2
$\begingroup$

Let $G$ be a finite abelian group. When $\prod_{g\in G\setminus 1} (1-g)$ vanishes in (say, complex) group algebra of $G$?

It is easy to see that for cyclic group $G$ such product does not vanish, since $G$ may be embedded into a (complex) field.

Oh, it looks like it is obvious: for non-cyclic $G$ there is no exact complex representation of $G$, so for each character $\chi$ there exists $1\ne g\in G$ such that $\chi(1-g)=0$, so our product vanishes.

$\endgroup$
0

2 Answers 2

4
$\begingroup$

I think the answer is "if and only if the group $G$ is not cyclic". Why?

1) An element of $\mathbb C\left[G\right]$ is zero if and only if it acts as zero on each irreducible representation of $G$ (since $\mathbb C\left[G\right]$ is the direct sum of the endomorphism rings of the irreducible representations).

2) An element of $\mathbb C\left[G\right]$ acts on an irreducible representation of $G$ either as zero or as an automorphism (because each irreducible representation of $G$ is $1$-dimensional, since $G$ is abelian).

Hence, for a product of the form $\prod_{g\in S}\left(1-g\right)$ to be zero, where $S$ is some ordered list of elements of $G$, it is necessary and sufficient that for each irreducible representation of $G$, there exists some $g\in S$ such that $1-g$ acts as zero on the representation, i. e. that $g$ acts as identity on the representation. Applied to a list $S$ containing all elements of $G\setminus 1$ (maybe several times), this means that the product $\prod_{g\in S}\left(1-g\right)$ is zero if and only if no irreducible representation of $G$ is faithful. Easy manipulations with roots of unity show this to hold if and only if $G$ is not cyclic.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, thank you, Darij, I have to think a bit myself next time before asking here:) $\endgroup$ Jun 30, 2010 at 15:14
1
$\begingroup$

The complex group algebra of a finite abelian group is isomorphic, as a $\mathbb C$-algebra, to a direct product of copies of $\mathbb C$: it does not then have nilpotent elements.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Indeed, thatnk you, but it only shows that we may consider $n=1$, since it may have divisors of 0. $\endgroup$ Jun 30, 2010 at 15:01
  • $\begingroup$ so, I edited the initial post $\endgroup$ Jun 30, 2010 at 15:03
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, the question appears to be easy, thanks. $\endgroup$ Jun 30, 2010 at 15:10

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.