Lie group question: If $gamma^{-1}dot{gamma}inmathfrak{g}$ everywhere, does $gamma(t)in G$?












4












$begingroup$


Let $G$ be a Lie subgroup of $GL(n,Bbb R)$ and $mathfrak{g}subseteq M(n,Bbb R)$ its Lie algebra. Suppose that we have a smooth curve
$$gamma:Bbb Rto G$$
with $gamma(0)=I$. Then, it induces a curve on the Lie algebra
$$alpha:Bbb Rto mathfrak{g},quad alpha(t)=gamma(t)^{-1}frac{dgamma}{dt}(t).$$
I am wondering about the converse of this fact:




Question: Let $gamma:Bbb Rto M(n,Bbb R)$ be a smooth curve with $gamma(0)=I$ and suppose that
$$gamma(t)^{-1}frac{dgamma}{dt}(t)inmathfrak{g},quadforall tinBbb R.$$
Does $gamma(t)in G$ for all $tinBbb R$?




If true, it would have the following implication:



Let $alpha:Bbb Rtomathfrak{g}$ be a smooth curve and consider the initial value problem
$$frac{dgamma}{dt}(t)=gamma(t)alpha(t),quad gamma(0)=I.$$
Since it is a first order linear system of ODEs, it has a unique solution
$$gamma: Bbb Rto M(n,Bbb R),$$
and in fact $gamma(t)in G$ for all $tinBbb R$.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    4












    $begingroup$


    Let $G$ be a Lie subgroup of $GL(n,Bbb R)$ and $mathfrak{g}subseteq M(n,Bbb R)$ its Lie algebra. Suppose that we have a smooth curve
    $$gamma:Bbb Rto G$$
    with $gamma(0)=I$. Then, it induces a curve on the Lie algebra
    $$alpha:Bbb Rto mathfrak{g},quad alpha(t)=gamma(t)^{-1}frac{dgamma}{dt}(t).$$
    I am wondering about the converse of this fact:




    Question: Let $gamma:Bbb Rto M(n,Bbb R)$ be a smooth curve with $gamma(0)=I$ and suppose that
    $$gamma(t)^{-1}frac{dgamma}{dt}(t)inmathfrak{g},quadforall tinBbb R.$$
    Does $gamma(t)in G$ for all $tinBbb R$?




    If true, it would have the following implication:



    Let $alpha:Bbb Rtomathfrak{g}$ be a smooth curve and consider the initial value problem
    $$frac{dgamma}{dt}(t)=gamma(t)alpha(t),quad gamma(0)=I.$$
    Since it is a first order linear system of ODEs, it has a unique solution
    $$gamma: Bbb Rto M(n,Bbb R),$$
    and in fact $gamma(t)in G$ for all $tinBbb R$.










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      4












      4








      4


      1



      $begingroup$


      Let $G$ be a Lie subgroup of $GL(n,Bbb R)$ and $mathfrak{g}subseteq M(n,Bbb R)$ its Lie algebra. Suppose that we have a smooth curve
      $$gamma:Bbb Rto G$$
      with $gamma(0)=I$. Then, it induces a curve on the Lie algebra
      $$alpha:Bbb Rto mathfrak{g},quad alpha(t)=gamma(t)^{-1}frac{dgamma}{dt}(t).$$
      I am wondering about the converse of this fact:




      Question: Let $gamma:Bbb Rto M(n,Bbb R)$ be a smooth curve with $gamma(0)=I$ and suppose that
      $$gamma(t)^{-1}frac{dgamma}{dt}(t)inmathfrak{g},quadforall tinBbb R.$$
      Does $gamma(t)in G$ for all $tinBbb R$?




      If true, it would have the following implication:



      Let $alpha:Bbb Rtomathfrak{g}$ be a smooth curve and consider the initial value problem
      $$frac{dgamma}{dt}(t)=gamma(t)alpha(t),quad gamma(0)=I.$$
      Since it is a first order linear system of ODEs, it has a unique solution
      $$gamma: Bbb Rto M(n,Bbb R),$$
      and in fact $gamma(t)in G$ for all $tinBbb R$.










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Let $G$ be a Lie subgroup of $GL(n,Bbb R)$ and $mathfrak{g}subseteq M(n,Bbb R)$ its Lie algebra. Suppose that we have a smooth curve
      $$gamma:Bbb Rto G$$
      with $gamma(0)=I$. Then, it induces a curve on the Lie algebra
      $$alpha:Bbb Rto mathfrak{g},quad alpha(t)=gamma(t)^{-1}frac{dgamma}{dt}(t).$$
      I am wondering about the converse of this fact:




      Question: Let $gamma:Bbb Rto M(n,Bbb R)$ be a smooth curve with $gamma(0)=I$ and suppose that
      $$gamma(t)^{-1}frac{dgamma}{dt}(t)inmathfrak{g},quadforall tinBbb R.$$
      Does $gamma(t)in G$ for all $tinBbb R$?




