(Real) Frobenius Reciprocity
Now we come to the real version of Frobenius reciprocity. It takes the form of an adjunction between the functors of induction and restriction:
where is an
-module and
is a
-module.
This is one of those items that everybody (for suitable values of “everybody”) knows to be true, but that nobody seems to have written down. I’ve been beating my head against it for days and finally figured out a way to make it work. Looking back, I’m not entirely certain I’ve ever actually proven it before.
So let’s start on the left with a linear map that intertwines the action of each subgroup element
. We want to extend this to a linear map from
to
that intertwines the actions of all the elements of
.
Okay, so we’ve defined . But if we choose a transversal
for
— like we did when we set up the induced matrices — then we can break down
as the direct sum of a bunch of copies of
:
So then when we take the tensor product we find
So we need to define a map from each of these summands to
. But a vector in
looks like
for some
. And thus a
-intertwinor
extending
must be defined by
.
So, is this really a -intertwinor? After all, we’ve really only used the fact that it commutes with the actions of the transversal elements
. Any element of the induced representation can be written uniquely as
for some collection of . We need to check that
.
Now, we know that left-multiplication by permutes the cosets of
. That is,
for some
. Thus we calculate
and so, since commutes with
and with each transversal element
Okay, so we’ve got a map that takes
-module morphisms in
to
-module homomorphisms in
. But is it an isomorphism? Well we can get go from
back to
by just looking at what
does on the component
If we only consider the actions elements , they send this component back into itself, and by definition they commute with
. That is, the restriction of
to this component is an
-intertwinor, and in fact it’s the same as the
we started with.
[…] proof of Frobenius reciprocity shows that induction is a left-adjoint to restriction. In fact, we could use this to define […]
Pingback by Dual Frobenius Reciprocity « The Unapologetic Mathematician | December 3, 2010 |
[…] branching rule down, proving the other one is fairly straightforward: it’s a consequence of Frobenius reciprocity. Indeed, the branching rule tells us […]
Pingback by The Branching Rule, Part 3 « The Unapologetic Mathematician | January 31, 2011 |