Quick question on structure groups of the frame bundle of a Manifold
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $M$ a manifold and $G$ a group.
Is it true that the statement: "the structure group of the frame bundle of $M$ can be reduced to $G$" simply means:
There is a subbundle $S$ of the frame bundle (i.e. at each point some distinguished set of frames, e.g. the orthogonal ones) and an atlas of $M$ such that the transition functions map $S$ to $S$?
If yes, why is this equivalent to $M/G$ having a global section?
differential-geometry principal-bundles
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $M$ a manifold and $G$ a group.
Is it true that the statement: "the structure group of the frame bundle of $M$ can be reduced to $G$" simply means:
There is a subbundle $S$ of the frame bundle (i.e. at each point some distinguished set of frames, e.g. the orthogonal ones) and an atlas of $M$ such that the transition functions map $S$ to $S$?
If yes, why is this equivalent to $M/G$ having a global section?
differential-geometry principal-bundles
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $M$ a manifold and $G$ a group.
Is it true that the statement: "the structure group of the frame bundle of $M$ can be reduced to $G$" simply means:
There is a subbundle $S$ of the frame bundle (i.e. at each point some distinguished set of frames, e.g. the orthogonal ones) and an atlas of $M$ such that the transition functions map $S$ to $S$?
If yes, why is this equivalent to $M/G$ having a global section?
differential-geometry principal-bundles
Let $M$ a manifold and $G$ a group.
Is it true that the statement: "the structure group of the frame bundle of $M$ can be reduced to $G$" simply means:
There is a subbundle $S$ of the frame bundle (i.e. at each point some distinguished set of frames, e.g. the orthogonal ones) and an atlas of $M$ such that the transition functions map $S$ to $S$?
If yes, why is this equivalent to $M/G$ having a global section?
differential-geometry principal-bundles
differential-geometry principal-bundles
asked Nov 16 at 14:36
mathsta
1858
1858
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
Let $M$ be an $n$-dimensional manifold and $E_M$ it bundle of frames. Recall that if $x$ is an element of $M$, and $T_xM$ its tangent space, a linear frame at $x$ is an inveritble linear map $mathbb{R}^nrightarrow T_x$. We denote by $E_M(x)$ the set of linear frames at $x$, and by $E_Mcup_{xin M}E_M(x)$, $E_M$ is a $Gl(n,mathbb{R})$-principal bundle. It can be reduced to $Gsubset Gl(n,mathbb{R}$ is equivalent to saying that there exists a trivialisation $(U_i,g_{ij})$ of $E_M$ such that $g_{ij}:U_icap U_jrightarrow G$, this implies the existence of a $G$-principal bundle $E_Grightarrow M$ whose coordinate change are $(U_i,g_{ij})$.
Consider $E_M/G$, it is the bundle over $M$ which is obtained by gluing $U_itimes Gl(n,mathbb{R})/G$ with $U_icap U_jtimes Gl(n,mathbb{R})/G rightarrow U_icap U_jtimes Gl(n,mathbb{R})/G$ $(x,y)rightarrow (x,bar g_{ij}(x)(y))$ where $bar g_{ij}(x)$ is the map induced by $g_{ij}(x)$ on $Gl(n,mathbb{R})/G$ by $g_{ij}(x)$. If there exists a $G$-reduction, $g_{ij}(x)in G$ and $bar g_{ij}(x)$ is the identity, we deduce that $E_M/G$ is trivial, and henceforth has a global section.
Sorry, but your answer is really hard to read and hard to understand. As far as I understood you, that $E_M$ can be reduced means that we can find trivializations such that the transition functions map to a subgroup $G$ in $Gl(n,mathbb R)$. This differs from what I wrote. Hence a question: Does being able to be reduced to $G$ imply that there is a set of frames invariant under $G$?
– mathsta
Nov 16 at 15:33
Regarding the second part: So we take trivializations with transition functions in $G$. Then modulo $G$ the transition functions are trivial, so the bundle is trivial. When looking at example of reduction of the frame bundle, for example almost complex manifolds allow a reduction to $Gl,(n/2, mathbb C)$ or simplectic manifolds allow reduction to the simplectic group, there always is a special tensor ($I$, $omega$). Can they be used in order to define a global section?
