Why are physicists so interested in irreps if in their non-block-diagonal form they mix all components of a vector?Identity as a trivial reducible representationHilbert space decomposition into irrepsWhy is the $(frac12,frac12)$ representation of the Lorentz group realized as the vector space of complex $2times 2$ matrices?Problem with Bogoliubov transformations of an operatorConstruct an SO(3) rotation inside the two SU(2) fundamental rotations

Why does the media continue to hide the identity of the Trump-Ukraine whistle blower (allegedly Eric Ciaramalla) when they have already been outed?

Thinking about the notes when playing a piece

How to get best taste out of tomatoes?

How to use rules — did this change between editions and how?

Why is the Exchange French considered drawish?

Will you be able to hear a supersonic aircraft flying away from you?

Why didn't Abraham ask the single best question?

What are good tips/ways to improve my writing on chalkboards?

Are there any (natural) scientists in Middle-earth?

How does Facebook track your browsing without third party cookies?

Expand a recursive pattern

Doing chemistry under water?

How does Rogue from the X-Men fly?

How do you deal with someone who is nosy, projects their feelings about career, and gives unsolicited advice in that area?

Why didn't Nick Fury call Captain Marvel instead of Spider-Man?

What would cause vast differences in lifespans between the sexes?

The quietest classical orchestra instrument to play at home

Where and/or why is a slanted hyphen used?

Does the German President's apology for WWII reflect the views of the people of Germany?

Linear programming with if-then-else (big-M)

Does every truth have to be provable based on evidence?

Is there a benefit to leaving reviews on Expedia?

What's the difference between words "tongue" and "lingua"?

Driverless car Puzzle



Why are physicists so interested in irreps if in their non-block-diagonal form they mix all components of a vector?


Identity as a trivial reducible representationHilbert space decomposition into irrepsWhy is the $(frac12,frac12)$ representation of the Lorentz group realized as the vector space of complex $2times 2$ matrices?Problem with Bogoliubov transformations of an operatorConstruct an SO(3) rotation inside the two SU(2) fundamental rotations






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;









4














$begingroup$


Consider a group $G,circ$, with elements $e,g_1,g_2,...$, represented by the matrices $D(e), D(g_1), D(g_2)...$. If all the matrices can be brought to block diagonal forms by a similarity transformation, such a representation is reducible.



In this block-diagonalized form, any vector on which the representative matrices act, do not mix all components of the vector. So we conclude that there exists more than one nontrivial (except the null space and whole space) invariant subspaces.



I cannot fully understand the importance of this. Irreps are not always block-diagonal to start with. But can be made block-diagonal. If they are not block-diagonal, they would mix all components of a vector. Is this not a problem?



Let me give a simple example. The 2-dimensional representation of SO(2): $$D=beginpmatrixcostheta & -sintheta\ sintheta & costhetaendpmatrix$$ is reducible to $$Dto D^prime= SDS^-1=beginpmatrixe^itheta & 0\ 0 & e^-ithetaendpmatrix$$



In this first case, the basis vectors are $(1~0)^T$ and $(0~1)^T$. In this case, $A_x$ and $A_y$ mix with each other.



In the second case, the basis vectors are $2^-1/2(1~~i)^T$ and $2^-1/2(1-i)^T$ and S is given by $$S=2^-1/2beginpmatrix1 & i\ 1 & -iendpmatrix.$$ It is easy to see that $A_pm=A_xpm iA_y$ do not mix with each other.



