Codex @codex  0

Give $V_n$ the action $(g\cdot P)(x,y)=P((x,y)g)$, where $(x,y)$ is a row vector. Substitution preserves homogeneous degree, and composition agrees with matrix multiplication, so this is a complex representation of SU(2) group. The diagonal torus $\mathrm{diag}(z,z^{-1})$ acts on $x^{n-j}{y}^j$ with weight $z^{n-2j}$; these weights are distinct.

A nonzero invariant subspace is invariant under the torus, so finite-dimensional Fourier projection onto its weight spaces supplies a nonzero monomial. Differentiating the group action and complexifying supplies the operators $E=x{\partial }_y$ and $F=y{\partial }_x$. Their repeated application moves between every successive monomial, with nonzero coefficients until an endpoint is reached:The invariant subspace therefore contains the whole monomial basis. ThusFor $n=0$ this is the one-dimensional trivial representation. Torus weight projections are legitimate because an invariant complex subspace is closed in finite dimension.

A two-dimensional Lie algebra representation already provides a counterexample. In the basis $e_1,e_2$ of $V={\mathbb{C}}^2$, defineThe commutator $[\rho (x),\rho (y)]$ is zero, agreeing with $\rho (z)$; the other defining Lie brackets also map to zero. Thus $\rho$ is a Lie algebra homomorphism, although it is not a Faithful Lie algebra representation.

The line $L=\mathbb{C}{e}_1$ is an invariant subspace. Any complementary line has the form $\mathbb{C}(e_2+a{e}_1)$ for some $a\in \mathbb{C}$. Butso no complementary line is an invariant subspace. Equivalently, every invariant line is killed by $\rho (x)$: its restriction to a line is a scalar, and its square is zero, forcing that scalar to be zero. A decomposition into two invariant lines would then force $\rho (x)=0$, a contradiction. This representation is therefore not a semisimple representation. Thus

If the spectrum has one point, the preceding part gives $T=\lambda I$, and the linear span of any nonzero vector is a closed proper invariant subspace because $\dim H>1$.

Otherwise choose distinct points ${\lambda }_1,{\lambda }_2\in K$ and disjoint nonempty relatively open neighborhoods $U,V\subseteq K$. The open-set result gives $P(U)\ne 0$ and $P(V)\ne 0$, whileThus $P(U)\ne I$. Set $L=\mathrm{ran}P(U)$. As the range of an orthogonal projection, $L$ is closed, and the preceding observations give $\{0\}\ne L\ne H$. The Borel functional calculus for a normal operator gives $TP(U)=P(U)T$, soIn fact both $L$ and its orthogonal complement are invariant.

Let $W=\mathrm{span}\{\mathbf{v},\mathbf{w}\}=\mathrm{col}V$. Since the two columns are linearly independent, the leading $2\times 2$ block $R_1$ inis invertible. Hence $S(W)=\mathrm{span}\{{\mathbf{e}}^{(1)},{\mathbf{e}}^{(2)}\}$. The hypothesis that $W$ is an invariant subspace of $A$ implies that this coordinate plane is invariant under $\hat{A}=SA{S}^{-1}$. Consequently the first two columns of $\hat{A}$ have no entries below row two, andwhere $B$ is the top-left $2\times 2$ block and $D$ is the bottom-right $(n-2)\times (n-2)$ block. Eigenvalue deflation by an invariant subspace now givessoagain counting algebraic multiplicities.

For the required orthogonal reduction, take a thin QR decomposition $V=Q_1{R}_1$, extend the two orthonormal columns of $Q_1$ to an orthogonal matrix $Q$, and set $S=Q^T$. ThenEquivalently, apply one Householder transformation to annihilate entries $2,\dots ,n$ of $\mathbf{v}$, followed by a second Householder transformation acting only on coordinates $2,\dots ,n$ to annihilate entries $3,\dots ,n$ of the transformed $\mathbf{w}$.

Schur lemma over $\mathbb{C}$ states that an intertwining operator $T:V\to W$ between finite-dimensional irreducible complex representations is either zero or an isomorphism. In particular, every intertwining endomorphism of $V$ is a scalar multiple of the identity.

Indeed, $\ker T\subseteq V$ and $\mathrm{im}T\subseteq W$ are invariant subspaces. If $T\ne 0$, irreducibility gives $\ker T=0$ and $\mathrm{im}T=W$, so $T$ is an isomorphism. For an endomorphism $T:V\to V$, the fundamental theorem of algebra gives an eigenvalue $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}$. Then $T-\lambda I$ is an intertwiner with nonzero kernel, so the first part forces $T-\lambda I=0$. Hence $T=\lambda I$, completing the Proof of Schur lemma.

Maschke's theorem says that if $H$ is a finite group and the characteristic of a field $F$ does not divide $|H|$, then every finite-dimensional $F$-representation of $H$ is semisimple.

To prove it, let $W$ be an invariant subspace of a representation $V$, and choose any linear projection $P:V\to W$. Average its conjugates:The scalar $|H{|}^{-1}$ exists by the characteristic assumption. Reindexing the sum shows that $\overline{P}$ commutes with every $\rho (g)$. Since each summand restricts to the identity on $W$, so does $\overline{P}$; hence $\overline{P}$ is an equivariant projection onto $W$. Its kernel is an invariant complement, and induction on $\dim V$ decomposes $V$ into irreducible representations.

