1

Let $G$ is some group and $U$ is an irriducible $G$-module over the complex numbers. Now if $V$ is a $G$-module of dimension 1, I would like to prove $U \otimes V$ is an irriducible $G$-module.

My knowledge of tensor products is lacking..

user68654
  • 315
  • 1
  • 3
  • 7

3 Answers3

6

Another, definitively less elegant, method to solving this is to recall that a representation $\rho:G\to\text{GL}_n(\mathbb{C})$ is irreducible if and only if $\langle\chi_\rho,\chi_\rho\rangle=1$, and that if $\rho,\psi:G\to\text{GL}_n(\mathbb{C})$ are a pair of representations then

$$\chi_{\rho\otimes\psi}=\chi_\rho\chi_\psi$$

With this in mind, let $\rho:G\to\text{GL}_n(\mathbb{C})$ be an irreducible representation and $\psi:G\to S^1$ a character. Then,

$$\begin{aligned}\langle\chi_{\rho\otimes\psi},\chi_{\rho\otimes\psi}\rangle &= \frac{1}{|G|}\sum_{g\in g}|\chi_{\rho\times\psi}(g)|^2\\ &= \frac{1}{|G|}\sum_{g\in G} |\chi_\rho(g)|^2|\chi_\psi(g)|^2\\ &= \frac{1}{|G|}\sum_{g\in G}|\chi_\rho(g)|^2\\&=1\end{aligned}$$

where we used the fact that $\chi_\psi(g)=\psi(g)\in S^1=\{z:|z|=1\}$ for all $g$, and the last step was achieved using the fact that $\rho$ was irreducible.

This is much less elegant, and much more difficult than is needed, but it's always useful to remember this brute-force method of attacking irreducibility over $\mathbb{C}$.

Alex Youcis
  • 54,059
4

Suppose that $\{u_1, u_2, \dots \}$ is a basis for the irreducible $G$-module $U$. Since $V$ is $1$-dimensional, $V = \mathbb{C}v$ for some nonzero $v \in V$.

Then, a basis for $U \otimes V$ is $\{u_1 \otimes v, u_2 \otimes v, \dots \}$. Any $G$-submodule of $U \otimes V$ will be of the form $W \otimes V$, where $W \le U$. Why? How does $G$ act in the tensor product?

As $U$ is irreducible, either $W = 0$ or $W = U$. As a consequence, either $W \otimes V = 0 \otimes V = 0$ or $W \otimes V = U \otimes V$. Therefore $U \otimes V$ is irreducible.

Sammy Black
  • 25,273
  • What do you mean by $W\leq U$? – Simon SMN Oct 01 '23 at 18:33
  • @SimonSMN $W \leq U$ denotes $W$ being a submodule of $U$. This notation is often used with subgroups, vector subspaces, etc., basically, anywhere where we want to indicate that it's not only subset containment $W \subseteq U$. – Sammy Black Oct 03 '23 at 21:41
  • All right. I'm studying representations and subrepresentations. I did not manage to solve not the question in the way you indicated. I instead followed Tobias Tildetofts comment. In general, is there any relation between $U\bigotimes V$ and $W\bigotimes V$ for $U$ a subrepresentation of $W$? Because I don't see it. The latter is a quotient of the free module of functions $W\times V\to R$ whereas the former is a quotient of the free module of functions $U\times V\to R$. – Simon SMN Oct 04 '23 at 06:19
3

If $V$ has dimension $1$ then it is invertible in the sense that there's another module $V'$ such that $V \otimes V'$ is isomorphic to the trivial representation. (A good exercise is to work out what this $V'$ is.) If you have a submodule $W \subset U \otimes V$ then $W \otimes V' \subset U$, so any submodule of $U \otimes V$ gives a submodule of $U$ with the same dimension.

Noah Snyder
  • 10,005