      If true, it would have the following implication:



      Let $alpha:Bbb Rtomathfrak{g}$ be a smooth curve and consider the initial value problem
      $$frac{dgamma}{dt}(t)=gamma(t)alpha(t),quad gamma(0)=I.$$
      Since it is a first order linear system of ODEs, it has a unique solution
      $$gamma: Bbb Rto M(n,Bbb R),$$
      and in fact $gamma(t)in G$ for all $tinBbb R$.







      ordinary-differential-equations differential-geometry lie-groups lie-algebras






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 15 '15 at 15:08







      user298909

















      asked Dec 15 '15 at 15:01









      user298909user298909

      233




      233






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4












          $begingroup$

          Yes. Actually, it's a much more general fact. Suppose I have a smooth manifold $M$ and a foliation on it: that is, a subbundle of the tangent bundle such that, at every point, there is locally a submanifold such that the subbundle is its tangent bundle. Then I can integrate the foliation to get a partition of my manifold into disjoint immersed submanifolds (which are also weakly embedded, if you know the term).



          Then given a Lie subgroup of a Lie group $H$ (Lie subgroup meaning injective immersive homomorphism $G to H$ from another Lie group), the tangent bundles of its cosets give a foliation of $H$. (The immersed submanifolds here are the cosets.)



          I'm going to ignore the above formalism now, since it doesn't help you see the trees. If you like, you can see how the following argument ports over in general.



          1) That $gamma^{-1} dot gamma in mathfrak g$ is precisely the same thing as saying that $gamma$ is tangent to the cosets of $G$ (precisely, $gamma'(t)$ is tangent to the coset through $gamma(t)$). We will show that, if $gamma(t) in G$, so is $gamma(t+h)$, $h$ a small number (positive or negative). So around $gamma(t)$, use the implicit function theorem to get a chart $U$ in which the inclusion of $G$ is just the map $Bbb R^n hookrightarrow Bbb R^{n+k}$, and the inclusion of $hG$ for $h$ near $1$ is $Bbb R^n times {c} hookrightarrow Bbb R^{n+k}$. In this chart, your claim is just that if $gamma(t) in Bbb R^n$, and $dot gamma in Bbb R^n$ (here we are using the special form of the chart, where orbits look like parallel copies of $Bbb R^n$), then for all times $gamma$ remains in the chart, $gamma$ is in $Bbb R^n$. But this is obvious - you can just integrate! This proves the desired theorem.



          So the times for which $gamma in G$ forms an open set. But the times for which $gamma in hG$ (that is, for which $gamma$ is in some specified coset) are also open by the exact same argument. So you've obtained a partition of $Bbb R$ into disjoint open sets. This is only possible if only one of the open sets is nonempty; and $gamma(0) in G$, so $gamma(t) in G$ for all $t$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            The contrast between foliation-bundle-subbundle part and part where you locally straighten subgroup as submanifold is just "ah!" :) Thanks for an explanation!
            $endgroup$
            – Evgeny
            Dec 15 '15 at 19:34










          • $begingroup$
            Something here bothers me a bit: In the image that I have in mind, it is certainly possible that $gamma(t) notin G$ for some small $t>0$. If we identify a small part of $G$ inside $GL_n$ as $Bbb R^n times {0} hookrightarrow Bbb R^{n+k}$, then we have $dot gamma(t) in mathbb{R}^n$ but $gamma(t) notin Bbb R^n$ so $gamma(t)$ is not tangent to $G=Bbb R^n times {0}$, but to a copy of $G$ ($Bbb R^n times {c}$). Am I missing something? I am not claiming that your final conclusion that $gamma(t) in G$ is false...
            $endgroup$
            – Asaf Shachar
            Dec 27 '18 at 15:31












          • $begingroup$
            All I am saying is that I do not understand your first sentence "$gamma^{-1} dot gamma in mathfrak g$ is precisely the same thing as saying that γ is tangent to the subgroup $G$". It seems to me your argument "assumes the conclusion" in some sense. Or are you using some specific facts regarding foliations (flat charts or something?). I would appreicate any clarification or elaboration you can give.
            $endgroup$
            – Asaf Shachar
            Dec 27 '18 at 15:35