So if I am getting it correct, this example shows that there are two invariant 1-dimensional subspaces in this case - one spanned by $2^-1/2(1~~i)^T$ and the other by $2^-1/2(1-i)^T$. So finding irreps mean identify the basis?










share|cite|improve this question












$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    "So finding irreps mean[s] identify[ing] the basis?" Not a completely-specific basis, but a decomposition into subspaces. If the vector space $V$ on which the representation acts can be partitioned into two subspaces that are not mixed with each other by any $D(g)$, then we might as well think of them as two separate representations (intuitively). An irrep is a representation that can't be decomposed in this way any further.
    $endgroup$
    – Chiral Anomaly
    Aug 9 at 23:11







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    By the way, the example you added is reducible over $mathbbC$ but not over $mathbbR$. A representation of $G$ is a homomorphism from $G$ into a matrix algebra, and specifying whether the matrix algebra is over $mathbbC$ or $mathbbR$ is important. Your example illustrates why it's important.
    $endgroup$
    – Chiral Anomaly
    Aug 9 at 23:13











  • $begingroup$
    $SO(2)$ is a bit special as it is abelian, implying that all the irreps are 1-dimensional (in "sensible" cases). My mathematician's nitpick is that if you list the elements of a group $G$ like $e,g_1,g_2,ldots$ then that implies the group to be countable, which $SO(2,BbbR)$ is not :-/
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Aug 10 at 3:40











  • $begingroup$
    Possibly the source of your confusion is that for a representation to be reducible it should be the case that the same similarity transformation brings all the matrices of the group into a block diagonal form.
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Aug 10 at 3:45

















4














$begingroup$


Consider a group $G,circ$, with elements $e,g_1,g_2,...$, represented by the matrices $D(e), D(g_1), D(g_2)...$. If all the matrices can be brought to block diagonal forms by a similarity transformation, such a representation is reducible.



In this block-diagonalized form, any vector on which the representative matrices act, do not mix all components of the vector. So we conclude that there exists more than one nontrivial (except the null space and whole space) invariant subspaces.



I cannot fully understand the importance of this. Irreps are not always block-diagonal to start with. But can be made block-diagonal. If they are not block-diagonal, they would mix all components of a vector. Is this not a problem?



Let me give a simple example. The 2-dimensional representation of SO(2): $$D=beginpmatrixcostheta & -sintheta\ sintheta & costhetaendpmatrix$$ is reducible to $$Dto D^prime= SDS^-1=beginpmatrixe^itheta & 0\ 0 & e^-ithetaendpmatrix$$



In this first case, the basis vectors are $(1~0)^T$ and $(0~1)^T$. In this case, $A_x$ and $A_y$ mix with each other.



In the second case, the basis vectors are $2^-1/2(1~~i)^T$ and $2^-1/2(1-i)^T$ and S is given by $$S=2^-1/2beginpmatrix1 & i\ 1 & -iendpmatrix.$$ It is easy to see that $A_pm=A_xpm iA_y$ do not mix with each other.



So if I am getting it correct, this example shows that there are two invariant 1-dimensional subspaces in this case - one spanned by $2^-1/2(1~~i)^T$ and the other by $2^-1/2(1-i)^T$. So finding irreps mean identify the basis?










share|cite|improve this question












$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    "So finding irreps mean[s] identify[ing] the basis?" Not a completely-specific basis, but a decomposition into subspaces. If the vector space $V$ on which the representation acts can be partitioned into two subspaces that are not mixed with each other by any $D(g)$, then we might as well think of them as two separate representations (intuitively). An irrep is a representation that can't be decomposed in this way any further.
    $endgroup$
    – Chiral Anomaly
    Aug 9 at 23:11







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    By the way, the example you added is reducible over $mathbbC$ but not over $mathbbR$. A representation of $G$ is a homomorphism from $G$ into a matrix algebra, and specifying whether the matrix algebra is over $mathbbC$ or $mathbbR$ is important. Your example illustrates why it's important.
    $endgroup$
    – Chiral Anomaly
    Aug 9 at 23:13











  • $begingroup$
    $SO(2)$ is a bit special as it is abelian, implying that all the irreps are 1-dimensional (in "sensible" cases). My mathematician's nitpick is that if you list the elements of a group $G$ like $e,g_1,g_2,ldots$ then that implies the group to be countable, which $SO(2,BbbR)$ is not :-/
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Aug 10 at 3:40











  • $begingroup$
    Possibly the source of your confusion is that for a representation to be reducible it should be the case that the same similarity transformation brings all the matrices of the group into a block diagonal form.
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Aug 10 at 3:45













4












4








4





$begingroup$


Consider a group $G,circ$, with elements $e,g_1,g_2,...$, represented by the matrices $D(e), D(g_1), D(g_2)...$. If all the matrices can be brought to block diagonal forms by a similarity transformation, such a representation is reducible.



