Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2011

    How old is the use of the name ’intertwiner’? I find it very obscure (and ugly) as a piece of terminology since it is simply a morphism of the representations. (I learnt representation theory from Ledermann and the term was nowhere to be seen in his courses! The courses were beautifully given, very categorical in a general sense.)

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2011

    But if you talk in terms of matrices, it really looks like intertwiner…

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorjim_stasheff
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2011
    I agree with Tim strongly! I'm glad someone finally said it!

    it really looks like intertwiner. ???

    meaning? the input matrix entires are interleaved??

    but I was taught to avoid coordiante descriptions when understanding a concept
    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2011

    Old books define intertwiner between representations TT and TT' as an invertible linear operator UU such that T(g)=UT(g)U 1 T'(g) = U T(g) U^{-1} for all gg. As one sees, T(g)T(g) is sandwiched between UU and U 1U^{-1} (and this becomes a bit more involved at the level of matrix elements). Hence intertwiner.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2011

    I also agree strongly! I have always been confused about why people use such a weird word for such a simple thing. In my idiolect, being “sandwiched between” is not much like being “intertwined” – the latter word sounds to me like a braid or a tangle.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2011
    • (edited Apr 11th 2011)

    My reason for raising the point is that I feel that intertwiner when it occurs in the nLab should be used as an alternative to the morphism of reps or whatever not as the main term. At present we do not have an entry for ’intertwiner’ and perhaps we should with a bit of gentle explanation. (In fact the Wikipedia article is quite good in this.)

    What I found almost insulting was that sometimes people giving seminars used the term as if it was the only one that could be imagined for the concept, whilst they did not say what the concept was and the term does not explain anything. As I said Ledermann as I remember, did not talk of intertwiners but did talk about homomorphisms of representations.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
    • (edited Apr 12th 2011)

    the latter word sounds to me like a braid or a tangle

    Right, various notions of braiding in algebra, for example the notion of braided monoidal category involves similar sandwiches when passing from the tensor product to the tensor product in the opposite order. Representations were invented by people who wanted to consider groups realized via matrices, this is algebraic and coordinate thinking. Representation theorists usually start their courses by saying that groups are not abstract objects but appear concretely and the main way is via matrices. Such an introduction is a reason why I never went much into representation theory, despite being surrounded by good representation theorists all my life, but went to noncommutative algebraic geometry, while not being surrounded by such. If one does not like to talk representation and representation terminology, then one should say module, and homomorphism of modules. The same people who as a rule talk intertwiners of representations, very rarely say intertwiner of modules, but rather (homo)morphism of modules. Representations are in their business usually thought in terms of characters, matrix elements, matrix blocks and so on, while when saying module, they usually take the picture of a generalization of a vector space.

    I think that in nnLab we should have both passages and entries with modern perspective from the point of view of invariant notions but also should have classical entries or passages which are friendly to traditional users, physicists and so on, and make link to traditional notation. If we sterilize the environment, the outcome may become somewhat sterile as well.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorjim_stasheff
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
    I agree but let the most user friendly/ transparent terminology dominate with parenthetial
    remarks or footnotes, e.g. also known as
    with a link to a formal definition

    note: T and T' are intertwined at best with U, not each other
    or is U the intertwiner?
    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011

    Yes, U is.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011

    But that means that U is the intertwiner irrespective of what T and T’ are! Does an intertwiner have a domain and codomain? I am still confused. (Zoran, you were wise to avoid representation theorist for whom all groups are groups of matrices!) Can someone provide a stub on intertwiner which can be expanded, but would avoid some of the confusion. (I did a search on the web and the usage of the term seems varied and sometimes inconsistent.)