Talk:Representation of a Lie group
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | A member of the Guild of Copy Editors, Wikignome Wintergreen, reviewed a version of this article for copy editing on December 2020. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining! |
Comments[edit]
I don't think this article should be merged with the representation of Lie algebras article. It would be better to have parallel articles for Lie groups and Lie algebras. For one thing, there is a purely algebraic theory of Lie algebras over every field; and even with real or complex coefficients it's quite a deep result that a Lie algebra comes from a Lie group.
I propose moving this article to 'Representations of Lie groups', therefore.
Charles Matthews 15:02, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Done... Phys 15:43, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
By the way, I think complex representations for a group ought to be the default, here. A real (resp. complex) Lie algebra obviously ought to have the same field as default - but in any case some convention should be used to cut down the mentions of underlying field.
Charles Matthews 15:55, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
"such that P = P_{(n_1,\ldots,n_r)} = M \times N, where" is this really a direct product?
Notation[edit]
I think we sould use the same notation in both this article and in Lie algebra representation. For further discussion, please refer to the other page. 17:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eflags (talk • contribs)