In this block-diagonalized form, any vector on which the representative matrices act, do not mix all components of the vector. So we conclude that there exists more than one nontrivial (except the null space and whole space) invariant subspaces.



I cannot fully understand the importance of this. Irreps are not always block-diagonal to start with. But can be made block-diagonal. If they are not block-diagonal, they would mix all components of a vector. Is this not a problem?



Let me give a simple example. The 2-dimensional representation of SO(2): $$D=beginpmatrixcostheta & -sintheta\ sintheta & costhetaendpmatrix$$ is reducible to $$Dto D^prime= SDS^-1=beginpmatrixe^itheta & 0\ 0 & e^-ithetaendpmatrix$$



In this first case, the basis vectors are $(1~0)^T$ and $(0~1)^T$. In this case, $A_x$ and $A_y$ mix with each other.



In the second case, the basis vectors are $2^-1/2(1~~i)^T$ and $2^-1/2(1-i)^T$ and S is given by $$S=2^-1/2beginpmatrix1 & i\ 1 & -iendpmatrix.$$ It is easy to see that $A_pm=A_xpm iA_y$ do not mix with each other.



So if I am getting it correct, this example shows that there are two invariant 1-dimensional subspaces in this case - one spanned by $2^-1/2(1~~i)^T$ and the other by $2^-1/2(1-i)^T$. So finding irreps mean identify the basis?










share|cite|improve this question












$endgroup$




Consider a group $G,circ$, with elements $e,g_1,g_2,...$, represented by the matrices $D(e), D(g_1), D(g_2)...$. If all the matrices can be brought to block diagonal forms by a similarity transformation, such a representation is reducible.



In this block-diagonalized form, any vector on which the representative matrices act, do not mix all components of the vector. So we conclude that there exists more than one nontrivial (except the null space and whole space) invariant subspaces.



I cannot fully understand the importance of this. Irreps are not always block-diagonal to start with. But can be made block-diagonal. If they are not block-diagonal, they would mix all components of a vector. Is this not a problem?



Let me give a simple example. The 2-dimensional representation of SO(2): $$D=beginpmatrixcostheta & -sintheta\ sintheta & costhetaendpmatrix$$ is reducible to $$Dto D^prime= SDS^-1=beginpmatrixe^itheta & 0\ 0 & e^-ithetaendpmatrix$$



In this first case, the basis vectors are $(1~0)^T$ and $(0~1)^T$. In this case, $A_x$ and $A_y$ mix with each other.



In the second case, the basis vectors are $2^-1/2(1~~i)^T$ and $2^-1/2(1-i)^T$ and S is given by $$S=2^-1/2beginpmatrix1 & i\ 1 & -iendpmatrix.$$ It is easy to see that $A_pm=A_xpm iA_y$ do not mix with each other.



So if I am getting it correct, this example shows that there are two invariant 1-dimensional subspaces in this case - one spanned by $2^-1/2(1~~i)^T$ and the other by $2^-1/2(1-i)^T$. So finding irreps mean identify the basis?







group-theory group-representations linear-algebra






share|cite|improve this question
















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 9 at 14:32









Qmechanic

116k14 gold badges231 silver badges1390 bronze badges




116k14 gold badges231 silver badges1390 bronze badges










asked Aug 9 at 13:09









mithusengupta123mithusengupta123

1,0801 gold badge18 silver badges45 bronze badges




1,0801 gold badge18 silver badges45 bronze badges














  • $begingroup$
    "So finding irreps mean[s] identify[ing] the basis?" Not a completely-specific basis, but a decomposition into subspaces. If the vector space $V$ on which the representation acts can be partitioned into two subspaces that are not mixed with each other by any $D(g)$, then we might as well think of them as two separate representations (intuitively). An irrep is a representation that can't be decomposed in this way any further.
    $endgroup$
    – Chiral Anomaly
    Aug 9 at 23:11







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    By the way, the example you added is reducible over $mathbbC$ but not over $mathbbR$. A representation of $G$ is a homomorphism from $G$ into a matrix algebra, and specifying whether the matrix algebra is over $mathbbC$ or $mathbbR$ is important. Your example illustrates why it's important.
    $endgroup$
    – Chiral Anomaly
    Aug 9 at 23:13











  • $begingroup$
    $SO(2)$ is a bit special as it is abelian, implying that all the irreps are 1-dimensional (in "sensible" cases). My mathematician's nitpick is that if you list the elements of a group $G$ like $e,g_1,g_2,ldots$ then that implies the group to be countable, which $SO(2,BbbR)$ is not :-/
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Aug 10 at 3:40











  • $begingroup$
    Possibly the source of your confusion is that for a representation to be reducible it should be the case that the same similarity transformation brings all the matrices of the group into a block diagonal form.
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Aug 10 at 3:45
















  • $begingroup$
    "So finding irreps mean[s] identify[ing] the basis?" Not a completely-specific basis, but a decomposition into subspaces. If the vector space $V$ on which the representation acts can be partitioned into two subspaces that are not mixed with each other by any $D(g)$, then we might as well think of them as two separate representations (intuitively). An irrep is a representation that can't be decomposed in this way any further.
    $endgroup$
    – Chiral Anomaly
    Aug 9 at 23:11







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    By the way, the example you added is reducible over $mathbbC$ but not over $mathbbR$. A representation of $G$ is a homomorphism from $G$ into a matrix algebra, and specifying whether the matrix algebra is over $mathbbC$ or $mathbbR$ is important. Your example illustrates why it's important.
    $endgroup$
    – Chiral Anomaly
    Aug 9 at 23:13











  • $begingroup$
    $SO(2)$ is a bit special as it is abelian, implying that all the irreps are 1-dimensional (in "sensible" cases). My mathematician's nitpick is that if you list the elements of a group $G$ like $e,g_1,g_2,ldots$ then that implies the group to be countable, which $SO(2,BbbR)$ is not :-/
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Aug 10 at 3:40











  • $begingroup$
    Possibly the source of your confusion is that for a representation to be reducible it should be the case that the same similarity transformation brings all the matrices of the group into a block diagonal form.
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Aug 10 at 3:45















$begingroup$
"So finding irreps mean[s] identify[ing] the basis?" Not a completely-specific basis, but a decomposition into subspaces. If the vector space $V$ on which the representation acts can be partitioned into two subspaces that are not mixed with each other by any $D(g)$, then we might as well think of them as two separate representations (intuitively). An irrep is a representation that can't be decomposed in this way any further.
$endgroup$
– Chiral Anomaly
Aug 9 at 23:11





$begingroup$
"So finding irreps mean[s] identify[ing] the basis?" Not a completely-specific basis, but a decomposition into subspaces. If the vector space $V$ on which the representation acts can be partitioned into two subspaces that are not mixed with each other by any $D(g)$, then we might as well think of them as two separate representations (intuitively). An irrep is a representation that can't be decomposed in this way any further.
$endgroup$
– Chiral Anomaly
Aug 9 at 23:11





2




2




$begingroup$
By the way, the example you added is reducible over $mathbbC$ but not over $mathbbR$. A representation of $G$ is a homomorphism from $G$ into a matrix algebra, and specifying whether the matrix algebra is over $mathbbC$ or $mathbbR$ is important. Your example illustrates why it's important.
$endgroup$
– Chiral Anomaly
Aug 9 at 23:13





$begingroup$
By the way, the example you added is reducible over $mathbbC$ but not over $mathbbR$. A representation of $G$ is a homomorphism from $G$ into a matrix algebra, and specifying whether the matrix algebra is over $mathbbC$ or $mathbbR$ is important. Your example illustrates why it's important.
$endgroup$
– Chiral Anomaly
Aug 9 at 23:13













$begingroup$
$SO(2)$ is a bit special as it is abelian, implying that all the irreps are 1-dimensional (in "sensible" cases). My mathematician's nitpick is that if you list the elements of a group $G$ like $e,g_1,g_2,ldots$ then that implies the group to be countable, which $SO(2,BbbR)$ is not :-/
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Aug 10 at 3:40





$begingroup$
$SO(2)$ is a bit special as it is abelian, implying that all the irreps are 1-dimensional (in "sensible" cases). My mathematician's nitpick is that if you list the elements of a group $G$ like $e,g_1,g_2,ldots$ then that implies the group to be countable, which $SO(2,BbbR)$ is not :-/
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Aug 10 at 3:40













$begingroup$
Possibly the source of your confusion is that for a representation to be reducible it should be the case that the same similarity transformation brings all the matrices of the group into a block diagonal form.
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Aug 10 at 3:45




$begingroup$
Possibly the source of your confusion is that for a representation to be reducible it should be the case that the same similarity transformation brings all the matrices of the group into a block diagonal form.
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Aug 10 at 3:45










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















9
















$begingroup$

The proofs of properties of reducible representations don't depend on the matrices being block-diagonal in any basis; you just need one. The fact that one basis with that property exists already tells you something about the representation $D$, and you can use that basis to prove things about $D$.



Or to put it in a more invariant way: a representation is reducible if it's possible to write the space on which it acts as a (nontrivial) direct sum of subspaces, such that each subspace is invariant under the action of all the $D(g)$. This is a basis-independent property of $D$, and for mathematicians that's more than enough: they don't need to speak about block-diagonal matrices, they can prove everything just from there. But if you actually want the matrices, it's better to choose a basis adapted to those subspaces.



It's a bit like orthogonal matrices. An orthogonal linear transformation (that is, one that satisfies $(Tv, Tw) = (v,w)$) won't have an orthogonal matrix in any basis; only in an orthonormal basis. This doesn't mean that the concept of an orthogonal matrix is useless; it means that orthonormal bases are better (or at least, better adapted to the transformation at hand).






share|cite|improve this answer










$endgroup$






















    2
















    $begingroup$

    "Reducible" and "irreducible" can be defined in a basis-independent way.



    Think of the matrices $D(g)$ in the representation as acting on a vector space $V$ of column-matrices. The representation is irreducible if $V$ does not have any non-trivial subspace that is self-contained under the action of all of the matrices $D(g)$. Otherwise, the representation is reducible.



    ("Non-trivial subspace" means a subspace that is smaller than $V$ itself but containing more than just the zero-vector.)



    Loosely speaking, within a given reducible representation, different irreps correspond to vectors that can't be mixed with each other by any $D(g)$. (I'm referring to the vectors themselves here, not to their components in any basis.) That's why irreps are important.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    $endgroup$
















      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "151"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );














      draft saved

      draft discarded
















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f495983%2fwhy-are-physicists-so-interested-in-irreps-if-in-their-non-block-diagonal-form-t%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown


























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      9
















      $begingroup$

      The proofs of properties of reducible representations don't depend on the matrices being block-diagonal in any basis; you just need one. The fact that one basis with that property exists already tells you something about the representation $D$, and you can use that basis to prove things about $D$.



      Or to put it in a more invariant way: a representation is reducible if it's possible to write the space on which it acts as a (nontrivial) direct sum of subspaces, such that each subspace is invariant under the action of all the $D(g)$. This is a basis-independent property of $D$, and for mathematicians that's more than enough: they don't need to speak about block-diagonal matrices, they can prove everything just from there. But if you actually want the matrices, it's better to choose a basis adapted to those subspaces.



      It's a bit like orthogonal matrices. An orthogonal linear transformation (that is, one that satisfies $(Tv, Tw) = (v,w)$) won't have an orthogonal matrix in any basis; only in an orthonormal basis. This doesn't mean that the concept of an orthogonal matrix is useless; it means that orthonormal bases are better (or at least, better adapted to the transformation at hand).






      share|cite|improve this answer










      $endgroup$



















        9
















        $begingroup$

        The proofs of properties of reducible representations don't depend on the matrices being block-diagonal in any basis; you just need one. The fact that one basis with that property exists already tells you something about the representation $D$, and you can use that basis to prove things about $D$.



        Or to put it in a more invariant way: a representation is reducible if it's possible to write the space on which it acts as a (nontrivial) direct sum of subspaces, such that each subspace is invariant under the action of all the $D(g)$. This is a basis-independent property of $D$, and for mathematicians that's more than enough: they don't need to speak about block-diagonal matrices, they can prove everything just from there. But if you actually want the matrices, it's better to choose a basis adapted to those subspaces.



        It's a bit like orthogonal matrices. An orthogonal linear transformation (that is, one that satisfies $(Tv, Tw) = (v,w)$) won't have an orthogonal matrix in any basis; only in an orthonormal basis. This doesn't mean that the concept of an orthogonal matrix is useless; it means that orthonormal bases are better (or at least, better adapted to the transformation at hand).






        share|cite|improve this answer










        $endgroup$

















          9














          9










          9







          $begingroup$

          The proofs of properties of reducible representations don't depend on the matrices being block-diagonal in any basis; you just need one. The fact that one basis with that property exists already tells you something about the representation $D$, and you can use that basis to prove things about $D$.



          Or to put it in a more invariant way: a representation is reducible if it's possible to write the space on which it acts as a (nontrivial) direct sum of subspaces, such that each subspace is invariant under the action of all the $D(g)$. This is a basis-independent property of $D$, and for mathematicians that's more than enough: they don't need to speak about block-diagonal matrices, they can prove everything just from there. But if you actually want the matrices, it's better to choose a basis adapted to those subspaces.



          It's a bit like orthogonal matrices. An orthogonal linear transformation (that is, one that satisfies $(Tv, Tw) = (v,w)$) won't have an orthogonal matrix in any basis; only in an orthonormal basis. This doesn't mean that the concept of an orthogonal matrix is useless; it means that orthonormal bases are better (or at least, better adapted to the transformation at hand).






          share|cite|improve this answer










          $endgroup$



          The proofs of properties of reducible representations don't depend on the matrices being block-diagonal in any basis; you just need one. The fact that one basis with that property exists already tells you something about the representation $D$, and you can use that basis to prove things about $D$.



          Or to put it in a more invariant way: a representation is reducible if it's possible to write the space on which it acts as a (nontrivial) direct sum of subspaces, such that each subspace is invariant under the action of all the $D(g)$. This is a basis-independent property of $D$, and for mathematicians that's more than enough: they don't need to speak about block-diagonal matrices, they can prove everything just from there. But if you actually want the matrices, it's better to choose a basis adapted to those subspaces.



          It's a bit like orthogonal matrices. An orthogonal linear transformation (that is, one that satisfies $(Tv, Tw) = (v,w)$) won't have an orthogonal matrix in any basis; only in an orthonormal basis. This doesn't mean that the concept of an orthogonal matrix is useless; it means that orthonormal bases are better (or at least, better adapted to the transformation at hand).







          share|cite|improve this answer













          share|cite|improve this answer




          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Aug 9 at 13:38









          JavierJavier

          16.2k8 gold badges48 silver badges86 bronze badges




          16.2k8 gold badges48 silver badges86 bronze badges


























              2
















              $begingroup$

              "Reducible" and "irreducible" can be defined in a basis-independent way.



              Think of the matrices $D(g)$ in the representation as acting on a vector space $V$ of column-matrices. The representation is irreducible if $V$ does not have any non-trivial subspace that is self-contained under the action of all of the matrices $D(g)$. Otherwise, the representation is reducible.