– mathsta
Nov 16 at 15:38
Does being able to be reduced to G imply that there is a set of frames invariant under G and vice versa?
– mathsta
Nov 17 at 10:50
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
Let $M$ be an $n$-dimensional manifold and $E_M$ it bundle of frames. Recall that if $x$ is an element of $M$, and $T_xM$ its tangent space, a linear frame at $x$ is an inveritble linear map $mathbb{R}^nrightarrow T_x$. We denote by $E_M(x)$ the set of linear frames at $x$, and by $E_Mcup_{xin M}E_M(x)$, $E_M$ is a $Gl(n,mathbb{R})$-principal bundle. It can be reduced to $Gsubset Gl(n,mathbb{R}$ is equivalent to saying that there exists a trivialisation $(U_i,g_{ij})$ of $E_M$ such that $g_{ij}:U_icap U_jrightarrow G$, this implies the existence of a $G$-principal bundle $E_Grightarrow M$ whose coordinate change are $(U_i,g_{ij})$.
Consider $E_M/G$, it is the bundle over $M$ which is obtained by gluing $U_itimes Gl(n,mathbb{R})/G$ with $U_icap U_jtimes Gl(n,mathbb{R})/G rightarrow U_icap U_jtimes Gl(n,mathbb{R})/G$ $(x,y)rightarrow (x,bar g_{ij}(x)(y))$ where $bar g_{ij}(x)$ is the map induced by $g_{ij}(x)$ on $Gl(n,mathbb{R})/G$ by $g_{ij}(x)$. If there exists a $G$-reduction, $g_{ij}(x)in G$ and $bar g_{ij}(x)$ is the identity, we deduce that $E_M/G$ is trivial, and henceforth has a global section.
Sorry, but your answer is really hard to read and hard to understand. As far as I understood you, that $E_M$ can be reduced means that we can find trivializations such that the transition functions map to a subgroup $G$ in $Gl(n,mathbb R)$. This differs from what I wrote. Hence a question: Does being able to be reduced to $G$ imply that there is a set of frames invariant under $G$?
– mathsta
Nov 16 at 15:33
Regarding the second part: So we take trivializations with transition functions in $G$. Then modulo $G$ the transition functions are trivial, so the bundle is trivial. When looking at example of reduction of the frame bundle, for example almost complex manifolds allow a reduction to $Gl,(n/2, mathbb C)$ or simplectic manifolds allow reduction to the simplectic group, there always is a special tensor ($I$, $omega$). Can they be used in order to define a global section?
– mathsta
Nov 16 at 15:38
Does being able to be reduced to G imply that there is a set of frames invariant under G and vice versa?
– mathsta
Nov 17 at 10:50
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Let $M$ be an $n$-dimensional manifold and $E_M$ it bundle of frames. Recall that if $x$ is an element of $M$, and $T_xM$ its tangent space, a linear frame at $x$ is an inveritble linear map $mathbb{R}^nrightarrow T_x$. We denote by $E_M(x)$ the set of linear frames at $x$, and by $E_Mcup_{xin M}E_M(x)$, $E_M$ is a $Gl(n,mathbb{R})$-principal bundle. It can be reduced to $Gsubset Gl(n,mathbb{R}$ is equivalent to saying that there exists a trivialisation $(U_i,g_{ij})$ of $E_M$ such that $g_{ij}:U_icap U_jrightarrow G$, this implies the existence of a $G$-principal bundle $E_Grightarrow M$ whose coordinate change are $(U_i,g_{ij})$.
Consider $E_M/G$, it is the bundle over $M$ which is obtained by gluing $U_itimes Gl(n,mathbb{R})/G$ with $U_icap U_jtimes Gl(n,mathbb{R})/G rightarrow U_icap U_jtimes Gl(n,mathbb{R})/G$ $(x,y)rightarrow (x,bar g_{ij}(x)(y))$ where $bar g_{ij}(x)$ is the map induced by $g_{ij}(x)$ on $Gl(n,mathbb{R})/G$ by $g_{ij}(x)$. If there exists a $G$-reduction, $g_{ij}(x)in G$ and $bar g_{ij}(x)$ is the identity, we deduce that $E_M/G$ is trivial, and henceforth has a global section.
