2001
DOI: 10.1063/1.1328078
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the classification of irreducible finite-dimensional representations of Uq′(so3) algebra

Abstract: In an earlier work ͓M. Havlíček et al., J. Math. Phys. 40, 2135 ͑1999͔͒ we defined for any finite dimension five nonequivalent irreducible representations of the nonstandard deformation U q Ј(so 3 ) of the Lie algebra so 3 where q is not a root of unity ͓for each dimension only one of them ͑called classical͒ admits limit q→1͔. In the first part of this paper we show that any finite-dimensional irreducible representation is equivalent to some of these representations. In the case q n ϭ1 we derive new Casimir el… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
46
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(47 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
(4 reference statements)
1
46
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This assumption is true for the algebras U q (so 3 ) and U q (so 4 ) (see [10,11]). As we know from the previous section, irreducible finite-dimensional representations T of U q (so n ) are divided into two classes-irreducible representations of the classical type and irreducible representations of the nonclassical type.…”
Section: Reduced Matrix Elements For the Classical Type Representationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This assumption is true for the algebras U q (so 3 ) and U q (so 4 ) (see [10,11]). As we know from the previous section, irreducible finite-dimensional representations T of U q (so n ) are divided into two classes-irreducible representations of the classical type and irreducible representations of the nonclassical type.…”
Section: Reduced Matrix Elements For the Classical Type Representationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This proposition is true for the algebra U q (so 3 ). It follows from complete reducibility of finite-dimensional representations of U q (so 3 ) (see [12]) and from the fact that representations of the classical and of the nonclassical types exhaust all irreducible representations of U q (so 3 ) (see [11] 3 ) and U q (so 4 ), this assumption is true (see [10,11,12] Proof. The restriction of T to the subalgebra U q (so n−1 ) is completely reducible due to the assumption.…”
Section: Auxiliary Propositionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is an alternative 4-homogeneous version of U q (sl 2 ), appearing, for example, in [15,16,20,36] and obtained by replacing the relation…”
Section: This Is a Deformation Ofmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…There are three new Casimir elements which take general form (cf., Havlíček, Klimyk and Pošta (2000) and Havlíček and Pošta (2001), formula (5))…”
Section: Center Of U Q (So 3 ) When Q Is Root Of Unitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the paper, Havlíček and Pošta (2001) classification of finite dimensional representations and their explicit form were derived. However, the structure of the center was not studied in detail, which is the purpose of this paper.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%