Basis for Center of Group Ring
There is already a similar post, that has an answer to my question, but it is quite short and I don't get it... So I am trying to show that
begin{align}
{e_K |~ K subset G~ conjugacy~ class }
end{align} is a basis for $Z(mathbb{Z}[G])$. Serre even writes "one immediately checks that the $e_K$ form a basis", but even reading the other post I don't see that...
My approach to this is:
Be $x in Z(mathbb{Z}[G])$, which is equivalent to: $x = gxg^{-1}$ for all $g in G$. Writing
$x = sumlimits_{h in G} lambda_h h$, we get $x = sumlimits_{h in G} lambda_h ghg^{-1}$. I don't really know how to go on at this point. I mean, I know that when $a,b in K$ (same conjugacy class) you get $sumlimits_{s in K} mu_s s = musumlimits_{s in K} s$, since
begin{align}
a = hbh^{-1} Rightarrow mu_a = mu_b ~forall a,bin K
end{align}
So all elements in the same conjugacy class have the same scalar.
But from here I don't really know how I can generate the $x = sumlimits_{h in G} lambda_h ghg^{-1}$ with the $e_K$ ...
I would be really thankful, if someone could give me quite a basic proof that even I understand...
abstract-algebra representation-theory
add a comment |
There is already a similar post, that has an answer to my question, but it is quite short and I don't get it... So I am trying to show that
begin{align}
{e_K |~ K subset G~ conjugacy~ class }
end{align} is a basis for $Z(mathbb{Z}[G])$. Serre even writes "one immediately checks that the $e_K$ form a basis", but even reading the other post I don't see that...
My approach to this is:
Be $x in Z(mathbb{Z}[G])$, which is equivalent to: $x = gxg^{-1}$ for all $g in G$. Writing
$x = sumlimits_{h in G} lambda_h h$, we get $x = sumlimits_{h in G} lambda_h ghg^{-1}$. I don't really know how to go on at this point. I mean, I know that when $a,b in K$ (same conjugacy class) you get $sumlimits_{s in K} mu_s s = musumlimits_{s in K} s$, since
begin{align}
a = hbh^{-1} Rightarrow mu_a = mu_b ~forall a,bin K
end{align}
So all elements in the same conjugacy class have the same scalar.
But from here I don't really know how I can generate the $x = sumlimits_{h in G} lambda_h ghg^{-1}$ with the $e_K$ ...
I would be really thankful, if someone could give me quite a basic proof that even I understand...
abstract-algebra representation-theory
Could you link to the "similar post" you mention? This would help us in understanding your problem.
– Pierre-Guy Plamondon
Jun 3 at 14:24
Ah yes, of course... math.stackexchange.com/questions/2803614/…
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 16:53
add a comment |
There is already a similar post, that has an answer to my question, but it is quite short and I don't get it... So I am trying to show that
begin{align}
{e_K |~ K subset G~ conjugacy~ class }
end{align} is a basis for $Z(mathbb{Z}[G])$. Serre even writes "one immediately checks that the $e_K$ form a basis", but even reading the other post I don't see that...
My approach to this is:
Be $x in Z(mathbb{Z}[G])$, which is equivalent to: $x = gxg^{-1}$ for all $g in G$. Writing
$x = sumlimits_{h in G} lambda_h h$, we get $x = sumlimits_{h in G} lambda_h ghg^{-1}$. I don't really know how to go on at this point. I mean, I know that when $a,b in K$ (same conjugacy class) you get $sumlimits_{s in K} mu_s s = musumlimits_{s in K} s$, since
begin{align}
a = hbh^{-1} Rightarrow mu_a = mu_b ~forall a,bin K
end{align}
So all elements in the same conjugacy class have the same scalar.
But from here I don't really know how I can generate the $x = sumlimits_{h in G} lambda_h ghg^{-1}$ with the $e_K$ ...
I would be really thankful, if someone could give me quite a basic proof that even I understand...
abstract-algebra representation-theory
There is already a similar post, that has an answer to my question, but it is quite short and I don't get it... So I am trying to show that
begin{align}
{e_K |~ K subset G~ conjugacy~ class }
end{align} is a basis for $Z(mathbb{Z}[G])$. Serre even writes "one immediately checks that the $e_K$ form a basis", but even reading the other post I don't see that...
