Algebra
Representation theory
Studies abstract algebraic structures by representing their elements as matrices acting on vector spaces.
IntuitionTurning abstract symmetry into matrices you can compute with
A group can be entirely abstract — symbols with a multiplication rule — but every time it acts as symmetries of something (a triangle, a molecule, a physical system), those symmetries can be written down as matrices acting on a vector space . A representation is exactly this: a map satisfying , turning the abstract multiplication of into ordinary matrix multiplication. This is a change of viewpoint with enormous payoff: hard questions about an abstract group become linear-algebra questions about matrices, which we know how to compute with. The simplest nontrivial example is a rotation: the cyclic group acts on by , sending the abstract generator to a rotation of the plane by one -th of a full turn.
SchoolRepresentations, characters, and reducibility
Definition: Representation and character
A representation of a group on a vector space over a field is a homomorphism ; is the dimension of the representation. The character records just the trace of each matrix: . Remarkably, for representations over of a finite group, the character alone determines the representation up to isomorphism — an entire matrix-valued function collapses to a single number per group element without losing information.
A subspace is **-invariant** if for every ; a representation with no invariant subspace other than and is irreducible. Every representation of a finite group decomposes into a direct sum of irreducibles — think of irreducibles as the "prime numbers" of representation theory, the indivisible building blocks every representation is built from.
| Property | Reducible | Irreducible |
|---|---|---|
| Invariant subspaces | has a proper nonzero one | only and |
| Example for | regular representation on | each -dimensional piece |
| Role in the theory | decomposes further | building block (indecomposable and simple) |
UndergraduateComplete reducibility, Schur's lemma, and orthogonality
Let be a finite group and a representation over a field with not dividing (in particular, always true over ). If is a -invariant subspace, then there is a -invariant complement with . Consequently every such representation decomposes as a direct sum of irreducible representations.
Why is it true?
Linear algebra alone guarantees some complement to , but a generic complement will not be -invariant. Maschke's theorem shows we can always average an arbitrary projection over the group to force it to commute with the -action, at the cost of dividing by — which is exactly why the theorem needs , and exactly why modular representation theory (where this division is impossible) behaves so differently.
Proof
Step 1 (start with any complement). By ordinary linear algebra, choose any vector-space complement to in (not necessarily -invariant), and let be the corresponding projection (, ).
Step 2 (average over the group). Define . This makes sense exactly because , so is invertible in .
Step 3 ( is still a projection onto ). For , since is -invariant, , so , giving for every term; averaging these copies of gives . For general , always (image of ), so by invariance, and averaging stays in ; hence is a projection onto .
Step 4 ( commutes with the action, so its kernel is -invariant). For any , since merely permutes the sum; so . Setting , for we get , so : is -invariant, and since is a projection onto . Iterating this splitting on (finite dimension forces termination) decomposes into a direct sum of irreducibles.
(Schur's Lemma) If are irreducible complex representations of and is a -equivariant linear map, then either or is an isomorphism; if , then for some scalar . (Character orthogonality) Consequently, for irreducible characters of a finite group , , where .
Why is it true?
Schur's Lemma says irreducible representations are as rigid as possible: the only maps between them that respect the group action are either zero or invertible, and self-maps are just scalars. This rigidity is exactly what forces the orthogonality relation, which in turn gives an extremely practical tool — a dot-product test on a finite table of numbers (the character table) that instantly tells you which representations are irreducible and how any representation decomposes.
Proof
Step 1 (Schur's Lemma, kernel and image). Let be -equivariant, i.e. for all . Then is a -invariant subspace (if then ), and since is irreducible, is either or all of .
Step 2 (conclude or injective, then surjective). If , then . Otherwise , so is injective; the image is also -invariant (by equivariance), and since is irreducible and (as ), , making bijective, hence an isomorphism.
Step 3 ( forces ). Since is algebraically closed, has an eigenvalue with eigenspace . Because is -equivariant, so is , so is a nonzero -invariant subspace of the irreducible , forcing ; hence .
