$ matrix, which commutes with $\SO$.

Is it true that $A= \lambda Id$ for some $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$ ?

An equivalent requirement is that $A$ commutes with every skew-symmetric matrix.

One direction is obtained by differentiating a path of orthogonal matrices starting at the identity. The converse implication comes from the fact that every element of $\SO$ equals to $\exp(M)$ for some skew-symmetric $M$.

Note that if we assume that $A \in \SO$, then the answer is positive: we must have $A=\pm Id$ .

  • $\begingroup$ If you write it instead as $Q = A^{-1}B Q B^{-1} A = A^{-1} B Q ( A^{-1} B)^{-1}$. Then denote $C = A^{-1} B$ and then we have the system $C Q C^{-1} = Q$. So it seems to be true that if the matrix $A^{-1}B$ is commutative things work out. So perhaps instead of saying $B = \pm Id$, we must have $A^{-1}B = \pm id \implies B = \pm A$. Oh I think this is the answer $\endgroup$ – TrostAft Dec 20 '18 at 20:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You could have $B=kA$ for any nonzero $k$. $\endgroup$ – Lord Shark the Unknown Dec 20 '18 at 20:42
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ When $n=2$, $SO_n$ consists of the $\cos t I+\sin t J$ for $J=\pmatrix{0&1\\-1&0}$. Then the centraliser of all these matrices consists of $\Bbb RI +\Bbb RJ$. $\endgroup$ – Lord Shark the Unknown Dec 20 '18 at 20:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As every element of $SO_n$ is $\exp(M)$ for a skew-symmetric $M$, then $C$ commutes with all of $SO_n$ iff $C$ commutes with all skew-symmetric matrices. $\endgroup$ – Lord Shark the Unknown Dec 20 '18 at 20:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The proof sketch in the linked question applies to this case as well $\endgroup$ – Dap Dec 21 '18 at 14:30

This is a representation theory question: slightly generalized (there's no need to restrict our attention to $GL_n^{+}$), you're asking what the endomorphisms of $\mathbb{R}^n$ as a representation of the Lie group $SO(n)$ (or, equivalently, the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{so}(n)$) are.

This representation is always irreducible, so by Schur's lemma the endomorphisms form a division algebra over $\mathbb{R}$, which by the Frobenius theorem must be $\mathbb{R}, \mathbb{C}$, or $\mathbb{H}$. The latter two cases can't happen if $n$ is odd (because $\mathbb{C}$ and $\mathbb{H}$ only act on $\mathbb{R}^n$ when $n$ is divisible by $2$ or $4$ respectively).

If $n = 2k \ge 4$ is even we can argue as follows: if the endomorphism ring contains $\mathbb{C}$, then $SO(2k)$ must embed into $GL_k(\mathbb{C})$ and hence into the unitary group $U(k)$, by compactness, and similarly on the level of Lie algebras. But this is impossible by a dimension count: $SO(2k)$ has dimension $k(2k-1)$, but $U(k)$ has dimension $k^2$, and for $k \ge 2$ we have $2k-1 > k$. (For $k = 1$ they are equal, reflecting the coincidence $SO(2) = U(1)$.) So the endomorphism ring must be $\mathbb{R}$. Probably a simpler argument is possible here.

  • $\begingroup$ Hi, I know it has been some time ago, but coming to this question again, I see that I don't understand two things here: (1) Why the fact the endomorphism ring contains $\mathbb C$ implies that $\text{SO}(2k)$ embeds in $\text{GL}_k(\mathbb C)$? Can you describe the embedding more explicitly (I guess in terms of an endomorphism $J:\mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R^n$ whose square is $-1$)? (2) Why can $\mathbb H$ only act on $\mathbb R^n$ when $n$ is divisible by $4$? (If I understand correctly, the reason why $\mathbb C$ can only act on $\mathbb R^n$ for even $n$ is that... $\endgroup$ – Asaf Shachar Jan 30 at 8:42
  • $\begingroup$ if you have a $J \in \text{GL}(\mathbb R^n)$ , $J^2=-1$ you can take determinants and see what happens. What is the argument for the quaternionic case? I appreciate your help. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Shachar Jan 30 at 8:43
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafShachar Concerning your second question: both $\mathbb C$ and $\mathbb H$ are division algebras; if a division algebra $A$ over $\mathbb R$ acts on an $\mathbb R$-vector space $V$, $V$ in turn is an $A$-vector space. If $V$ has dimension $n$ over $A$, it has dimension $n \cdot \dim A$ over $\mathbb R$. $\endgroup$ – lisyarus Feb 12 at 12:34

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.