My approach to this is:
Be $x in Z(mathbb{Z}[G])$, which is equivalent to: $x = gxg^{-1}$ for all $g in G$. Writing
$x = sumlimits_{h in G} lambda_h h$, we get $x = sumlimits_{h in G} lambda_h ghg^{-1}$. I don't really know how to go on at this point. I mean, I know that when $a,b in K$ (same conjugacy class) you get $sumlimits_{s in K} mu_s s = musumlimits_{s in K} s$, since
begin{align}
a = hbh^{-1} Rightarrow mu_a = mu_b ~forall a,bin K
end{align}
So all elements in the same conjugacy class have the same scalar.
But from here I don't really know how I can generate the $x = sumlimits_{h in G} lambda_h ghg^{-1}$ with the $e_K$ ...
I would be really thankful, if someone could give me quite a basic proof that even I understand...
abstract-algebra representation-theory
abstract-algebra representation-theory
asked Jun 3 at 7:51
Gilligans
184
184
Could you link to the "similar post" you mention? This would help us in understanding your problem.
– Pierre-Guy Plamondon
Jun 3 at 14:24
Ah yes, of course... math.stackexchange.com/questions/2803614/…
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 16:53
add a comment |
Could you link to the "similar post" you mention? This would help us in understanding your problem.
– Pierre-Guy Plamondon
Jun 3 at 14:24
Ah yes, of course... math.stackexchange.com/questions/2803614/…
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 16:53
Could you link to the "similar post" you mention? This would help us in understanding your problem.
– Pierre-Guy Plamondon
Jun 3 at 14:24
Could you link to the "similar post" you mention? This would help us in understanding your problem.
– Pierre-Guy Plamondon
Jun 3 at 14:24
Ah yes, of course... math.stackexchange.com/questions/2803614/…
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 16:53
Ah yes, of course... math.stackexchange.com/questions/2803614/…
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 16:53
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Notice that $sum lambda_h h = sum lambda_h ghg^{-1}$ implies that $lambda_h = lambda_{ghg^{-1}}$ for all $g$, i.e $lambda_h$ is constant along conjugacy classes. It follows that an element is the center can be written $ sum lambda_r c_r$ where $r$ runs along the conjugacy classes and $c_r = sum_{h in r}h$. Since the $c_r$ are obviously linearly independant the claim follows.
But why do you need $x = sumlimits_{h in G} lambda_h h = sumlimits_{h in G} lambda_h ghg^{-1}$ ? I mean $lambda_h = lambda_{ghg^{-1}}$ does follow for all elements of the same conjugacy class anyway, doesn't it ?
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 19:30
I don't understand your objection. We want to show that a basis of $Z(Bbb Z[G])$ is given by the $c_r$ (or $e_K$ with your notation). Essentially we need to show that any $x$ in the center can be written as linear combinaison of the $e_K$. This is exactly what my answer does.
– Nicolas Hemelsoet
Jun 3 at 19:36
Ohh, am I right in the thought that the $e_K$ even form a basis for the whole $mathbb{Z}[G]$ ?
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 19:44
@Gilligans : certainly not ! For example, if $e_K$ is a conjugacy class with more than one element and $g in e_K$, then $x=g$ can't be expressed as linear combinaisons of the $e_K$.
– Nicolas Hemelsoet
Jun 3 at 19:46
Ok thank you very much, I think I got it now :)
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 20:06
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
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: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
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/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2806252%2fbasis-for-center-of-group-ring%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Notice that $sum lambda_h h = sum lambda_h ghg^{-1}$ implies that $lambda_h = lambda_{ghg^{-1}}$ for all $g$, i.e $lambda_h$ is constant along conjugacy classes. It follows that an element is the center can be written $ sum lambda_r c_r$ where $r$ runs along the conjugacy classes and $c_r = sum_{h in r}h$. Since the $c_r$ are obviously linearly independant the claim follows.