Step 4 (orthogonality from averaging). Fix bases and let be an arbitrary linear map; form the equivariant map exactly as in Maschke's theorem. By Steps 1–3, if , and (with computable via trace) if . Choosing to be elementary matrix units and comparing matrix entries of on both sides of this identity yields, after summing over the diagonal to extract traces, exactly .
UndergraduateReal-World Applications and Worked Examples
Representation theory is the mathematics of exploiting symmetry to simplify computation: chemists use character tables to predict which molecular vibrations are visible in infrared and Raman spectra without solving any differential equation directly; physicists classify elementary particles and quantum states by which irreducible representation of a symmetry group they belong to; and modern number theory (the Langlands program) is organized entirely around representations of arithmetic groups.
Example: Predicting infrared-active vibrations of water
The water molecule has symmetry group of order (identity, a rotation, and two mirror reflections), with one-dimensional irreducible representations. The -dimensional representation of atomic displacements has character equal to on the four group elements respectively. Using the reduction formula , determine how many times each irreducible representation of appears in this -dimensional representation.
Solution
Step 1: recall the character table. Its four irreducible characters take values , , , respectively on the ordered elements (identity, , , ).
Step 2: apply the reduction formula for each irreducible. For : . For : . For : . For : .
Step 3: sanity-check dimensions. , matching the total dimension, and each came out a nonnegative integer, confirming the computation is consistent.
Step 4: interpret physically. After removing translations and rotations (which also transform according to specific irreducibles of ) from this -dimensional representation, the remaining genuine vibrational modes are identified, and group theory alone — via characters, no differential equations — determines exactly which are infrared-active (those transforming like , i.e. like or here) versus silent.
Example: Angular momentum as representations
In quantum mechanics, rotational symmetry means the Hamiltonian commutes with the action of (the double cover of ), so every energy eigenspace is a representation of . The irreducible representations of are indexed by a spin and have dimension . Explain why an electron's spin states form a -dimensional space, and why a -orbital (angular momentum ) has exactly degenerate states in the absence of external fields.
Solution
Step 1: identify the representation-theoretic dictionary. Each physically observed "degenerate multiplet" of states related by rotation is, mathematically, exactly one irreducible representation of ; the number of degenerate states is its dimension .
Step 2: electron spin. An electron's spin corresponds to , the smallest nontrivial (half-integer) representation of ; its dimension is , matching the two observed states "spin up" and "spin down."
Step 3: the -orbital. A -orbital carries angular momentum ; the corresponding irreducible representation of has dimension .
Step 4: why they are degenerate absent a field. Without an external field, the Hamiltonian is exactly rotationally symmetric, so by Schur's Lemma the Hamiltonian acts as a scalar on each irreducible representation (it is a -equivariant self-map of an irreducible space) — meaning every state within the same irreducible representation shares exactly the same energy eigenvalue, i.e. the states of the -orbital are forced to be degenerate purely by symmetry, with no dynamical calculation needed; turning on an external field (e.g. a magnetic field) breaks the symmetry and splits this degeneracy (the Zeeman effect).
What condition must a map satisfy to be a representation of ?
By Schur's Lemma, a -equivariant linear map between an irreducible complex representation and itself must be:
A chemist computes the character of a -dimensional atomic-displacement representation and wants to know how many independent vibrational modes are infrared-active. Which tool from representation theory directly answers this, without solving any differential equation?
What is the dimension of the irreducible representation of corresponding to spin ?
References
- Jean-Pierre Serre (1977). Linear Representations of Finite Groups
- William Fulton, Joe Harris (1991). Representation Theory: A First Course
- Dennis Gaitsgory, Sam Raskin, et al. (2024). The Proof of the Geometric Langlands Conjecture · arXiv:2405.03599
- Gordon D. James (1978). The Representation Theory of the Symmetric Groups