2
$\begingroup$

Let $\rho\colon G\to GL(V)$ be a linear representation of $G$ on a $k$-vector space $V$. The dual representation is

$$G\to GL(V^*),\quad g\mapsto(\varphi\mapsto\varphi\circ\rho(g^{-1})).$$

By the same rule, we get a linear representation on the coordinate ring $k[V]$ of $V$, which is the $k$-algebra generated by $V^*$, with pointwise multiplication. Now if $V$ is finite-dimensional, $e_1,\dots,e_n$ the standard basis, and $x_1,\dots,x_n$ the dual basis, then $k[V]\cong k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$. Hence there is a linear representation $\bar\rho$ of $G$ on $k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$.

My question is: Is there a way to go "back"? That is, given a linear action of a group $G$ on $k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$, does it come from a linear representation of $G$ on an $n$-dimensional vector space $V$?

More generally, given a linear representation $\bar\rho:G\to GL(k[V])$, does it come from a representation $G\to GL(V)$?

Edit: As an example, consider $G\subseteq GL_n(k)$ acting on $k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ via $(A,f)\mapsto f(A\cdot x)$. Does this action come from a linear representation of $G$ on $k^n$? I could consider $G$ acting on $k^n$ by multiplication, but the action on the coordinate ring corresponding to this should be $(A,f)\mapsto f(A^{-1}\cdot x)$, or am I mistaken here?

This is motivated by the fact that in invariant theory, one studied actions of subgroups $G\subseteq GL_n(k)$ on the polynomial ring $k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ as above. But many theorems or facts in invariant theory are formulated in the language of representations, and the invariant ring there is $k[V]^G$. Now if I know that under certain circumstances $k[V]^G$ is finitely generated, I wanted to "come back" to the initial problem of linear actions on $k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$. But I can't really connect these two yet. As written above, any representation of $G$ on some f.d. vector space $V$ induces an action on the coordinate ring $k[V]$, but why do these include the above actions on the polynomial ring? And if they do, how does the initial action on $k^n$ look, given $\rho:G\to GL(k[V])$?

Edit5: I finally found a way to hopefully make clearer what I'd like. Let $G\subseteq GL_n(k)$. Can every linear $G$-action on $k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ be written as $\bar\rho:G\to GL(k[V])$, coming from some $\rho:G\to GL(V)$? So that the $k[V]^G$ really are a "generalization" of the invariant ring $k[x_1,\dots,x_n]^G$.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If $V$ is finite dimensional then $V^{**} \cong V$ as $kG$-modules, so you can "go back" that way. $\endgroup$ – Matthew Towers Jul 14 '13 at 11:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The "example" in your edit is not an example. $k\left[x_1,x_2,...,x_n\right]$ is not a "dual" of $k^n$, but rather the symmetric algebra, or the symmetric algebra of a dual. $\endgroup$ – darij grinberg Jul 14 '13 at 12:08
  • $\begingroup$ @mt_ Oh yes, forgot about that, gotta do that next. $\endgroup$ – InvisiblePanda Jul 14 '13 at 12:53
  • $\begingroup$ @darijgrinberg I didn't mean that $k[x]$ was the dual space of $V=k^n$, but rather that it's (isomorphic to) the coordinate ring $k[V]$. What's confusing me is: given any action as above on $k[x]$, then I can consider the space $V=k^n$. Then how do I connect the action of $G$ on $k[V]$ to the construction of the action on the coordinate ring from an action on $V$? The title is very badly chosen, as I'm not interested in the "dual" representation itself, but the representation on the coordinate ring. But maybe I just didn't understand your comment. $\endgroup$ – InvisiblePanda Jul 14 '13 at 13:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ OK, let me try to sidestep the confusion around here and just answer Edit5: No, it cannot. There are many more linear $G$-actions on $k\left[x_1,...,x_n\right]$ than linear $G$-actions on $V$. A former comes from a latter if and only if every $g\in G$ acts on $k\left[x_1,...,x_n\right]$ by an algebra automorphisms. $\endgroup$ – darij grinberg Jul 14 '13 at 13:19
2
$\begingroup$

If I understand your question correctly, the answer is no, not every representation of a group $G$ on the polynomial algebra $k[V]$ comes from an action of $G$ on $V$.

One way to construct examples to see this is by using the fact that the polynomial ring $k[V]$ is graded: $$ k[V] = \bigoplus_{m=0}^\infty k[V]_m, $$ where $k[V]_m$ consists of the polynomials of degree $m$.

Then a group $G$ can act on just one component of this direct sum without acting on the others. For instance, let $G = \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$, written multiplicatively with generator $\alpha$ (so $\alpha^2 = e$), and for $f \in k[V]_m$, define $$ \alpha \cdot f = \begin{cases} -f & \text{ if } m=0\\ f & \text{ if } m>0 \end{cases} $$ Essentially, $G$ acts on a polynomial by changing the sign of the constant term and leaving everything else alone. This clearly doesn't come from an action of $G$ on $V$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your comment and answer so far :) To make everything clear for me: what is the answer in the special case $G\subseteq GL_n(k)$, with action $Af=f(Ax)$ on $k[x]$? Since this is the "traditional" setting in invariant theory, and one nowadays makes statements about $k$-algebras of the form $k[V]^G$, I assume the traditional setting is covered by this? $\endgroup$ – InvisiblePanda Jul 14 '13 at 13:30
  • $\begingroup$ As per my comment on the original question, you need $Af(x) = f(A^{-1}x)$, and that is exactly the representation coming from the usual action of $G$ on $k^n$. As darij pointed out in his comment on your question, the linear actions of $G$ on $k[V]$ that come from an action of $G$ on $V$ itself are precisely those actions that are compatible with the algebra structure of $k[V]$, i.e. where the representation is actually a group homomorphism $\sigma : G \to \mathrm{Aut}_{alg}(k[V])$. $\endgroup$ – MTS Jul 14 '13 at 13:44
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much! I also just now found this primer, which, too, was helping me in understanding this. My confusion is finally gone :) $\endgroup$ – InvisiblePanda Jul 14 '13 at 13:49
-2
$\begingroup$

Yes. This is related to Peter Weyl Theorem that every representation has a dual representation.

\[ L^2(G) \simeq \bigoplus_{\mathrm{Irr}(G)} R \otimes \overline{R} \]

Physicists have a shorthand for this using "bra-ket" notation: the "ket" or left-action $ g \,|v \rangle $ is dual to "bra" right-action $ \langle v | g$.

In these notes on representation theory, in section 1.3, they talk about left- and right-modules.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ John, I don't think that the Peter Weyl Theorem implies that every representation of a group on a polynomial algebra comes from an action on the degree one part. $\endgroup$ – MTS Jul 14 '13 at 13:26

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.