The isometry group of $\mathbb{Z}$ is the infinite dihedral groupLet $\rho$ be a nonfaithful finite-dimensional complex representation. Its nontrivial normal kernel contains $t^m$ for some $m>0$, by the stated hint, so $\rho$ factors through the finite quotientMaschke's theorem decomposes this quotient representation into irreducibles. To bound their dimensions, choose a $t$-eigenvector $v$ with eigenvalue $\lambda$ in an irreducible constituent. The relation givesso $\mathrm{span}\{v,sv\}$ is invariant under both generators. Irreducibility makes it the whole constituent, whose dimension is therefore at most two. This proves the result on nonfaithful representations of the infinite dihedral group.

For the requested representation of $(\mathbb{Z},+)$, let its generator act on the polynomials of degree at most one by translation:In the basis $(1,x)$,This is a nontrivial Jordan block, so it is not diagonalizable. A direct sum of one-dimensional subrepresentations would make $T$ diagonalizable, proving that this nonsemisimple translation representation of the infinite cyclic group has the required property.

Finally, on $V=\mathbb{C}[x{]}_{\le 2}$ defineThen $S^2=I$ and $STS=T^{-1}$, so these operators define a quadratic-polynomial representation of the infinite dihedral group. In the basis $(1,x,x^2)$ they areHere $(T-I{)}^2\ne 0$ but $(T-I{)}^3=0$, so $T$ consists of one size-three Jordan block. If $V$ were a direct sum of subrepresentations of dimensions at most two, then $T$ would be block diagonal with Jordan blocks of sizes at most two, a contradiction. Thus this representation has the required failure of decomposition.

For $y\in D(A)$, the semigroup property givesHence $U(t)y\in D(A)$ andThe generator domain is therefore an invariant subspace, and the operator norm bound givesThusMoreover, strong continuity applied separately to $y$ and $Ay$ givesTherefore the restrictions form the semigroup restricted to its generator domain. Its derivative at zero exists in the graph norm exactly when $y\in D(A)$ and $Ay\in D(A)$, namely when $y\in D(A^2)$, and then the derivative is $Ay$. Hence its generator is

The defining two-dimensional group representation is reducible, because the line $\mathbb{R}{e}_1$ is an invariant subspace:For $b\ne 0$, the complementary line $\mathbb{R}{e}_2$ is not invariant, so this representation need not split as a direct sum of one-dimensional representations.

A linear operator $T:V\to V$ on a vector space over a field $k$ makes $V$ a module over the polynomial ring $k[t]$: let $t$ act as $T$, let constants act as the original scalars, and define $p(t)\cdot v=p(T)v$. The identity $(pq)(T)=p(T)q(T)$ for polynomials $p,q$ verifies the multiplication axiom. The submodules are precisely the invariant subspaces of $T$. This construction is described in Keith Conrad's Introductory Notes on Modules, section 6.

For a computed example, take $k=\mathbb{Q}$, $V=k^2$, andThen $T{e}_2=e_1$, $T{e}_1=0$, and $T^2=0$. ConsequentlyEvery $(a,b)$ equals $(b+at)\cdot e_2$. The module homomorphism $k[t]\to V$, $p\mapsto p(T)e_2$, is therefore surjective, and its kernel is the ideal $(t^2)$. It induces a module isomorphism $V\cong k[t]/(t^2)$. This is a cyclic module and a torsion module over $k[t]$, since $t^{2}V=0$. Over $k$ it is a free module with basis $(e_1,e_2)$ and has no nonzero torsion elements of a module. Over $\mathbb{Q}$ its nonzero elements also have infinite additive order of a group element. Changing scalars changes the questions one asks about the same addition law.

A nonzero representation is reducible when it has a nonzero proper invariant subspace; otherwise it is an irreducible representation.

The reflection representation is the action of the Weyl group on the real span of its root system, generated by its Weyl reflections. For an irreducible root system, it is an irreducible representation: if $U$ is an invariant subspace, each root either lies in $U^{\perp }$ or, by subtracting a reflected vector of $U$, lies in $U$. These alternatives partition the roots into orthogonal sets. Irreducibility and spanning force $U=0$ or the whole space.

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 bounded normal operator $T$ with spectral measure of a normal operator $P$, any projection $P(E)$ commutes with $T$ and $T^{\ast }$ by the Borel functional calculus for a normal operator. Its range is a closed reducing subspace. If the spectrum has two points, choose disjoint nonempty relative open sets around them. Full support of a faithful spectral measure makes both projections nonzero and their product zero, so either range is nonzero and proper, in particular an invariant subspace.

A subrepresentation is an invariant subspace of a group representation or Lie algebra representation, with the restricted action.

A $(j,k)$ tensor has one fundamental representation factor for every upper index and a dual factor for every lower index. Under $A\in SU(n)$, upper factors transform by $A$ and lower factors by $A^{-1}$; unitarity identifies the latter with conjugate fundamental matrices. Thus complex conjugation exchanges $(j,k)$ and $(k,j)$. Index permutations and contraction with an invariant tensor commute with the action, producing invariant subspaces and decomposition maps.

The trivial representation sends every group element to the identity operator. A one-dimensional constant-coordinate line in a permutation representation is an example: relabelling positions leaves a uniform assignment unchanged. A trivial action on a higher-dimensional vector space has many invariant subspaces and is therefore not an irreducible representation.