3
$\begingroup$

Can someone give me a simplified proof of Schur's lemma in group theory. Sorry if the question looks a standard textbook proof. But I find the proof complicated in books. It would be helpful if someone can provide a link that proves Schur's lemma in a simpler way.

$\endgroup$
7
$\begingroup$

Using and extending notations on the Wiki page.

$\phi: M\to N$ is a linear map and there is a pair of linear representations of the same group $G$: One representation, say $U$, acting on $M$ and the other, say $U$, acting on $N$. The most elementary statement of the lemma established that,

Schur's lemma.

Under the said hypotheses if both the following conditions hold:

(a) $\phi U_g = V_g \phi$ for all $g\in G$

and

(b) $M$ is irreducible for $U$, $N$ is irreducible for $V$,

then $\phi$ is bijective or it is the null map.

Proof. Suppose that $\phi$ is not bijective, our final goal is obviously to prove that $\phi$ is the null map.

If $\phi$ is not bijective, it may happen for two reasons only:

(1) $Ran(\phi)$ is smaller than $N$ or

(2) $Ker(\phi)$ is larger than $\{0\} \subset M$ (or both).

Let us examine separately these cases.

Suppose (1) is valid. $y\in Ran(\phi)$ is equivalent to say that $y= \phi x$ for some $x\in M$. For such $y$, in view of (a) we have $V_gy = V_g\phi x = \phi U_g x = \phi U_gx' \in Ran(\phi)$. All that entails $$V_g Ran(\phi) \subset Ran(\phi)\quad \mbox{for all $g \in G$.}$$ As $V$ is irreducible for (b), it must be (i) $Ran(\phi)=\{0\}$ or (ii) $Ran(\phi)= N$. In the case (i) $\phi$ is the null map and the proof concludes, in the case (ii) case, since $\phi$ is not bijective by hypotheses,we must have that $Ker(\phi)$ is larger than $\{0\}$ and so we can restrict to the other case treated below.

Suppose (2) is valid. In this case (a) implies: $$U_g Ker(\phi) \subset Ker(\phi)\quad \mbox{for all $g \in G$.}$$

Indeed: If $x \in Ker(\phi)$ then $\phi x=0$ and so, by (a), $\phi U_gx =V_g\phi x = V_g 0 =0$, so $U_gx \in Ker(\phi)$ as wanted.

Since $U$ is irreducible for (b), it must be $Ker(\phi)=M$ and this means that $\phi$ is the null map and the proof stops, or $Ker(\phi)=\{0\}$ that is impossible by hypotheses ($Ker(\phi)$ is larger than $\{0\}$).

In all cases $\phi$ is the null map if it is not bijective. QED

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ See the amusing comment here about van Vleck's and George Mackey's proof here: maybe the OP was reading something akin to the former! $\endgroup$ – Selene Routley Feb 1 '14 at 13:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Indeed it is possible to state all the proof in few lines: since $Ran(\phi)$ and $Ker(\phi)$ are evidently invariant subspaces under the representations in the corresponding spaces, they must coincide either to the whole space or to $\{0\}$. This is equivalently to say that $\phi$ is bijectve or the null map. $\endgroup$ – V. Moretti Feb 1 '14 at 13:41
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ However this is not the most interesting version of S. lemma. The physically fundamental statements reads: A unitary group representation on a Hilbert space is irreducible if and only if the bounded operators commuting with it are all of the form $cI$ with $c\in \mathbb C$. $\endgroup$ – V. Moretti Feb 1 '14 at 13:45

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.