Quick question on structure groups of the frame bundle of a Manifold











up vote
0
down vote

favorite
1












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?










share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite
    1












    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?










    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite
      1









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite
      1






      1





      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?










      share|cite|improve this question













      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






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Nov 16 at 14:36









      mathsta

      1858




      1858






















          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • 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











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          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

























          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • 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















          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • 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













          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          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.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          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


















          • 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


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          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.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          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





















































          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







          Popular posts from this blog

          Plaza Victoria

          Brian Clough

          Cáceres