BREAKING NEWS
Semisimple representation

## Summary

In mathematics, specifically in representation theory, a semisimple representation (also called a completely reducible representation) is a linear representation of a group or an algebra that is a direct sum of simple representations (also called irreducible representations).[1] It is an example of the general mathematical notion of semisimplicity.

Many representations that appear in applications of representation theory are semisimple or can be approximated by semisimple representations. A semisimple module over an algebra over a field is an example of a semisimple representation. Conversely, a semisimple representation of a group G over a field k is a semisimple module over the group ring k[G].

## Equivalent characterizations

Let V be a representation of a group G; or more generally, let V be a vector space with a set of linear endomorphisms acting on it. In general, a vector space acted on by a set of linear endomorphisms is said to be simple (or irreducible) if the only invariant subspaces for those operators are zero and the vector space itself; a semisimple representation then is a direct sum of simple representations in that sense.[1]

The following are equivalent:[2]

1. V is semisimple as a representation.
2. V is a sum of simple subrepresentations.
3. Each subrepresentation W of V admits a complementary representation: a subrepresentation W' such that ${\displaystyle V=W\oplus W'}$ .

The equivalences of the above conditions can be shown based on the next lemma, which is of independent interest:

Lemma[3] — Let p:VW be a surjective equivariant map between representations. If V is semisimple, then p splits; i.e., it admits a section.

Proof of the lemma: Write ${\displaystyle V=\bigoplus _{i\in I}V_{i}}$  where ${\displaystyle V_{i}}$  are simple representations. Without loss of generality, we can assume ${\displaystyle V_{i}}$  are subrepresentations; i.e., we can assume the direct sum is internal. Now, consider the family of all possible direct sums ${\displaystyle V_{J}:=\bigoplus _{i\in J}V_{i}\subset V}$  with various subsets ${\displaystyle J\subset I}$ . Put the partial ordering on it by saying the direct sum over K is less than the direct sum over J if ${\displaystyle K\subset J}$ . By Zorn's lemma, we can find a maximal ${\displaystyle J\subset I}$  such that ${\displaystyle \operatorname {ker} p\cap V_{J}=0}$ . We claim that ${\displaystyle V=\operatorname {ker} p\oplus V_{J}}$ . By definition, ${\displaystyle \operatorname {ker} p\cap V_{J}=0}$  so we only need to show that ${\displaystyle V=\operatorname {ker} p+V_{J}}$ . If ${\displaystyle \operatorname {ker} p+V_{J}}$  is a proper subrepresentatiom of ${\displaystyle V}$  then there exists ${\displaystyle k\in I-J}$  such that ${\displaystyle V_{k}\not \subset \operatorname {ker} p+V_{J}}$ . Since ${\displaystyle V_{k}}$  is simple (irreducible), ${\displaystyle V_{k}\cap (\operatorname {ker} p+V_{J})=0}$ . This contradicts the maximality of ${\displaystyle J}$ , so ${\displaystyle V=\operatorname {ker} p\oplus V_{J}}$  as claimed. Hence, ${\displaystyle W\simeq V/\operatorname {ker} p\simeq V_{J}\to V}$  is a section of p. ${\displaystyle \square }$

Note that we cannot take ${\displaystyle J}$  to the set of ${\displaystyle i}$  such that ${\displaystyle \ker(p)\cap V_{i}=0}$ . The reason is that it can happen, and frequently does, that ${\displaystyle X}$  is a subspace of ${\displaystyle Y\oplus Z}$  and yet ${\displaystyle X\cap Y=0=X\cap Z}$ . For example, take ${\displaystyle X}$ , ${\displaystyle Y}$  and ${\displaystyle Z}$  to be three distinct lines through the origin in ${\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{2}}$ . For an explicit counterexample, let ${\displaystyle A=\operatorname {Mat} _{2}(F)}$  be the algebra of ${\displaystyle 2\times 2}$  matrices and set ${\displaystyle V=A}$ , the regular representation of ${\displaystyle A}$ . Set ${\displaystyle V_{1}={\Bigl \{}{\begin{pmatrix}a&0\\b&0\end{pmatrix}}{\Bigr \}}}$  and ${\displaystyle V_{2}={\Bigl \{}{\begin{pmatrix}0&c\\0&d\end{pmatrix}}{\Bigr \}}}$  and set ${\displaystyle W={\Bigl \{}{\begin{pmatrix}c&c\\d&d\end{pmatrix}}{\Bigr \}}}$ . Then ${\displaystyle V_{1}}$ , ${\displaystyle V_{2}}$  and ${\displaystyle W}$  are all irreducible ${\displaystyle A}$ -modules and ${\displaystyle V=V_{1}\oplus V_{2}}$ . Let ${\displaystyle p:V\to V/W}$  be the natural surjection. Then ${\displaystyle \operatorname {ker} p=W\neq 0}$  and ${\displaystyle V_{1}\cap \operatorname {ker} p=0=V_{2}\cap \operatorname {ker} p}$ . In this case, ${\displaystyle W\simeq V_{1}\simeq V_{2}}$  but ${\displaystyle V\neq \operatorname {ker} p\oplus V_{1}\oplus V_{2}}$  because this sum is not direct.

Proof of equivalences[4] ${\displaystyle 1.\Rightarrow 3.}$ : Take p to be the natural surjection ${\displaystyle V\to V/W}$ . Since V is semisimple, p splits and so, through a section, ${\displaystyle V/W}$  is isomorphic to a subrepretation that is complementary to W.

${\displaystyle 3.\Rightarrow 2.}$ : We shall first observe that every nonzero subrepresentation W has a simple subrepresentation. Shrinking W to a (nonzero) cyclic subrepresentation we can assume it is finitely generated. Then it has a maximal subrepresentation U. By the condition 3., ${\displaystyle V=U\oplus U'}$  for some ${\displaystyle U'}$ . By modular law, it implies ${\displaystyle W=U\oplus (W\cap U')}$ . Then ${\displaystyle (W\cap U')\simeq W/U}$  is a simple subrepresentation of W ("simple" because of maximality). This establishes the observation. Now, take ${\displaystyle W}$  to be the sum of all simple subrepresentations, which, by 3., admits a complementary representation ${\displaystyle W'}$ . If ${\displaystyle W'\neq 0}$ , then, by the early observation, ${\displaystyle W'}$  contains a simple subrepresentation and so ${\displaystyle W\cap W'\neq 0}$ , a nonsense. Hence, ${\displaystyle W'=0}$ .

${\displaystyle 2.\Rightarrow 1.}$ :[5] The implication is a direct generalization of a basic fact in linear algebra that a basis can be extracted from a spanning set of a vector space. That is we can prove the following slightly more precise statement:

• When ${\displaystyle V=\sum _{i\in I}V_{i}}$  is a sum of simple subrepresentations, a semisimple decomposition ${\displaystyle V=\bigoplus _{i\in I'}V_{i}}$ , some subset ${\displaystyle I'\subset I}$ , can be extracted from the sum.

As in the proof of the lemma, we can find a maximal direct sum ${\displaystyle W}$  that consists of some ${\displaystyle V_{i}}$ ’s. Now, for each i in I, by simplicity, either ${\displaystyle V_{i}\subset W}$  or ${\displaystyle V_{i}\cap W=0}$ . In the second case, the direct sum ${\displaystyle W\oplus V_{i}}$  is a contradiction to the maximality of W. Hence, ${\displaystyle V_{i}\subset W}$ . ${\displaystyle \square }$

## Examples and non-examples

### Unitary representations

A finite-dimensional unitary representation (i.e., a representation factoring through a unitary group) is a basic example of a semisimple representation. Such a representation is semisimple since if W is a subrepresentation, then the orthogonal complement to W is a complementary representation[6] because if ${\displaystyle v\in W^{\bot }}$  and ${\displaystyle g\in G}$ , then ${\displaystyle \langle \pi (g)v,w\rangle =\langle v,\pi (g^{-1})w\rangle =0}$  for any w in W since W is G-invariant, and so ${\displaystyle \pi (g)v\in W^{\bot }}$ .

For example, given a continuous finite-dimensional complex representation ${\displaystyle \pi :G\to GL(V)}$  of a finite group or a compact group G, by the averaging argument, one can define an inner product ${\displaystyle \langle ,\rangle }$  on V that is G-invariant: i.e., ${\displaystyle \langle \pi (g)v,\pi (g)w\rangle =\langle v,w\rangle }$ , which is to say ${\displaystyle \pi (g)}$  is a unitary operator and so ${\displaystyle \pi }$  is a unitary representation.[6] Hence, every finite-dimensional continuous complex representation of G is semisimple.[7] For a finite group, this is a special case of Maschke's theorem, which says a finite-dimensional representation of a finite group G over a field k with characteristic not dividing the order of G is semisimple.[8][9]

### Representations of semisimple Lie algebras

By Weyl's theorem on complete reducibility, every finite-dimensional representation of a semisimple Lie algebra over a field of characteristic zero is semisimple.[10]

### Separable minimal polynomials

Given a linear endomorphism T of a vector space V, V is semisimple as a representation of T (i.e., T is a semisimple operator) if and only if the minimal polynomial of T is separable; i.e., a product of distinct irreducible polynomials.[11]

### Associated semisimple representation

Given a finite-dimensional representation V, the Jordan–Hölder theorem says there is a filtration by subrepresentations: ${\displaystyle V=V_{0}\supset V_{1}\supset \cdots \supset V_{n}=0}$  such that each successive quotient ${\displaystyle V_{i}/V_{i+1}}$  is a simple representation. Then the associated vector space ${\displaystyle \operatorname {gr} V:=\bigoplus _{i=0}^{n-1}V_{i}/V_{i+1}}$  is a semisimple representation called an associated semisimple representation, which, up to an isomorphism, is uniquely determined by V.[12]

### Unipotent group non-example

A representation of a unipotent group is generally not semisimple. Take ${\displaystyle G}$  to be the group consisting of real matrices ${\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}1&a\\&1\end{bmatrix}}}$ ; it acts on ${\displaystyle V=\mathbb {R} ^{2}}$  in a natural way and makes V a representation of G. If W is a subrepresentation of V that has dimension 1, then a simple calculation shows that it must be spanned by the vector ${\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}}$ . That is, there are exactly three G-subrepresentations of V; in particular, V is not semisimple (as a unique one-dimensional subrepresentation does not admit a complementary representation).[13]

## Semisimple decomposition and multiplicity

The decomposition of a semisimple representation into simple ones, called a semisimple decomposition, need not be unique; for example, for a trivial representation, simple representations are one-dimensional vector spaces and thus a semisimple decomposition amounts to a choice of a basis of the representation vector space.[14] The isotypic decomposition, on the other hand, is an example of a unique decomposition.[15]

However, for a finite-dimensional semisimple representation V over an algebraically closed field, the numbers of simple representations up to isomorphisms appearing in the decomposition of V (1) are unique and (2) completely determine the representation up to isomorphisms;[16] this is a consequence of Schur's lemma in the following way. Suppose a finite-dimensional semisimple representation V over an algebraically closed field is given: by definition, it is a direct sum of simple representations. By grouping together simple representations in the decomposition that are isomorphic to each other, up to an isomorphism, one finds a decomposition (not necessarily unique):[16]

${\displaystyle V\simeq \bigoplus _{i}V_{i}^{\oplus m_{i}}}$

where ${\displaystyle V_{i}}$  are simple representations, mutually non-isomorphic to one another, and ${\displaystyle m_{i}}$  are positive integers. By Schur's lemma,

${\displaystyle m_{i}=\dim \operatorname {Hom} _{\text{equiv}}(V_{i},V)=\dim \operatorname {Hom} _{\text{equiv}}(V,V_{i})}$ ,

where ${\displaystyle \operatorname {Hom} _{\text{equiv}}}$  refers to the equivariant linear maps. Also, each ${\displaystyle m_{i}}$  is unchanged if ${\displaystyle V_{i}}$  is replaced by another simple representation isomorphic to ${\displaystyle V_{i}}$ . Thus, the integers ${\displaystyle m_{i}}$  are independent of chosen decompositions; they are the multiplicities of simple representations ${\displaystyle V_{i}}$ , up to isomorphisms, in V.[17]

In general, given a finite-dimensional representation ${\displaystyle \pi :G\to GL(V)}$  of a group G over a field k, the composition ${\displaystyle \chi _{V}:G{\overset {\pi }{\to }}GL(V){\overset {\text{tr}}{\to }}k}$  is called the character of ${\displaystyle (\pi ,V)}$ .[18] When ${\displaystyle (\pi ,V)}$  is semisimple with the decomposition ${\displaystyle V\simeq \bigoplus _{i}V_{i}^{\oplus m_{i}}}$  as above, the trace ${\displaystyle \operatorname {tr} (\pi (g))}$  is the sum of the traces of ${\displaystyle \pi (g):V_{i}\to V_{i}}$  with multiplicities and thus, as functions on G,

${\displaystyle \chi _{V}=\sum _{i}m_{i}\chi _{V_{i}}}$

where ${\displaystyle \chi _{V_{i}}}$  are the characters of ${\displaystyle V_{i}}$ . When G is a finite group or more generally a compact group and ${\displaystyle V}$  is a unitary representation with the inner product given by the averaging argument, the Schur orthogonality relations say:[19] the irreducible characters (characters of simple representations) of G are an orthonormal subset of the space of complex-valued functions on G and thus ${\displaystyle m_{i}=\langle \chi _{V},\chi _{V_{i}}\rangle }$ .

## Isotypic decomposition

There is a decomposition of a semisimple representation that is unique, called the isotypic decomposition of the representation. By definition, given a simple representation S, the isotypic component of type S of a representation V is the sum of all subrepresentations of V that are isomorphic to S;[15] note the component is also isomorphic to the direct sum of some choice of subrepresentations isomorphic to S (so the component is unique, while the summands are not necessary so).

Then the isotypic decomposition of a semisimple representation V is the (unique) direct sum decomposition:[15][20]

${\displaystyle V=\bigoplus _{\lambda \in {\widehat {G}}}V^{\lambda }}$

where ${\displaystyle {\widehat {G}}}$  is the set of isomorphism classes of simple representations of G and ${\displaystyle V^{\lambda }}$  is the isotypic component of V of type S for some ${\displaystyle S\in \lambda }$ .

### Example

Let ${\displaystyle V}$  be the space of homogeneous degree-three polynomials over the complex numbers in variables ${\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}}$ . Then ${\displaystyle S_{3}}$  acts on ${\displaystyle V}$  by permutation of the three variables. This is a finite-dimensional complex representation of a finite group, and so is semisimple. Therefore, this 10-dimensional representation can be broken up into three isotypic components, each corresponding to one of the three irreducible representations of ${\displaystyle S_{3}}$ . In particular, ${\displaystyle V}$  contains three copies of the trivial representation, one copy of the sign representation, and three copies of the two-dimensional irreducible representation ${\displaystyle W}$  of ${\displaystyle S_{3}}$ . For example, the span of ${\displaystyle x_{1}^{2}x_{2}-x_{2}^{2}x_{1}+x_{1}^{2}x_{3}-x_{2}^{2}x_{3}}$  and ${\displaystyle x_{2}^{2}x_{3}-x_{3}^{2}x_{2}+x_{2}^{2}x_{1}-x_{3}^{2}x_{1}}$  is isomorphic to ${\displaystyle W}$ . This can more easily be seen by writing this two-dimensional subspace as

${\displaystyle W_{1}=\{a(x_{1}^{2}x_{2}+x_{1}^{2}x_{3})+b(x_{2}^{2}x_{1}+x_{2}^{2}x_{3})+c(x_{3}^{2}x_{1}+x_{3}^{2}x_{2})\mid a+b+c=0\}}$ .

Another copy of ${\displaystyle W}$  can be written in a similar form:

${\displaystyle W_{2}=\{a(x_{2}^{2}x_{1}+x_{3}^{2}x_{1})+b(x_{1}^{2}x_{2}+x_{3}^{2}x_{2})+c(x_{1}^{2}x_{3}+x_{2}^{2}x_{3})\mid a+b+c=0\}}$ .

So can the third:

${\displaystyle W_{3}=\{ax_{1}^{3}+bx_{2}^{3}+cx_{3}^{3}\mid a+b+c=0\}}$ .

Then ${\displaystyle W_{1}\oplus W_{2}\oplus W_{3}}$  is the isotypic component of type ${\displaystyle W}$  in ${\displaystyle V}$ .

## Completion

In Fourier analysis, one decomposes a (nice) function as the limit of the Fourier series of the function. In much the same way, a representation itself may not be semisimple but it may be the completion (in a suitable sense) of a semisimple representation. The most basic case of this is the Peter–Weyl theorem, which decomposes the left (or right) regular representation of a compact group into the Hilbert-space completion of the direct sum of all simple unitary representations. As a corollary,[21] there is a natural decomposition for ${\displaystyle W=L^{2}(G)}$  = the Hilbert space of (classes of) square-integrable functions on a compact group G:

${\displaystyle W\simeq {\widehat {\bigoplus _{[(\pi ,V)]}}}V^{\oplus \dim V}}$

where ${\displaystyle {\widehat {\bigoplus }}}$  means the completion of the direct sum and the direct sum runs over all isomorphism classes of simple finite-dimensional unitary representations ${\displaystyle (\pi ,V)}$  of G.[note 1] Note here that every simple unitary representation (up to an isomorphism) appears in the sum with the multiplicity the dimension of the representation.

