4
$\begingroup$

Let $G$ be a finite group of odd order. Suppose that $G$ has a real 4-dimensional faithful representation. Is it true that $G$ should be abelian in this case?

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

8
$\begingroup$

We can assume $G\leq O(4)$ wlog. Because $|G|$ is odd, we have in fact $G\leq SO(4)$ ($g\mapsto g^2$ is a bijection and hence every $g$ must have positive determinant) and a monomorphism $G\to PSO(4) \cong SO(3)\times SO(3)$. Now lets look at the two projections $\pi_1(G), \pi_2(G)\leq SO(3)$. We consult the list of finite order subgroups of $SO(3)$ and find that the only odd-order subgroups of $SO(3)$ are the cyclic ones. Therefore $G\leq \pi_1(G)\times\pi_2(G)$ is abelian.

$\endgroup$
11
$\begingroup$

Alternatively, a finite group of odd order has no real-valued complex irreducible character other than the trivial character. ( Proof (well-known): if $\chi$ is such a character, we have $\chi(g) = \chi(g^{-1})$ for all $g \in G$ and $g \neq g^{-1}$ whenever $g \neq 1_{G}.$ Hence $ \chi(1) + 2 \alpha = 0$ for some algebraic integer $\alpha$ by the orthogonality relations, a contradiction as $\chi(1)$ is odd). So if we regard the $4$-dimensional real representation as a complex representation, all non-trivial irreducible constituents of its character must occur in complex conjugate pairs. Since $G$ has no complex irreducible character of degree $2,$ we see that all irreducible constituents of the given character must be linear (ie degree $1$). Hence $G$ is Abelian, as the given character is assumed faithful. Later remark: the statement remains true for $5$-dimensional faithful representations of finite groups of odd order, but there is a non-Abelian group of order $27$ with a faithful $6$-dimensional real representation.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Isn't $\chi(1)$ just the dimension of the representation? Why does it have to be odd? $\endgroup$ Apr 10, 2014 at 6:23
  • $\begingroup$ Thhe degree of a complex irreducible character divides the group order, and the group order is odd by hypothesis. $\endgroup$ Apr 10, 2014 at 7:00
  • $\begingroup$ Ah. I see what you were doing now. I thought $\chi$ still referred to the character of the complexification of the four dimensional representation mentioned in the question. Thanks for clarifying. $\endgroup$ Apr 10, 2014 at 18:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.