But why do you need $x = sumlimits_{h in G} lambda_h h = sumlimits_{h in G} lambda_h ghg^{-1}$ ? I mean $lambda_h = lambda_{ghg^{-1}}$ does follow for all elements of the same conjugacy class anyway, doesn't it ?
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 19:30
I don't understand your objection. We want to show that a basis of $Z(Bbb Z[G])$ is given by the $c_r$ (or $e_K$ with your notation). Essentially we need to show that any $x$ in the center can be written as linear combinaison of the $e_K$. This is exactly what my answer does.
– Nicolas Hemelsoet
Jun 3 at 19:36
Ohh, am I right in the thought that the $e_K$ even form a basis for the whole $mathbb{Z}[G]$ ?
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 19:44
@Gilligans : certainly not ! For example, if $e_K$ is a conjugacy class with more than one element and $g in e_K$, then $x=g$ can't be expressed as linear combinaisons of the $e_K$.
– Nicolas Hemelsoet
Jun 3 at 19:46
Ok thank you very much, I think I got it now :)
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 20:06
|
show 1 more comment
Notice that $sum lambda_h h = sum lambda_h ghg^{-1}$ implies that $lambda_h = lambda_{ghg^{-1}}$ for all $g$, i.e $lambda_h$ is constant along conjugacy classes. It follows that an element is the center can be written $ sum lambda_r c_r$ where $r$ runs along the conjugacy classes and $c_r = sum_{h in r}h$. Since the $c_r$ are obviously linearly independant the claim follows.
But why do you need $x = sumlimits_{h in G} lambda_h h = sumlimits_{h in G} lambda_h ghg^{-1}$ ? I mean $lambda_h = lambda_{ghg^{-1}}$ does follow for all elements of the same conjugacy class anyway, doesn't it ?
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 19:30
I don't understand your objection. We want to show that a basis of $Z(Bbb Z[G])$ is given by the $c_r$ (or $e_K$ with your notation). Essentially we need to show that any $x$ in the center can be written as linear combinaison of the $e_K$. This is exactly what my answer does.
– Nicolas Hemelsoet
Jun 3 at 19:36
Ohh, am I right in the thought that the $e_K$ even form a basis for the whole $mathbb{Z}[G]$ ?
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 19:44
@Gilligans : certainly not ! For example, if $e_K$ is a conjugacy class with more than one element and $g in e_K$, then $x=g$ can't be expressed as linear combinaisons of the $e_K$.
– Nicolas Hemelsoet
Jun 3 at 19:46
Ok thank you very much, I think I got it now :)
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 20:06
|
show 1 more comment
Notice that $sum lambda_h h = sum lambda_h ghg^{-1}$ implies that $lambda_h = lambda_{ghg^{-1}}$ for all $g$, i.e $lambda_h$ is constant along conjugacy classes. It follows that an element is the center can be written $ sum lambda_r c_r$ where $r$ runs along the conjugacy classes and $c_r = sum_{h in r}h$. Since the $c_r$ are obviously linearly independant the claim follows.
Notice that $sum lambda_h h = sum lambda_h ghg^{-1}$ implies that $lambda_h = lambda_{ghg^{-1}}$ for all $g$, i.e $lambda_h$ is constant along conjugacy classes. It follows that an element is the center can be written $ sum lambda_r c_r$ where $r$ runs along the conjugacy classes and $c_r = sum_{h in r}h$. Since the $c_r$ are obviously linearly independant the claim follows.
answered Jun 3 at 14:31
Nicolas Hemelsoet
5,7452417
5,7452417
But why do you need $x = sumlimits_{h in G} lambda_h h = sumlimits_{h in G} lambda_h ghg^{-1}$ ? I mean $lambda_h = lambda_{ghg^{-1}}$ does follow for all elements of the same conjugacy class anyway, doesn't it ?
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 19:30
I don't understand your objection. We want to show that a basis of $Z(Bbb Z[G])$ is given by the $c_r$ (or $e_K$ with your notation). Essentially we need to show that any $x$ in the center can be written as linear combinaison of the $e_K$. This is exactly what my answer does.
