Concerns the decomposition of representations of a finite group into irreducible pieces
In mathematics, Maschke's theorem,[1][2] named after Heinrich Maschke,[3] is a theorem in group representation theory that concerns the decomposition of representations of a finite group into irreducible pieces. Maschke's theorem allows one to make general conclusions about representations of a finite group G without actually computing them. It reduces the task of classifying all representations to a more manageable task of classifying irreducible representations, since when the theorem applies, any representation is a direct sum of irreducible pieces (constituents). Moreover, it follows from the Jordan–Hölder theorem that, while the decomposition into a direct sum of irreducible subrepresentations may not be unique, the irreducible pieces have well-defined multiplicities. In particular, a representation of a finite group over a field of characteristic zero is determined up to isomorphism by its character.
Formulations
Maschke's theorem addresses the question: when is a general (finite-dimensional) representation built from irreducible subrepresentations using the direct sum operation? This question (and its answer) are formulated differently for different perspectives on group representation theory.
Group-theoretic
Maschke's theorem is commonly formulated as a corollary to the following result:
Theorem — is a representation of a finite group over a field with characteristic not dividing the order of . If has a subrepresentation , then it has another subrepresentation such that .[4][5]
Then the corollary is
Corollary (Maschke's theorem) — Every representation of a finite group over a field with characteristic not dividing the order of is a direct sum of irreducible representations.[6][7]
One of the approaches to representations of finite groups is through module theory. Representations of a group are replaced by modules over its group algebra (to be precise, there is an isomorphism of categories between and , the category of representations of ). Irreducible representations correspond to simple modules. In the module-theoretic language, Maschke's theorem asks: is an arbitrary module semisimple? In this context, the theorem can be reformulated as follows:
Maschke's Theorem — Let be a finite group and a field whose characteristic does not divide the order of . Then , the group algebra of , is semisimple.[8][9]
The importance of this result stems from the well developed theory of semisimple rings, in particular, their classification as given by the Wedderburn–Artin theorem. When is the field of complex numbers, this shows that the algebra is a product of several copies of complex matrix algebras, one for each irreducible representation.[10] If the field has characteristic zero, but is not algebraically closed, for example if is the field of real or rational numbers, then a somewhat more complicated statement holds: the group algebra is a product of matrix algebras over division rings over . The summands correspond to irreducible representations of over .[11]
Maschke's theorem — If G is a group and F is a field with characteristic not dividing the order of G, then the category of representations of G over F is semi-simple.
Proofs
Group-theoretic
Let U be a subspace of V complement of W. Let be the projection function, i.e., for any .
Define , where is an abbreviation of , with being the representation of G on W andV. Then, is preserved by G under representation : for any ,
so implies that . So the restriction of on is also a representation.
By the definition of , for any , , so , and for any , . Thus, , and . Therefore, .
Module-theoretic
Let V be a K[G]-submodule. We will prove that V is a direct summand. Let π be any K-linear projection of K[G] onto V. Consider the map
Then φ is again a projection: it is clearly K-linear, maps K[G] to V, and induces the identity on V (therefore, maps K[G] onto V). Moreover we have
so φ is in fact K[G]-linear. By the splitting lemma, . This proves that every submodule is a direct summand, that is, K[G] is semisimple.
Converse statement
The above proof depends on the fact that #G is invertible in K. This might lead one to ask if the converse of Maschke's theorem also holds: if the characteristic of K divides the order of G, does it follow that K[G] is not semisimple? The answer is yes.[12]
Proof. For define . Let . Then I is a K[G]-submodule. We will prove that for every nontrivial submodule V of K[G], . Let V be given, and let be any nonzero element of V. If , the claim is immediate. Otherwise, let . Then so and
so that is a nonzero element of both I and V. This proves V is not a direct complement of I for all V, so K[G] is not semisimple.
Non-examples
The theorem can not apply to the case where G is infinite, or when the field K has characteristics dividing #G. For example,
Consider the infinite group and the representation defined by . Let , a 1-dimensional subspace of spanned by . Then the restriction of on W is a trivial subrepresentation of . However, there's no U such that both W, U are subrepresentations of and : any such U needs to be 1-dimensional, but any 1-dimensional subspace preserved by has to be spanned by an eigenvector for , and the only eigenvector for that is .
Consider a primep, and the group , field , and the representation defined by . Simple calculations show that there is only one eigenvector for here, so by the same argument, the 1-dimensional subrepresentation of is unique, and cannot be decomposed into the direct sum of two 1-dimensional subrepresentations.
^It follows that every module over is a semisimple module.
^The converse statement also holds: if the characteristic of the field divides the order of the group (the modular case), then the group algebra is not semisimple.
^The number of the summands can be computed, and turns out to be equal to the number of the conjugacy classes of the group.
^One must be careful, since a representation may decompose differently over different fields: a representation may be irreducible over the real numbers but not over the complex numbers.