Sorry, but your answer is really hard to read and hard to understand. As far as I understood you, that $E_M$ can be reduced means that we can find trivializations such that the transition functions map to a subgroup $G$ in $Gl(n,mathbb R)$. This differs from what I wrote. Hence a question: Does being able to be reduced to $G$ imply that there is a set of frames invariant under $G$?
– mathsta
Nov 16 at 15:33
Regarding the second part: So we take trivializations with transition functions in $G$. Then modulo $G$ the transition functions are trivial, so the bundle is trivial. When looking at example of reduction of the frame bundle, for example almost complex manifolds allow a reduction to $Gl,(n/2, mathbb C)$ or simplectic manifolds allow reduction to the simplectic group, there always is a special tensor ($I$, $omega$). Can they be used in order to define a global section?
– mathsta
Nov 16 at 15:38
Does being able to be reduced to G imply that there is a set of frames invariant under G and vice versa?
– mathsta
Nov 17 at 10:50
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Let $M$ be an $n$-dimensional manifold and $E_M$ it bundle of frames. Recall that if $x$ is an element of $M$, and $T_xM$ its tangent space, a linear frame at $x$ is an inveritble linear map $mathbb{R}^nrightarrow T_x$. We denote by $E_M(x)$ the set of linear frames at $x$, and by $E_Mcup_{xin M}E_M(x)$, $E_M$ is a $Gl(n,mathbb{R})$-principal bundle. It can be reduced to $Gsubset Gl(n,mathbb{R}$ is equivalent to saying that there exists a trivialisation $(U_i,g_{ij})$ of $E_M$ such that $g_{ij}:U_icap U_jrightarrow G$, this implies the existence of a $G$-principal bundle $E_Grightarrow M$ whose coordinate change are $(U_i,g_{ij})$.
Consider $E_M/G$, it is the bundle over $M$ which is obtained by gluing $U_itimes Gl(n,mathbb{R})/G$ with $U_icap U_jtimes Gl(n,mathbb{R})/G rightarrow U_icap U_jtimes Gl(n,mathbb{R})/G$ $(x,y)rightarrow (x,bar g_{ij}(x)(y))$ where $bar g_{ij}(x)$ is the map induced by $g_{ij}(x)$ on $Gl(n,mathbb{R})/G$ by $g_{ij}(x)$. If there exists a $G$-reduction, $g_{ij}(x)in G$ and $bar g_{ij}(x)$ is the identity, we deduce that $E_M/G$ is trivial, and henceforth has a global section.
Let $M$ be an $n$-dimensional manifold and $E_M$ it bundle of frames. Recall that if $x$ is an element of $M$, and $T_xM$ its tangent space, a linear frame at $x$ is an inveritble linear map $mathbb{R}^nrightarrow T_x$. We denote by $E_M(x)$ the set of linear frames at $x$, and by $E_Mcup_{xin M}E_M(x)$, $E_M$ is a $Gl(n,mathbb{R})$-principal bundle. It can be reduced to $Gsubset Gl(n,mathbb{R}$ is equivalent to saying that there exists a trivialisation $(U_i,g_{ij})$ of $E_M$ such that $g_{ij}:U_icap U_jrightarrow G$, this implies the existence of a $G$-principal bundle $E_Grightarrow M$ whose coordinate change are $(U_i,g_{ij})$.
Consider $E_M/G$, it is the bundle over $M$ which is obtained by gluing $U_itimes Gl(n,mathbb{R})/G$ with $U_icap U_jtimes Gl(n,mathbb{R})/G rightarrow U_icap U_jtimes Gl(n,mathbb{R})/G$ $(x,y)rightarrow (x,bar g_{ij}(x)(y))$ where $bar g_{ij}(x)$ is the map induced by $g_{ij}(x)$ on $Gl(n,mathbb{R})/G$ by $g_{ij}(x)$. If there exists a $G$-reduction, $g_{ij}(x)in G$ and $bar g_{ij}(x)$ is the identity, we deduce that $E_M/G$ is trivial, and henceforth has a global section.
edited Nov 16 at 14:57
answered Nov 16 at 14:48
Tsemo Aristide
54.6k11444
54.6k11444
Sorry, but your answer is really hard to read and hard to understand. As far as I understood you, that $E_M$ can be reduced means that we can find trivializations such that the transition functions map to a subgroup $G$ in $Gl(n,mathbb R)$. This differs from what I wrote. Hence a question: Does being able to be reduced to $G$ imply that there is a set of frames invariant under $G$?
