Maschke's Theorem
Statement
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 sketch
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.
Topics that use this theorem
Step-by-step proofs
No step-by-step proof yet for this theorem.
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