I'm trying to understand the representation $\tilde{\Pi}$ induced from the fundamental representation $\Pi$, defined as $(\tilde{\Pi}_gf)(v)\equiv f(\Pi^{-1}_gv)$ for $g\in G,\hspace{1mm}f\in\mathcal{C}(V),\hspace{1mm}v\in V$, and $\tilde{\Pi}_g\equiv\tilde{\Pi}(g)$. Specifically, I'm trying to understand why it needs to be $\Pi^{-1}_g$ rather than $\Pi_g$. It seems like this would come out of requiring $\tilde{\Pi}$ to be a homomorphism, $\tilde{\Pi}(g_1g_2)=\tilde{\Pi}(g_1)\tilde{\Pi}(g_2)$, but that's the exact opposite of what I'm getting when I expand the two sides:
$$\text{LHS}:\hspace{2mm}(\tilde{\Pi}_{g_1g_2}f)(v)=f(\Pi_{g_1g_2}^{-1}v)=f((\Pi_{g_1}\Pi_{g_2})^{-1}v)=f(\Pi^{-1}_{g_2}\Pi^{-1}_{g_1}v)$$
$$\text{RHS}:\hspace{2mm}(\tilde{\Pi}_{g_1}\tilde{\Pi}_{g_2}f)(v)=\tilde{\Pi}_{g_1}f(\Pi^{-1}_{g_2}v)=f(\Pi^{-1}_{g_1}\Pi^{-1}_{g_2}v)$$
The fact that it's an inverse having $(\Pi_{g_1}\Pi_{g_2})^{-1}=\Pi^{-1}_{g_2}\Pi^{-1}_{g_1}$ is giving me opposite ordering, whereas $(\tilde{\Pi}_gf)(v)\equiv f(\Pi_gv)$ being the definition would give me agreement on the ordering. Where am I going wrong?