              ("Non-trivial subspace" means a subspace that is smaller than $V$ itself but containing more than just the zero-vector.)



              Loosely speaking, within a given reducible representation, different irreps correspond to vectors that can't be mixed with each other by any $D(g)$. (I'm referring to the vectors themselves here, not to their components in any basis.) That's why irreps are important.






              share|cite|improve this answer












              $endgroup$



















                2
















                $begingroup$

                "Reducible" and "irreducible" can be defined in a basis-independent way.



                Think of the matrices $D(g)$ in the representation as acting on a vector space $V$ of column-matrices. The representation is irreducible if $V$ does not have any non-trivial subspace that is self-contained under the action of all of the matrices $D(g)$. Otherwise, the representation is reducible.



                ("Non-trivial subspace" means a subspace that is smaller than $V$ itself but containing more than just the zero-vector.)



                Loosely speaking, within a given reducible representation, different irreps correspond to vectors that can't be mixed with each other by any $D(g)$. (I'm referring to the vectors themselves here, not to their components in any basis.) That's why irreps are important.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                $endgroup$

















                  2














                  2










                  2







                  $begingroup$

                  "Reducible" and "irreducible" can be defined in a basis-independent way.



                  Think of the matrices $D(g)$ in the representation as acting on a vector space $V$ of column-matrices. The representation is irreducible if $V$ does not have any non-trivial subspace that is self-contained under the action of all of the matrices $D(g)$. Otherwise, the representation is reducible.



                  ("Non-trivial subspace" means a subspace that is smaller than $V$ itself but containing more than just the zero-vector.)



                  Loosely speaking, within a given reducible representation, different irreps correspond to vectors that can't be mixed with each other by any $D(g)$. (I'm referring to the vectors themselves here, not to their components in any basis.) That's why irreps are important.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  $endgroup$



                  "Reducible" and "irreducible" can be defined in a basis-independent way.



                  Think of the matrices $D(g)$ in the representation as acting on a vector space $V$ of column-matrices. The representation is irreducible if $V$ does not have any non-trivial subspace that is self-contained under the action of all of the matrices $D(g)$. Otherwise, the representation is reducible.



                  ("Non-trivial subspace" means a subspace that is smaller than $V$ itself but containing more than just the zero-vector.)



                  Loosely speaking, within a given reducible representation, different irreps correspond to vectors that can't be mixed with each other by any $D(g)$. (I'm referring to the vectors themselves here, not to their components in any basis.) That's why irreps are important.







                  share|cite|improve this answer















                  share|cite|improve this answer




                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Aug 9 at 13:42

























                  answered Aug 9 at 13:37









                  Chiral AnomalyChiral Anomaly

                  21.4k4 gold badges29 silver badges66 bronze badges




                  21.4k4 gold badges29 silver badges66 bronze badges































                      draft saved

                      draft discarded















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f495983%2fwhy-are-physicists-so-interested-in-irreps-if-in-their-non-block-diagonal-form-t%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown









                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

                      Align equal signs while including text over equalitiesAMS align: left aligned text/math plus multicolumn alignmentMultiple alignmentsAligning equations in multiple placesNumbering and aligning an equation with multiple columnsHow to align one equation with another multline equationUsing \ in environments inside the begintabularxNumber equations and preserving alignment of equal signsHow can I align equations to the left and to the right?Double equation alignment problem within align enviromentAligned within align: Why are they right-aligned?

                      Training a classifier when some of the features are unknownWhy does Gradient Boosting regression predict negative values when there are no negative y-values in my training set?How to improve an existing (trained) classifier?What is effect when I set up some self defined predisctor variables?Why Matlab neural network classification returns decimal values on prediction dataset?Fitting and transforming text data in training, testing, and validation setsHow to quantify the performance of the classifier (multi-class SVM) using the test data?How do I control for some patients providing multiple samples in my training data?Training and Test setTraining a convolutional neural network for image denoising in MatlabShouldn't an autoencoder with #(neurons in hidden layer) = #(neurons in input layer) be “perfect”?