I am reading the book *Representation Theory of Finite Groups* by Benjamin Steinberg due to my interest in probability theory on groups and other algebraic structure. This is related to my earlier post on random walk on n-gons which I found to be very interesting. This post will be my workspace for reading through this book and other related material, notably *Group Representations in Probability and Statistics* by Persi Diaconis.

Representation theory studies how a group act on vector spaces. Another way to think about it is that for any group , what are the ways to embed or map it to the general linear group . We need to first review what a *group action* is. The action of a group on a set is a homomorphism , assigning each group member some permutation of the set that is compatible with the structure of the group . This is always possible because one can do this trivially (the *trivial action*) such that for all , mapping every element of to the identity permutation. If we take , then it is also always possible because of Cayley’s Theorem, which states that every group is isomorphic to a group of permutation or a subgroup of the symmetric group . The set can have some additional structure, and if we take to be a vector space over field and ensure the map respect the additional structure of the vector space as well, then the group action is called a group representation.

We write the linear map as , and , sometimes written as for the action of on . Below is an example of the representation on .

If we start with a representation where is a basis for , and if we have another isomorphism with a basis , then is another representation. These two representation are intuitively the “same”. More generally, we have the definition of equivalence

An example of equivalent representations is given in Sternberg as follows:

The notion of equivalent representation are the same as matrix similarity, except that the former describes the equivalence between operators and the latter their matrix representation. Also note that in the example above there are two eigenspaces for , namely and . For , we have for all as well. This motivates the definition of -invariant subspace.

We can use this definition to find the -invariant subspace of the standard representation . Note that the 1-dimensional space spanned by is a -invariant subspace, since for any ,

(1)

is again in the . Also note that its compliment is also -invariant. Indeed, if is a representation and is a -invariant subspace, then restricting to yields a *subrepresentation* The following computation of restricting the standard representation to follows that of Disconis.

The 2-dimensional representation of is also *irreducible*, which means

To show that, assume a non-zero vector (say ) and let be the span of this vector. If is a sub representation, then . Since , and so their difference is also in . If , then . Since , must be in as well, so . If then . . Take the difference and we have . Then must also be in , so again . This irreducible representation is 2-dimensional. We will see that the restriction of the permutation representation of to is an irreducible -dimensional representation.

Since we can form direct sum of vector spaces, we can similarly define a direct sum of representations. We want to do this because we want to show that if and are two -invariant subspaces and is a representation, then it makes sense to talk about a representation that maps from to .

##### Definition: Direct Sum of Representations

Let and be two representations, then their external direct sum

is defined by

and has dimension .

If we restrict ourselves to matrices, then suppose and . Then

has the block matrix form

The representation in the example about equivalence is a good demonstration of how to form direct product of representations. It should also be clear that if a representation can be written as a direct sum of subrepresentations, then it is not irreducible. Therefore. the representations in our equivalence example are not irreducible.

Related to the notion of irreducible representation are the *decomposable* and *completely reducible* representations.

*To Be Continued…*