9
$\begingroup$

Consider a finite or compact group $G$. The Peter–Weyl decomposition is usually formulated for the group algebra $\mathbb{C}[G]\simeq\bigoplus_i \operatorname{End}(V_i)$, where $V_i$ are the spaces of irreducible representations of $G$. But any representation $T$ defines an object analogous to $\mathbb{C}[G]$, the span of $T(g)$, which I will denote $\mathbb{C}[T]$ by analogy. In fact, $\mathbb{C}[G]\simeq\mathbb{C}[L]$, where $L$ is the left regular representation. If $T=\sum_in_iT_i$ is the isotypic decomposition of $T$ into irreducibles then it seems to be true that $$ \mathbb{C}[T]\simeq\bigoplus_i\mathbb{C}[T_i]\simeq\bigoplus_i\operatorname{End}(V_i), $$ with only irreducibles from $T$ included. The Peter–Weyl theorem is a special case with $T=L$, while the Burnside's theorem is a special case with an irreducible $T$. I think, such a decomposition is used implicitly in the answer to Linear relations among permutation matrices, for example. This might be a case of the Artin–Wedderburn theorem, but it uses a more abstract algebraic language and when I saw it in the context of group representations it was also usually applied to the group algebra.

On the other hand, standard proofs of the Peter–Weyl theorem (Serre's, etc.) do not seem to generalize straightforwardly. We do get a fragment of ‘Fourier transform’ $\mathbb{C}[T]\to\bigoplus_i\mathbb{C}[n_iT_i]$ by restricting to the isotypic components, and it is not hard to show that $\mathbb{C}[nT]\simeq\mathbb{C}[T]$ for any $T$. The ‘Fourier transform’ is easily injective, but for surjectivity the proofs resort to special properties of $L$ or $\mathbb{C}[G]$ or $L^2(G)$, like dimension count for finite groups. On the right, it is $\sum_i(\dim T_i)^2$, which for $T=L$ can be matched to $|G|$ known in advance. But for general $T$ one must show directly that isotypic restrictions can be specified independently (which would not be true if some $T_i$ were isomorphic, say) without using special properties. Is there a nice direct proof of this in the spirit of linear algebra/harmonic analysis and/or reference where it is covered?

This might be related to completeness of matrix elements, but to use that we would have to lift this into $L^2(G)$ and prove something like $\mathbb{C}[T]\simeq M(T)$ for the subspace spanned by matrix elements $T_{ij}(g)$ taken in some basis. The problem is then to show that the natural map $M(T)\to\mathbb{C}[T]$ is surjective.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @YemonChoi I am mostly interested in finite groups, compact at most, as in the standard formulations of the Peter-Weyl theorem. And how it transfers to similar representational algebras that are not explicitly made of functions. $\endgroup$
    – Conifold
    Commented Jun 19 at 19:03

1 Answer 1

6
$\begingroup$

You don't say what kind of a group $G$ is but I'm going to assume for simplicity that $G$ is finite. Then, yes, it follows from Artin-Wedderburn. The point is that once we know that $\mathbb{C}[G] \cong \prod \text{End}(V_i)$ as algebras we also know what modules look like in terms of the RHS: modules over a finite direct product canonically break up into a finite direct sum of modules over each factor, and modules over $\text{End}(V_i)$ are direct sums of copies of $V_i$.

So if we consider the action of $\mathbb{C}[G]$ on a representation $V \cong \bigoplus_i n_i V_i$ then it follows immediately that the factors $\text{End}(V_j)$ where $n_j = 0$ act trivially, while the factors $\text{End}(V_i)$ where $n_i > 0$ act on each individual isotypic component and hence linear independently.

It may be more conceptually satisfying to instead use here the Jacobson density theorem or the double commutant theorem.

Edit: Here are some details about a different way to organize the argument. We really just need to get clear on what the two-sided ideals of $\mathbb{C}[G]$ are. We have that

  1. The matrix algebra $M_n(\mathbb{C})$ has no nontrivial two-sided ideals. This is true more generally of $M_n(D)$ for $D$ a simple ring, and we have more generally that the two-sided ideals of $M_n(R)$ are naturally in bijection with the two-sided ideals of $R$.

  2. The two-sided ideals of a finite product $\prod R_i$ of rings are the tuples of two-sided ideals $\prod I_i$ of each factor.

  3. Combining 1 and 2, the two-sided ideals of a finite product $\prod M_{n_i}(\mathbb{C})$ of matrix algebras are products $\prod I_i$ where each $I_i$ is either the entire matrix algebra $M_{n_i}(\mathbb{C})$ or zero. So the quotients $\prod M_{n_i}(\mathbb{C})$ are exactly given by deleting some of the factors.

Now let $V$ be a complex representation of a finite group $G$ (not necessarily finite-dimensional). We get an induced homomorphism $\mathbb{C}[G] \to \text{End}(V)$ whose image, by 3, is obtained by deleting some of the factors in the Artin-Wedderburn decomposition $\mathbb{C}[G] \cong \prod_i M_{n_i}(\mathbb{C})$. A factor acts nontrivially on $V$ iff the corresponding irreducible appears in $V$ (this follows from thinking about the isotypic decomposition, I can give more details here if desired), so we conclude that the image of $\mathbb{C}[G]$ is the product of the $M_{n_i}(\mathbb{C})$ corresponding to all the irreducibles appearing in $V$ as desired.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Finite $G$ is all good, but I am having hard time translating between the language of semisimple algebras and modules and group representations and matrix elements. What does "modules break up", etc., mean in the latter? Any reference that does the translating? Is it true that $\mathbb{C}[T]\simeq M(T)$ or, perhaps, $M(T^*)$, and if so how does one 'see' it? Can this be proved without decomposing $\mathbb{C}[G]$ first so that it follows as a special case? There was a question about double commutant for representations, but alas, no answer. $\endgroup$
    – Conifold
    Commented Jun 19 at 4:27
  • $\begingroup$ @Conifold: I don't really understand what you're unsatisfied with (and I also have no idea what $M(T)$ means) but I added some details. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 19 at 23:41
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the elaboration. It is just that I am more familiar with the harmonic analysis side of the representation theory that uses $T(g)$ and equivariant maps explicitly, and not so much with modules and ideals, but I'll try to work through your proof. Would the double commutant theorem give a proof that does not require using the decomposition of $\mathbb{C}[G]$? $M(T)$ is the subspace of $L^2(G)$ spanned by the matrix elements $T_{ij}(g)$ in some basis, quoted here. $\endgroup$
    – Conifold
    Commented Jun 20 at 1:10
  • $\begingroup$ @Conifold: the version of the double commutant theorem I gave in that old blog post uses Artin-Wedderburn so it is not independent of the Artin-Wedderburn decomposition. The von Neumann version for $^{\ast}$-algebras may give an independent proof but I'm not familiar with how the details go; it should still use the fact that we can take orthogonal complements to invariant subspaces so basically still semisimplicity is the key. $M(T)$ is naturally a subspace of the dual space of $\mathbb{C}[G]$ but with the obvious self-duality, yes, we should have $\mathbb{C}[T] \cong M(T)$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 20 at 1:19
  • $\begingroup$ Artin-Wedderburn is itself a pretty straightforward result, it doesn't use anything complicated, just Schur's lemma and "Cayley's theorem for rings," see e.g. Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedderburn%E2%80%93Artin_theorem It doesn't have to feel like a black box, you can just dig into the details of the proof. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 20 at 1:21

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .