3
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand{\al}{\alpha}$

Let $M_n$ be the space of $n \times n$ real matrices.

Question:

For which $n$, is there an inner product on $M_n$ which satisfies:

$$(*) \, \, \langle Q^TXQ,Q^TYQ \rangle = \langle X, Y\rangle $$

For every $Q \in SO(n)$,

but does not satisfy $(*)$ for every $Q \in O(n)$.

(i.e, is there an inner product which is $SO(n)$-isotropic but not $O(n)$-isotropic?)

Results so far:

$(1)$ Since for odd $n$, $-Id \in O(n)\setminus SO(n)$ commutes with every matrix in $M_n$, every $SO(n)$-invariant inner product is also $O(n)$-invariant. Thus the question is interesting only for even $n$.

$(2)$ A natural approach for this problem, is to use Riesz representation, as follows:

Let $\langle , \rangle_F$ denote the Frobenius inner product on $M_n$, and let $\langle , \rangle$ be some arbitrary inner product. Fixing $X \in M_n$, we get a linear functional: $Y \to \langle X, Y \rangle$. There is a (unique) matrix $\al(x)$ such that:

$$(**) \, \langle X, \cdot \rangle = \langle \al(X), \cdot \rangle_F$$

So, to every inner product $\langle , \rangle$ there is an associated linear operator $\al:M_n \to M_n$ satisfying $(**)$.

We say that $\al$ is $SO(n)$ (or $O(n)$)-isotropic if

$$ \al(Q^TXQ)=Q^T\alpha(X)Q $$ For every $Q \in SO(n)$ (or $O(n)$)

It's easy to see (using the fact $\langle , \rangle_F$ is left-and right $O(n)$ invariant), that:

$$\langle , \rangle \text{ is } SO(n)\text{-isotropic } \iff \al \text{ is } SO(n)\text{-isotropic }$$ ,

(and similarly to $O(n)$).

Hence, the question can be partially reduced to finding $SO(n)$-isotropic operators which are not $O(n)$-isotropic. If no such operator exists, then we finished. However, it could be the case that such an operator does exist, but does not give rise to an inner product* via $(**)$.

This is the case of the operator $\al(X)=R_{\theta}\cdot X$ , where $R_{\theta}$ is a rotation matrix, and $n=2$. (For details see here). The corrseponding bilinear form turns out to be positive but not symmetric. Taking its symmetrization gives an inner product, which turns out to be $O(n)$-isotropic.

I do not know if there are any such operators for even $n \neq 2$.

In fact, for $O(n)$-invariant operators, there is a representation theorem which says they must be of the form of:

$\alpha(X)=a \text{tr}(X)I + bX + cX^T$

A proof is given for example here.


*To induce an inner product, $\al$ must be self-adjoint w.r.t the Frobenius product, and be positive, in the sense that $\langle \al(X), X\rangle_F > 0 \, , \, \forall X \neq 0$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Did you notice that if $X$ is an eigenvector of an $SO(n)$-isotropic $\alpha$ then also $Q^T X Q$ is so ?. Namely, eigenspaces of $\alpha$ are invariant by the adjoint action of SO(n) on $M_n = gl(R,n)$. $\endgroup$ – Holonomia Jan 27 '16 at 20:08
  • $\begingroup$ OK. Does this help in any way? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Shachar Jan 27 '16 at 20:12
  • $\begingroup$ $M_n=gl(R,n) = R id \oplus so(n) \oplus sym(n)$, where $sym(n)$ is the set of zero trace symmetric matrices is the decomposition into irreducible subspaces of $SO(n)$. So $\alpha$ must preserve them and be a multiple of the identity on each of them. $\endgroup$ – Holonomia Jan 27 '16 at 20:23
  • $\begingroup$ Holonomia: It is known that every $O(n)$-invariant operator is of the form of $\alpha(X)=a \text{tr}(X)I + bX + cX^T$. I think this implies the subspaces you mentioned are irreducible w.r.t the $O(n)$-representation. But why does this hold for $SO(n)$? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Shachar Jan 27 '16 at 20:46
  • $\begingroup$ @Asaf Shachar: The decomposition I am talking about i.e. $so(n) \oplus sym(n)$ is well-known for experts in Riemannian geometry. Namely it is the so called Cartan decomposition of the Lie algebra $sl(n,R)$. It is also well-known, at least for Riemannian geometers, that the action of $SO(n)$ on $sym(n)$ is irreducible i.e. the Riemannian symmetric space $SL(n,R)/SO(n)$ is irreducible. $\endgroup$ – Holonomia Jan 27 '16 at 22:02
5
$\begingroup$

Disclaimer: this answer is at least 50% due to @Holonomia. If you like it, why don't you upvote some of her posts?

