This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See
this archived section for a previous discussion. |
Let's settle the these matters in this section.
More posts will probably follow... M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 13:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
User:R.e.b. and IP User:96.60.16.101 have done a good job at correcting the article after I tried to change from a redirect to an article and failed. However, R.e.b. introduced the concept of "indecomposable" as different to "irreducible". Maybe the term is confused in places (not just me), maybe the terminology is just used differently. Note R.e.b. actually wrote indecomposable without adding citations to support this terminology, and exactly where I added references which do in fact use the term "irreducible representation".
To quote User:YohanN7 from Talk:Symmetry in quantum mechanics#Irreducible/Reducible:
When possible, if others could add more references on the usage of the terminology, it would definitely help. M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 17:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IrreducibleRepresentation.html lists several interesting properties of irreducible representations. I think those properties might deserve a mention on this page, seeing as this page currently does not contain much information beyond the basic definitions. 167.220.232.21 ( talk) 08:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Irreducible representation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://panda.unm.edu/Courses/Finley/p467/handouts/YoungTableauxSubs.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The (sub-)section Decomposable and Indecomposable representations contains this passage:
The representation can be decomposed into a direct sum of k matrices:
so D(a) is decomposable, ...
Maybe I missed someplace where it says that k > 1 for decomposability.
But it is ridiculous to completely miss the point by claiming decomposability simply because a displayed equation shows more than one summand.
The condition that k > 1 must be mentioned before making a statement that takes that as an assumption.
As it stands now, this subsection mentions k = 1 only for indecomposability and only in the very last sentence. 2600:1700:E1C0:F340:FD35:462B:BD8B:E7F1 ( talk) 02:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See
this archived section for a previous discussion. |
Let's settle the these matters in this section.
More posts will probably follow... M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 13:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
User:R.e.b. and IP User:96.60.16.101 have done a good job at correcting the article after I tried to change from a redirect to an article and failed. However, R.e.b. introduced the concept of "indecomposable" as different to "irreducible". Maybe the term is confused in places (not just me), maybe the terminology is just used differently. Note R.e.b. actually wrote indecomposable without adding citations to support this terminology, and exactly where I added references which do in fact use the term "irreducible representation".
To quote User:YohanN7 from Talk:Symmetry in quantum mechanics#Irreducible/Reducible:
When possible, if others could add more references on the usage of the terminology, it would definitely help. M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 17:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IrreducibleRepresentation.html lists several interesting properties of irreducible representations. I think those properties might deserve a mention on this page, seeing as this page currently does not contain much information beyond the basic definitions. 167.220.232.21 ( talk) 08:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Irreducible representation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://panda.unm.edu/Courses/Finley/p467/handouts/YoungTableauxSubs.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The (sub-)section Decomposable and Indecomposable representations contains this passage:
The representation can be decomposed into a direct sum of k matrices:
so D(a) is decomposable, ...
Maybe I missed someplace where it says that k > 1 for decomposability.
But it is ridiculous to completely miss the point by claiming decomposability simply because a displayed equation shows more than one summand.
The condition that k > 1 must be mentioned before making a statement that takes that as an assumption.
As it stands now, this subsection mentions k = 1 only for indecomposability and only in the very last sentence. 2600:1700:E1C0:F340:FD35:462B:BD8B:E7F1 ( talk) 02:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)