When the group G is a finite group, the vector space ${\displaystyle W=\mathbb {C} [G]}$  is simply the group algebra of G and also the completion is vacuous. Thus, the theorem simply says that

${\displaystyle \mathbb {C} [G]=\bigoplus _{[(\pi ,V)]}V^{\oplus \dim V}.}$

That is, each simple representation of G appears in the regular representation with multiplicity the dimension of the representation.[22] This is one of standard facts in the representation theory of a finite group (and is much easier to prove).

When the group G is the circle group ${\displaystyle S^{1}}$ , the theorem exactly amounts to the classical Fourier analysis.[23]

## Applications to physics

In quantum mechanics and particle physics, the angular momentum of an object can be described by complex representations of the rotation group|SO(3), all of which are semisimple.[24] Due to connection between SO(3) and SU(2), the non-relativistic spin of an elementary particle is described by complex representations of SU(2) and the relativistic spin is described by complex representations of SL2(C), all of which are semisimple.[24] In angular momentum coupling, Clebsch–Gordan coefficients arise from the multiplicities of irreducible representations occurring in the semisimple decomposition of a tensor product of irreducible representations.[25]

## Notes

1. ^ To be precise, the theorem concerns the regular representation of ${\displaystyle G\times G}$  and the above statement is a corollary.

## References

### Citations

1. ^ a b Procesi 2007, Ch. 6, § 1.1, Definition 1 (ii).
2. ^ Procesi 2007, Ch. 6, § 2.1.
3. ^ Anderson & Fuller 1992, Proposition 9.4.
4. ^ Anderson & Fuller 1992, Theorem 9.6.
5. ^ Anderson & Fuller 1992, Lemma 9.2.
6. ^ a b Fulton & Harris 1991, § 9.3. A
7. ^ Hall 2015, Theorem 4.28
8. ^ Fulton & Harris 1991, Corollary 1.6.
9. ^ Serre 1977, Theorem 2.
10. ^ Hall 2015 Theorem 10.9
11. ^ Jacobson 1989, § 3.5. Exercise 4.
12. ^ Artin 1999, Ch. V, § 14.
13. ^ Fulton & Harris 1991, just after Corollary 1.6.
14. ^ Serre 1977, § 1.4. remark
15. ^ a b c Procesi 2007, Ch. 6, § 2.3.
16. ^ a b Fulton & Harris 1991, Proposition 1.8.
17. ^ Fulton & Harris 1991, § 2.3.
18. ^ Fulton & Harris 1991, § 2.1. Definition
19. ^ Serre 1977, § 2.3. Theorem 3 and § 4.3.
20. ^ Serre 1977, § 2.6. Theorem 8 (i)
21. ^ Procesi 2007, Ch. 8, Theorem 3.2.
22. ^ Serre 1977, § 2.4. Corollary 1 to Proposition 5
23. ^ Procesi 2007, Ch. 8, § 3.3.
24. ^ a b Hall, Brian C. (2013). "Angular Momentum and Spin". Quantum Theory for Mathematicians. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Vol. 267. Springer. pp. 367–392. ISBN 978-1461471158.
25. ^ Klimyk, A. U.; Gavrilik, A. M. (1979). "Representation matrix elements and Clebsch–Gordan coefficients of the semisimple Lie groups". Journal of Mathematical Physics. 20 (1624): 1624–1642. Bibcode:1979JMP....20.1624K. doi:10.1063/1.524268.

### Sources

• Anderson, Frank W.; Fuller, Kent R. (1992), Rings and categories of modules, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 13 (2nd ed.), New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, pp. x+376, doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4418-9, ISBN 0-387-97845-3, MR 1245487; NB: this reference, nominally, considers a semisimple module over a ring not over a group but this is not a material difference (the abstract part of the discussion goes through for groups as well).
• Artin, Michael (1999). "Noncommutative Rings" (PDF).
• Fulton, William; Harris, Joe (1991). Representation theory. A first course. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Readings in Mathematics. Vol. 129. New York: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-0979-9. ISBN 978-0-387-97495-8. MR 1153249. OCLC 246650103.
• Hall, Brian C. (2015). Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Representations: An Elementary Introduction. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Vol. 222 (2nd ed.). Springer. ISBN 978-3319134666.
• Jacobson, Nathan (1989), Basic algebra II (2nd ed.), W. H. Freeman, ISBN 978-0-7167-1933-5
• Procesi, Claudio (2007). Lie Groups: an approach through invariants and representation. Springer. ISBN 9780387260402..
• Serre, Jean-Pierre (1977-09-01). Linear Representations of Finite Groups. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 42. New York–Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-0-387-90190-9. MR 0450380. Zbl 0355.20006.