– mathsta
Nov 16 at 15:33
Regarding the second part: So we take trivializations with transition functions in $G$. Then modulo $G$ the transition functions are trivial, so the bundle is trivial. When looking at example of reduction of the frame bundle, for example almost complex manifolds allow a reduction to $Gl,(n/2, mathbb C)$ or simplectic manifolds allow reduction to the simplectic group, there always is a special tensor ($I$, $omega$). Can they be used in order to define a global section?
– mathsta
Nov 16 at 15:38
Does being able to be reduced to G imply that there is a set of frames invariant under G and vice versa?
– mathsta
Nov 17 at 10:50
add a comment |
Sorry, but your answer is really hard to read and hard to understand. As far as I understood you, that $E_M$ can be reduced means that we can find trivializations such that the transition functions map to a subgroup $G$ in $Gl(n,mathbb R)$. This differs from what I wrote. Hence a question: Does being able to be reduced to $G$ imply that there is a set of frames invariant under $G$?
– mathsta
Nov 16 at 15:33
Regarding the second part: So we take trivializations with transition functions in $G$. Then modulo $G$ the transition functions are trivial, so the bundle is trivial. When looking at example of reduction of the frame bundle, for example almost complex manifolds allow a reduction to $Gl,(n/2, mathbb C)$ or simplectic manifolds allow reduction to the simplectic group, there always is a special tensor ($I$, $omega$). Can they be used in order to define a global section?
– mathsta
Nov 16 at 15:38
Does being able to be reduced to G imply that there is a set of frames invariant under G and vice versa?
– mathsta
Nov 17 at 10:50
Sorry, but your answer is really hard to read and hard to understand. As far as I understood you, that $E_M$ can be reduced means that we can find trivializations such that the transition functions map to a subgroup $G$ in $Gl(n,mathbb R)$. This differs from what I wrote. Hence a question: Does being able to be reduced to $G$ imply that there is a set of frames invariant under $G$?
– mathsta
Nov 16 at 15:33
Sorry, but your answer is really hard to read and hard to understand. As far as I understood you, that $E_M$ can be reduced means that we can find trivializations such that the transition functions map to a subgroup $G$ in $Gl(n,mathbb R)$. This differs from what I wrote. Hence a question: Does being able to be reduced to $G$ imply that there is a set of frames invariant under $G$?
– mathsta
Nov 16 at 15:33
Regarding the second part: So we take trivializations with transition functions in $G$. Then modulo $G$ the transition functions are trivial, so the bundle is trivial. When looking at example of reduction of the frame bundle, for example almost complex manifolds allow a reduction to $Gl,(n/2, mathbb C)$ or simplectic manifolds allow reduction to the simplectic group, there always is a special tensor ($I$, $omega$). Can they be used in order to define a global section?
– mathsta
Nov 16 at 15:38
Regarding the second part: So we take trivializations with transition functions in $G$. Then modulo $G$ the transition functions are trivial, so the bundle is trivial. When looking at example of reduction of the frame bundle, for example almost complex manifolds allow a reduction to $Gl,(n/2, mathbb C)$ or simplectic manifolds allow reduction to the simplectic group, there always is a special tensor ($I$, $omega$). Can they be used in order to define a global section?
– mathsta
Nov 16 at 15:38
Does being able to be reduced to G imply that there is a set of frames invariant under G and vice versa?
– mathsta
Nov 17 at 10:50
Does being able to be reduced to G imply that there is a set of frames invariant under G and vice versa?
– mathsta
Nov 17 at 10:50
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3001207%2fquick-question-on-structure-groups-of-the-frame-bundle-of-a-manifold%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown