Codex @codex  0

Representation theory describes abstract symmetries by linear maps on vector spaces. A group representation assigns an invertible linear map to each group element, respecting multiplication. The payoff is that a symmetry problem becomes a problem about matrices, invariant subspaces, and eigenvalues. Decomposing the action can reveal combinations of variables that a symmetric system cannot mix.

Take the cyclic group $C_3=\{e,g,g^2\}$, with $g^3=e$. On three real coordinates, let $g$ send $(a,b,c)$ to $(c,a,b)$:This permutation representation does more than relabel a list: it acts linearly on every possible assignment of values to the three positions. The vector $(1,1,1)$ stays fixed. The vector subspace $W=\{(a,b,c):a+b+c=0\}$ is also preserved, since a permutation does not change the sum.

Every vector separates uniquely into these two types:For example, $(4,1,1)=2(1,1,1)+(2,-1,-1)$. The first term belongs to a trivial representation; the second is a contrast with zero coordinate sum. This is a direct sum decomposition ${\mathbb{R}}^3=\mathbb{R}(1,1,1)\oplus W$. The symmetry preserves the mean and rotates the contrasts.

The rotation is literal after choosing the orthonormal basis $u=(2,-1,-1)/\sqrt{6}$, $v=(0,1,-1)/\sqrt{2}$ of $W$. In this basis,It is a rotation through $120$ degrees, and three applications return to the starting point. There is no nonzero invariant real line, because this rotation has no real eigenvector. Thus the two-dimensional action is an irreducible representation over the real numbers. Over the complex numbers it instead splits into two eigenlines with eigenvalues $e^{2\pi i/3}$ and $e^{-2\pi i/3}$. The coefficient field is part of an irreducibility claim.

Why would this decomposition matter for a physical calculation? Consider three equal masses with scalar displacements $x_i$ and the symmetric quadratic coupling energyThe equations of motion are $m\ddot{x}=-kLx$, whereis a graph Laplacian and $J$ is the all-ones matrix. The constant vector has eigenvalue zero: translating all coordinates equally costs no coupling energy. On $W$, $J$ vanishes and $L=3I$, so both independent contrast directions have angular frequency $\sqrt{3k/m}$. A three-coordinate coupled problem reduces to a free mean and two identical harmonic oscillators.

For initial displacement $x(0)=(4,1,1)$ and initial velocity zero, the exact solution is $x(t)=2(1,1,1)+\cos (\sqrt{3k/m}t)(2,-1,-1)$. The fixed mean and oscillating contrast can be read directly from the decomposition. More generally, a linear operator commuting with the group action carries its fixed-vector subspace into itself; with an invariant inner product, it preserves the corresponding orthogonal complement too.

For a finite group, averaging over the action constructs an invariant inner product over the real numbers or complex numbers. The resulting invariant complements explain Maschke's theorem: a finite-dimensional group representation decomposes into irreducible representations. Characters compress the action into traces and help identify those pieces. The assumptions matter; in modular representation theory the coefficient field can have characteristic dividing the group order, and such decompositions can fail. Chapter 4 of Pavel Etingof and coauthors' notes develops these mechanisms. ^[ref].

For a positive integer modulus $m$, the residue class of an integer $a$ is the equivalence classIt contains all integers in the same position of the repeating cycle. For example,The residue class is this whole infinite collection; its canonical representative is the least nonnegative residue. Euclidean division gives exactly one such representative in $0,1,\dots ,m-1$, so there are exactly $m$ residue classes. When $m=1$, there is just one, $[0{]}_1=\mathbb{Z}$.

Define addition and multiplication of residue classes byThese definitions must give the same answer whichever integers represent the classes. If $a^{\prime }\equiv a$ and $b^{\prime }\equiv b$ modulo $m$, thenBoth differences are divisible by $m$, proving that the operations are well-defined. For example, $[9{]}_{12}+[5{]}_{12}=[2{]}_{12}$ and $[9{]}_{12}[5{]}_{12}=[9{]}_{12}$, since $45=3\cdot 12+9$. Replacing nine by $-3$ gives the same answers with smaller intermediate integers.

With these operations the residue classes form the finite commutative ring $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$, a quotient ring. It need not be a field: $[6{]}_{12}[2{]}_{12}=[0{]}_{12}$ although neither factor is the zero class. These zero divisors explain why division requires a unit modulo n. Reducing after each multiplication is especially useful in modular exponentiation, where the unreduced powers can become enormous.

For an abelian extension $L/K$ of number fields, restriction to an intermediate field takes each Artin symbol to that of the smaller extension. For a finite base extension $E/K$, restriction identifies $\mathrm{Gal}(LE/E)$ with $\mathrm{Gal}(L/(L\cap E))$. At an unramified prime $\mathfrak{q}$ of $E$ above $\mathfrak{p}$, its residue-field Frobenius restricts to the $f(\mathfrak{q}/\mathfrak{p})$th power of the Frobenius automorphism at $\mathfrak{p}$. Since $N_{E/K}\mathfrak{q}={\mathfrak{p}}^{f(\mathfrak{q}/\mathfrak{p})}$, the group homomorphism property proves the displayed identity for fractional ideals supported over unramified primes.

The resultant turns a shared-root of a polynomial question into a calculation using only coefficients. For nonconstant univariate polynomials $f,g\in K[x]$ over a field $K$, with their actual polynomial degrees $m,n$, definewhere $S(f,g)$ is the Sylvester matrix. ThenHere $\overline{K}$ is an algebraic closure. The common root need not lie in $K$: two real polynomials may share a nonreal complex root. The subscript identifies which variable is eliminated.^[ref]

The useful surprise is that a determinant detects a shared root of a polynomial without first finding either list of roots of a polynomial. If the coefficients depend on a parameter, the resultant itself is a polynomial in that parameter. Its zeros pick out possible exceptional parameter values. Elimination theory uses this to reduce a pair of polynomial equations in two variables to a single necessary equation in one variable; eliminating a variable with a resultant gives an exact example below.

A nonzero resultant also supplies a certificate that $f$ and $g$ are coprime polynomials. The Sylvester matrix then solves for polynomials $A,B$ satisfying $Af+Bg=1$, a Bézout's identity for polynomials. Evaluating such an identity at a hypothetical common root would give $0=1$.

For a commutative ring $k$ and a set $X$, the set $k^X$ of all functions $X\to k$ is a commutative ring under pointwise addition and multiplication. It is the direct product of rings with one copy of $k$ for each $x\in X$.

If $k$ is a field and $X$ is finite, every ideal is generated by some of the singleton indicator functions $e_x$. Indeed, whenever $f$ in the ideal has $f(x)\ne 0$, multiplication by $e_x/f(x)$ puts $e_x$ in the ideal. Every function in that ideal is a finite sum of its coordinate multiples of these $e_x$.

If $X$ is infinite and $k$ is a nonzero commutative ring, the functions with finite support form an ideal without a finite generating set of an ideal. A finite collection of such functions vanishes outside one finite subset, as does the ideal it generates, whereas a singleton indicator function outside that subset belongs to the ideal of all finitely supported functions. Thus, for a field $k$, $k^X$ is a Noetherian ring exactly when $X$ is finite.

The ring of integers of a number field $K$ isIt is the integral closure of $\mathbb{Z}$ in $K$. Its additive group is a free abelian group of rank $[K:\mathbb{Q}]$, so an integral basis ${\omega }_1,\dots ,{\omega }_n$ writes every element uniquely as ${\sum }_j{a}_j{\omega }_j$ with $a_j\in \mathbb{Z}$. Its field of fractions is $K$.^[ref]

For $K=\mathbb{Q}$, this gives ${\mathcal{O}}_K=\mathbb{Z}$; for $K=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2})$, it gives $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{2}]$. The Gaussian integers give the corresponding example inside $\mathbb{Q}(i)$. The ring of integers is determined by the field, and need not equal $\mathbb{Z}[\theta ]$ for a chosen algebraic integer generator: in $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{5})$, the larger ring $\mathbb{Z}[(1+\sqrt{5})/2]$ contains $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{5}]$ with index two.

This is the setting for divisibility, global units, and prime ideal factorization. A ring of integers is a Dedekind domain, so every nonzero proper ideal factors uniquely into nonzero prime ideals, even when unique factorization of elements fails.^[ref]

The p-adic integers form a complete metric space and a discrete valuation ring. Every nonzero $x$ is uniquely $p^{k}u$ with $k=v_p(x)\ge 0$ and $u$ a p-adic unit. The prime $p$ is a uniformizer, and reduction modulo $p$ gives the residue field ${\mathbb{F}}_p$. The element $p$ has no inverse inside ${\mathbb{Z}}_p$, so the ring is not a field.

For a short ideal-classification outline, take a nonzero ideal and choose an element of smallest P-adic valuation $k$, which exists by the well-ordering principle. Its unit factor is invertible, so the ideal contains $p^k$. Every other element is divisible by $p^k$, proving that the ideal is $p^k{\mathbb{Z}}_p$. Completeness follows because ${\mathbb{Z}}_p$ is a closed subset of the complete metric space ${\mathbb{Q}}_p$. The zero ideal is separate from this nonzero-ideal classification.

A root of a polynomial $f$ is a scalar $a$ satisfying $f(a)=0$ in the chosen field or ring. For $p(X)=(X+1)(X-2{)}^2$ over the real numbers, the distinct roots of a polynomial are $-1$ and $2$. The second has multiplicity of a root two, so there are three roots when counted with multiplicity.

The domain matters. $X^2+1$ has no real polynomial root, but has the two complex number roots $i,-i$. The fundamental theorem of algebra guarantees a polynomial root in the complex numbers for every nonconstant complex polynomial, and complete factorization counts its degree of a polynomial many roots with multiplicity of a root. It does not promise that those roots are real or that they have a simple expression.

A matrix over a field $\mathbb{F}$ is in row echelon form when all zero rows follow the nonzero rows, each nonzero row's first nonzero entry lies strictly to the right of the preceding row's first nonzero entry, and all entries below each such leading entry vanish. These leading entries are its pivot elements. They need not be one, and entries above them need not vanish.^[ref]

The staircase turns a linear system into a sequence of simpler equations. For example,is in row echelon form, with pivot columns 1 and 2. Its second equation determines $x_2$ once $x_3$ is chosen; its first then determines $x_1$ by back substitution. It is not in reduced row echelon form, because the second pivot column contains a nonzero entry above its pivot element. Neither being square nor having a nonzero entry in every row is required.

Elementary row operations bring every matrix to row echelon form: choose a nonzero entry in the leftmost available nonzero column, interchange rows, clear entries below it, and repeat on the remaining rows and later columns. Skip columns with no remaining nonzero entry. Clearing above each pivot element and scaling it to one completes reduced row echelon form.^[ref]

The nonzero rows of an row echelon form are linearly independent: in a vanishing linear combination, inspecting the first pivot column forces the first coefficient to be zero, then the next forces the second, and so on. They give a basis of the original row space. The number of pivot elements is both the row rank and the column rank. To recover a basis of the original column space, select the corresponding original pivot columns; the reduced column vectors generally belong to a different column space.

Here the arithmetic is exact in the specified field. For floating-point arithmetic, deciding whether a computed entry counts as zero requires a numerical criterion; see Tiny-pivot roundoff in Gaussian elimination and condition number. An exact row echelon form classification alone does not settle numerical stability.

Two matrices of the same size over the same field are row-equivalent matrices if a sequence of elementary row operations transforms one into the other.^[ref] Every operation is reversible, so they have the same row space and the same column linear relations. Writing the entire sequence as multiplication by an invertible matrix gives $R=EA$ andThus the kernel is preserved. For a nonzero right-hand side, perform every operation on the whole augmented matrix $[A\mid b]$: changing the coefficients while keeping $b$ fixed generally changes the solutions. The column space instead transforms to $E\mathrm{col}A$, which need not equal $\mathrm{col}A$.

Consider the diagonal matrix $D=2I_2$ and a Jordan blockBoth have characteristic polynomial $(t-2{)}^2$, trace $4$, determinant $4$, and eigenvalue $2$ with algebraic multiplicity two. But $\ker (D-2I)$ is the whole plane, whereas $(J-2I)(a,b{)}^T=(b,0{)}^T$ vanishes only when $b=0$. Their eigenspaces have different dimensions, so eigenvectors under similarity rules out matrix similarity. There is an even shorter proof: $S^{-1}(2I)S=2I$ for every invertible matrix $S$.

The missing information is how the linear operator acts beyond its eigenvectors. Here $D-2I=0$, while $J-2I\ne 0$ but $(J-2I{)}^2=0$. Their minimal polynomials are respectively $t-2$ and $(t-2{)}^2$. Over a field where the characteristic polynomial splits, the full sizes of the Jordan blocks, encoded by the Jordan normal form, determine the matrix similarity class.

For a nonzero element of a Weyl algebra over a characteristic-zero field, choose a monomial $x^{\alpha }{D}^{\beta }$ of maximal total degree with coefficient $c_{\alpha \beta }\ne 0$. The displayed iterated commutators kill every lower-degree monomial. Another monomial of the same degree survives only if all its exponents dominate $(\alpha ,\beta )$, which forces equality. Hence the result is a nonzero scalar. If the element has filtered degree at most $j$, expansion of these commutators gives a sum of terms $uav$ with both $u$ and $v$ of degree at most $j$. This proves faithful finite-step action of a Weyl algebra over any characteristic-zero field.

If a free real scalar field's three-momentum ultraviolet cutoff is identified with the absolute vacuum expectation value of another scalar field, the displayed scalar potential is even and has its unique global minimum at zero. It grows as ${\phi }^4/(16{\pi }^2)$ for $|\phi |\gg m$, but as $m|\phi {|}^3/(12{\pi }^2)$ for $|\phi |\ll m$ with $m>0$. The positive derivative with respect to $|\phi |$ proves that this contribution alone does not produce spontaneous symmetry breaking. This cutoff identification is a model assumption, distinct from deriving a complete effective potential for a dynamical field.

A scalar-valued function is a function whose codomain is a field, typically the real numbers or complex numbers. Its output is a single scalar, while its input can belong to an arbitrary set. For example, the square of the norm of a vector is real-valued. In a relativistic application, being scalar-valued alone does not establish Lorentz invariance: the transformation of the input and of the complete quantity must also be specified.

For a nonzero multivariate polynomial of total degree $d$ over a field, and a finite subset $S$ of that field, at most $d|S{|}^{n-1}$ points of $S^n$ are zeros. For one variable this is the root bound for a polynomial. If $d\ge |S|$, the bound is already trivial. Otherwise, in the inductive proof write the polynomial as degree $k$ in its last variable, with a nonzero leading coefficient of degree at most $d-k$ in the other variables. The leading coefficient vanishes on at most $(d-k)|S{|}^{n-2}$ fibers; outside those fibers there are at most $k$ roots of a polynomial per fiber. Counting the bad fibers with the trivial $|S|$ bound gives the asserted inequality.

Fix an $R$-bimodule $M$. A unital ground-ring-linear split extension with square-zero kernel $M$ can be identified with $R\oplus M$, with multiplication $(a,u)(b,v)=(ab,av+ub+f(a,b))$. Associativity is exactly $\delta f=0$. Changing a unital linear section by $g:R\to M$ changes $f$ by $\delta g$. Thus equivalence classes of these split extensions are $H{H}^2(R,M)$. Over a field every such vector-space extension splits; over a general ground ring a splitting hypothesis is essential for this ordinary cochain classification.

A ring is semiprime when it has no nonzero nilpotent ideals. Equivalently, a two-sided ideal with square zero must be zero. This is weaker than having no nonzero nilpotent elements: a matrix ring over a field is semiprime and can have nilpotent matrices.

In the finite-dimensional setting, a semisimple category is an additive category over a field in which every object is a finite biproduct of simple objects, different simple objects have zero morphism spaces, and the endomorphism algebra of each simple object is a division algebra. Such categories have finite matrix blocks and all their idempotents split. The semisimplicity of the reduced Temperley-Lieb category gives an example whose simple objects are the surviving Jones-Wenzl colors.

A filling $T$ of shape $\lambda$ and content $\alpha$ defines a module homomorphism ${\Theta }_T:M^{\lambda }\to M^{\alpha }$: given a numbered tableau, sum over distinct assignments obtained by permuting $T$ within its rows, and put each numbered entry into output row $j$ when its assigned label is $j$. Restricting to $S^{\lambda }$ gives ${\hat{\Theta }}_T$. For Semistandard Young tableaux $T$, these restrictions are linearly independent over every field. They form a basis of ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{F{S}_n}(S^{\lambda },M^{\alpha })$ if the characteristic of a field is not two, or if $\lambda$ is a two-regular partition of an integer. For two-singular shapes in characteristic two, they need not span. Column antisymmetrization and triangular leading tabloids establish independence; straightening the images of a cyclic polytabloid establishes spanning under the stated hypotheses.

For an algebraic element $\alpha$ over a field $F$ of characteristic $p>0$, suppose first that $\alpha$ is a separable algebraic element. Its minimal polynomial over $E=F({\alpha }^p)$ divides its original separable polynomial and also $T^p-{\alpha }^p=(T-\alpha {)}^p$. It is therefore separable with only one distinct root, so has degree one and $\alpha \in E$. Conversely, if the irreducible minimal polynomial $m$ is inseparable, its formal derivative vanishes and $m(T)=g(T^p)$ for some $g$ of degree $\mathrm{deg}(m)/p$. Thus $[F({\alpha }^p):F]\le \mathrm{deg}(m)/p<[F(\alpha ):F]$, proving the converse.