Does anyone know of a simple proof that the general linear group GL(N) does not admit spinor representations?

Thank you!

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Could you clarify what you mean? If $V$ is the $2n$-dimensional vector space with bilinear form $x_1 y_2 + x_2 y_2 + \cdots x_n y_n$, and $SO(V)$ is the group of symmetries of $V$ preserving this quadratic form, then $GL_n$ maps to $SO(V)$ by $g \mapsto \left( \begin{smallmatrix} g & 0 \\ 0 & g^{-T} \end{smallmatrix} \right)$ and this map lifts to the double cover of $SO(V)$. So $GL_n$ acts on spinors for $2n$-dimensional space. (If we are working over the reals, this is embedding $GL_n(\mathbb{R})$ into $Spin(n,n)$.) I imagine there is a good question here, but it needs some explanation. $\endgroup$ – David E Speyer Feb 12 '13 at 16:24
  • $\begingroup$ i believe the missing word here is faithful. take a look at lemma 5.23 in lawson-michelsohn. $\endgroup$ – johndoe Feb 12 '13 at 17:20
  • $\begingroup$ Hi, thanks for your reply. I hope I can clarify the question. I read the following statement in Green, Schwartz, Witten-Superstring theory, Vol 2, page 272: "Spinors form a representation of SO(N) which does not arise from a representation of GL(N,R)." If I understand your comment correctly, what you are saying is that one can think of the action of GL(N,R) on a spinor by restricting GL(N,R) to its SO(N) subgroup, but I think the question is whether the spinor retains its transformation properties under the whole group. This seems to be impossible. Do you know why? Thanks! $\endgroup$ – Nuno Feb 12 '13 at 17:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Spinors aren't a representation of $SO(N)$, they are a representation of the double cover $Spin(N)$ of $SO(N)$. Perhaps the question is why there is no corresponding double cover of $GL(N)$, extending the action of $Spin(N)$? $\endgroup$ – David E Speyer Feb 12 '13 at 17:39
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, that is precisely the issue. Do you have any comments/ideas? $\endgroup$ – Nuno Feb 12 '13 at 23:20

The statement in GSW that you quote has to be interpreted properly. When they write, "Spinors form a representation of $\mathrm{SO}(N)$ which does not arise from a representation of $\mathrm{GL}(N,\mathbb{R})$", they really mean either "Spinors form a representation of ${\frak{so}}(N)$ which does not arise from a representation of ${\frak{gl}}(N,\mathbb{R})$" (i.e., it's really a statement about representations of Lie algebras) or else they mean what some sources call "multi-valued representations", i.e., representations of the simply-connected covers of the groups $\mathrm{SO}(N)$ and $\mathrm{GL}(N,\mathbb{R})$. Moreover, 'arise from' means that there is no (finite dimensional) representation of ${\frak{gl}}(N,\mathbb{R})$ that, when restricted to ${\frak{so}}(N)\subset{\frak{gl}}(N,\mathbb{R})$, contains a copy of a 'spinor representation' of ${\frak{so}}(N)$.

Either way, what it comes down to is this: If $\pi:\hat{\mathrm{SL}}(n,\mathbb{R})\to \mathrm{SL}(n,\mathbb{R})$ is the nontrivial double cover of $\mathrm{SL}(n,\mathbb{R})$, then any finite-dimensional representation $\hat\rho:\hat{\mathrm{SL}}(n,\mathbb{R})\to \mathrm{GL}(k,\mathbb{R})$ must factor through $\pi$, i.e., $\hat\rho = \rho\circ\pi$ for some (unique) representation $\rho:\mathrm{SL}(n,\mathbb{R})\to\mathrm{GL}(k,\mathbb{R})$.

The reason for this is topological: Although $\pi_1\bigl(\mathrm{SL}(n,\mathbb{R}),I_n\bigr)$ is nontrivial for $n\ge 2$ (being $\mathbb{Z}$ when $n=2$ and $\mathbb{Z}_2$ when $n>2$), the group $\pi_1\bigl(\mathrm{SL}(n,\mathbb{C}),I_n\bigr)$ is trivial for all $n\ge 2$. Using this fact, the proof goes like this:

If $\hat\rho:\hat{\mathrm{SL}}(n,\mathbb{R})\to \mathrm{GL}(k,\mathbb{R})$ is any representation, let $\hat\rho':{\frak{sl}}(n,\mathbb{R})\to {\frak{gl}}(k,\mathbb{R})$ denote the induced Lie algebra homomorphism. This complexifies to a Lie algebra homomorphism $(\hat\rho')^{\mathbb{C}}:{\frak{sl}}(n,\mathbb{C})\to {\frak{gl}}(k,\mathbb{C})$ and, since $\mathrm{SL}(n,\mathbb{C})$ is simply-connected, this is induced by a Lie group homomorphism $\rho^{\mathbb{C}}:\mathrm{SL}(n,\mathbb{C})\to \mathrm{GL}(k,\mathbb{C})$, which restricts to a Lie group homomorphism $\rho:\mathrm{SL}(n,\mathbb{R})\to \mathrm{GL}(k,\mathbb{C})$ with associated Lie algebra homomorphism $\rho':{\frak{sl}}(n,\mathbb{R})\to{\frak{gl}}(k,\mathbb{C})$. By construction, this homomorphism $\rho'$ must be the composition of $\hat\rho':{\frak{sl}}(n,\mathbb{R})\to {\frak{gl}}(k,\mathbb{R})$ with the inclusion ${\frak{gl}}(k,\mathbb{R})\hookrightarrow {\frak{gl}}(k,\mathbb{C})$. In particular, $\rho'$ maps into ${\frak{gl}}(k,\mathbb{R})$ after all. Now it's clear that $\hat\rho = \rho\circ\pi$.

In particular, if $\mathrm{Spin}(n)\subset \hat{\mathrm{SL}}(n,\mathbb{R})$ is the pre-image under $\pi$ of $\mathrm{SO}(n)\subset \mathrm{SL}(n,\mathbb{R})$, then any finite dimensional representation of $\hat{\mathrm{SL}}(n,\mathbb{R})$ restricts to a representation of $\mathrm{Spin}(n)$ that factors through $\mathrm{SO}(n)$ and hence cannot be (or even contain) a spinor representation, since those do not factor through $\mathrm{SO}(n)$.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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