The groups $O(n)$ and $SO(n)$ act by conjugation on $M_n(\mathbb R)$. There is an equivariant decomposition $$M_n(\mathbb R)\cong\mathbb R E_n\oplus\mathrm{Sym}_0^2(\mathbb R^n) \oplus\Lambda^2(\mathbb R^n)\;.$$ The second summand consists of trace-free symmetric matrices, the third one of skew-symmetric matrices. Each of these spaces is an irreducible $O(n)$-representation (or $0$ if $n$ is small). For almost all $n$, each one is also irreducible as an $SO(n)$-representation (or $0$).

The only exception is $n=4$. Here, $\Lambda^2(\mathbb R^4)\cong\Lambda^{2,+}(\mathbb R^4)\oplus\Lambda^{2,-}(\mathbb R^4)$ as an $SO(4)$-representation. This is the decomposition into the $\pm 1$-eigenspaces (also called selfdual and antiselfdual forms) of the Hodge-$*$-operator, which needs a metrics and an orientation in its definition, and hence is $SO(4)$-invariant. Typical elements are $$e_1\wedge e_2+e_3\wedge e_4=\begin{pmatrix}&1\\-1\\&&&1\\&&-1\end{pmatrix}\in\Lambda^{2,+}(\mathbb R^4)$$ and $$e_1\wedge e_2+e_4\wedge e_3=\begin{pmatrix}&1\\-1\\&&&-1\\&&1\end{pmatrix}\in\Lambda^{2,-}(\mathbb R^4)\;.$$ Replacing the standard basis by another oriented ONB gives more elements. The elements of $O^-(4)=O(4)\setminus SO(4)$ swap both spaces. There is an $SO(4)$- but not $O(4)$-invariant scalar product on $\Lambda^2(\mathbb R^4)$ such that $$\langle\alpha,\beta\rangle\,e_1\wedge\cdots\wedge e_4=\alpha\wedge\beta\;.$$ For more details, please find a nice introduction to the representation theory of compact Lie groups.

So the only $SO(n)$- but not $O(n)$-invariant scalar products on $M_n(\mathbb R)$ exist in dimension $n=4$.

Here is an explanation: Let $G$ be any compact Lie group, and let $V$ be any $G$-representation over $\Bbbk=\mathbb R$ or $\mathbb C$. Then $V$ admits a decomposition $V\cong V_1\otimes\Bbbk^{n_1}\oplus\dots\oplus V_k\otimes\Bbbk^{n_k}$. Here $V_1,\dots,V_n$ are irreducible, and $\gamma\in G$ acts as $\gamma\otimes\mathrm{id}$ on each summand. This decomposition is unique up to reordering. Fix a $G$-invariant scalar product $g_i$ on each $V_i$. Then each $G$-invariant scalar product on $V$ is of the form $g=g_1\otimes h_1\oplus\cdots\oplus g_k\otimes h_k$, where $h_i$ is an arbitrary scalar product on $\Bbbk^{n_i}$. This is an application of Schur's lemma that you can find in most introductory books on representation theory.

If $H\subset G$ is a compact subgroup, then each irreducible $G$-representation $V_i$ above is an $H$-representation, so it has an analogous decomposition. From this it is clear that every $H$-invariant scalar product on $V$ is $G$ invariant if and only if each $V_i$ in the decomposition above is also irreducible as an $H$-representation (so the decomposition of $V_i$ over $H$ is just $V_i\cong V_i\otimes\Bbbk$).

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Nice answer, thank you for the disclaimer. $\endgroup$ – Holonomia Jan 29 '16 at 13:43

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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