– Nicolas Hemelsoet
Jun 3 at 19:36
Ohh, am I right in the thought that the $e_K$ even form a basis for the whole $mathbb{Z}[G]$ ?
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 19:44
@Gilligans : certainly not ! For example, if $e_K$ is a conjugacy class with more than one element and $g in e_K$, then $x=g$ can't be expressed as linear combinaisons of the $e_K$.
– Nicolas Hemelsoet
Jun 3 at 19:46
Ok thank you very much, I think I got it now :)
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 20:06
|
show 1 more comment
But why do you need $x = sumlimits_{h in G} lambda_h h = sumlimits_{h in G} lambda_h ghg^{-1}$ ? I mean $lambda_h = lambda_{ghg^{-1}}$ does follow for all elements of the same conjugacy class anyway, doesn't it ?
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 19:30
I don't understand your objection. We want to show that a basis of $Z(Bbb Z[G])$ is given by the $c_r$ (or $e_K$ with your notation). Essentially we need to show that any $x$ in the center can be written as linear combinaison of the $e_K$. This is exactly what my answer does.
– Nicolas Hemelsoet
Jun 3 at 19:36
Ohh, am I right in the thought that the $e_K$ even form a basis for the whole $mathbb{Z}[G]$ ?
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 19:44
@Gilligans : certainly not ! For example, if $e_K$ is a conjugacy class with more than one element and $g in e_K$, then $x=g$ can't be expressed as linear combinaisons of the $e_K$.
– Nicolas Hemelsoet
Jun 3 at 19:46
Ok thank you very much, I think I got it now :)
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 20:06
But why do you need $x = sumlimits_{h in G} lambda_h h = sumlimits_{h in G} lambda_h ghg^{-1}$ ? I mean $lambda_h = lambda_{ghg^{-1}}$ does follow for all elements of the same conjugacy class anyway, doesn't it ?
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 19:30
But why do you need $x = sumlimits_{h in G} lambda_h h = sumlimits_{h in G} lambda_h ghg^{-1}$ ? I mean $lambda_h = lambda_{ghg^{-1}}$ does follow for all elements of the same conjugacy class anyway, doesn't it ?
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 19:30
I don't understand your objection. We want to show that a basis of $Z(Bbb Z[G])$ is given by the $c_r$ (or $e_K$ with your notation). Essentially we need to show that any $x$ in the center can be written as linear combinaison of the $e_K$. This is exactly what my answer does.
– Nicolas Hemelsoet
Jun 3 at 19:36
I don't understand your objection. We want to show that a basis of $Z(Bbb Z[G])$ is given by the $c_r$ (or $e_K$ with your notation). Essentially we need to show that any $x$ in the center can be written as linear combinaison of the $e_K$. This is exactly what my answer does.
– Nicolas Hemelsoet
Jun 3 at 19:36
Ohh, am I right in the thought that the $e_K$ even form a basis for the whole $mathbb{Z}[G]$ ?
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 19:44
Ohh, am I right in the thought that the $e_K$ even form a basis for the whole $mathbb{Z}[G]$ ?
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 19:44
@Gilligans : certainly not ! For example, if $e_K$ is a conjugacy class with more than one element and $g in e_K$, then $x=g$ can't be expressed as linear combinaisons of the $e_K$.
– Nicolas Hemelsoet
Jun 3 at 19:46
@Gilligans : certainly not ! For example, if $e_K$ is a conjugacy class with more than one element and $g in e_K$, then $x=g$ can't be expressed as linear combinaisons of the $e_K$.
– Nicolas Hemelsoet
Jun 3 at 19:46
Ok thank you very much, I think I got it now :)
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 20:06
Ok thank you very much, I think I got it now :)
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 20:06
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics 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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2806252%2fbasis-for-center-of-group-ring%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
Could you link to the "similar post" you mention? This would help us in understanding your problem.
– Pierre-Guy Plamondon
Jun 3 at 14:24
Ah yes, of course... math.stackexchange.com/questions/2803614/…
– Gilligans
Jun 3 at 16:53