          • $begingroup$
            Also, I wonder if it matters that we assumed here $gamma^{-1} dot gamma in mathfrak g$ and not $dot gamma gamma^{-1} in mathfrak g$?
            $endgroup$
            – Asaf Shachar
            Dec 27 '18 at 15:38












          • $begingroup$
            @AsafShachar Bear with me, I haven't thought about this answer in 3 years. The tangent space $T_e G subset T_e H$ is $mathfrak g subset mathfrak h$. To identify this with the tangent space $T_g G$, you apply the operator $L_{g^{-1}}$, left-multiplication by $g^{-1}$; this gives an isomorphism of pairs $(T_g H, T_g G) to (mathfrak h, mathfrak g)$. All the same, if you want to identify the tangent space $T_h hG$ with $T_e G$, apply left mult by $h^{-1}$. When I write $gamma^{-1}(t) gamma'(t)$, I mean the element of $T_e H$ given by $dL_{gamma^{-1}(t)}: T_{gamma(t)} H to T_e H$.
            $endgroup$
            – user98602
            Dec 27 '18 at 15:50













          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',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          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%2f1576871%2flie-group-question-if-gamma-1-dot-gamma-in-mathfrakg-everywhere-does%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









          4












          $begingroup$

          Yes. Actually, it's a much more general fact. Suppose I have a smooth manifold $M$ and a foliation on it: that is, a subbundle of the tangent bundle such that, at every point, there is locally a submanifold such that the subbundle is its tangent bundle. Then I can integrate the foliation to get a partition of my manifold into disjoint immersed submanifolds (which are also weakly embedded, if you know the term).



          Then given a Lie subgroup of a Lie group $H$ (Lie subgroup meaning injective immersive homomorphism $G to H$ from another Lie group), the tangent bundles of its cosets give a foliation of $H$. (The immersed submanifolds here are the cosets.)



          I'm going to ignore the above formalism now, since it doesn't help you see the trees. If you like, you can see how the following argument ports over in general.



          1) That $gamma^{-1} dot gamma in mathfrak g$ is precisely the same thing as saying that $gamma$ is tangent to the cosets of $G$ (precisely, $gamma'(t)$ is tangent to the coset through $gamma(t)$). We will show that, if $gamma(t) in G$, so is $gamma(t+h)$, $h$ a small number (positive or negative). So around $gamma(t)$, use the implicit function theorem to get a chart $U$ in which the inclusion of $G$ is just the map $Bbb R^n hookrightarrow Bbb R^{n+k}$, and the inclusion of $hG$ for $h$ near $1$ is $Bbb R^n times {c} hookrightarrow Bbb R^{n+k}$. In this chart, your claim is just that if $gamma(t) in Bbb R^n$, and $dot gamma in Bbb R^n$ (here we are using the special form of the chart, where orbits look like parallel copies of $Bbb R^n$), then for all times $gamma$ remains in the chart, $gamma$ is in $Bbb R^n$. But this is obvious - you can just integrate! This proves the desired theorem.



          So the times for which $gamma in G$ forms an open set. But the times for which $gamma in hG$ (that is, for which $gamma$ is in some specified coset) are also open by the exact same argument. So you've obtained a partition of $Bbb R$ into disjoint open sets. This is only possible if only one of the open sets is nonempty; and $gamma(0) in G$, so $gamma(t) in G$ for all $t$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            The contrast between foliation-bundle-subbundle part and part where you locally straighten subgroup as submanifold is just "ah!" :) Thanks for an explanation!
            $endgroup$
            – Evgeny
            Dec 15 '15 at 19:34










          • $begingroup$
            Something here bothers me a bit: In the image that I have in mind, it is certainly possible that $gamma(t) notin G$ for some small $t>0$. If we identify a small part of $G$ inside $GL_n$ as $Bbb R^n times {0} hookrightarrow Bbb R^{n+k}$, then we have $dot gamma(t) in mathbb{R}^n$ but $gamma(t) notin Bbb R^n$ so $gamma(t)$ is not tangent to $G=Bbb R^n times {0}$, but to a copy of $G$ ($Bbb R^n times {c}$). Am I missing something? I am not claiming that your final conclusion that $gamma(t) in G$ is false...
            $endgroup$
            – Asaf Shachar
            Dec 27 '18 at 15:31












          • $begingroup$
            All I am saying is that I do not understand your first sentence "$gamma^{-1} dot gamma in mathfrak g$ is precisely the same thing as saying that γ is tangent to the subgroup $G$". It seems to me your argument "assumes the conclusion" in some sense. Or are you using some specific facts regarding foliations (flat charts or something?). I would appreicate any clarification or elaboration you can give.
            $endgroup$
            – Asaf Shachar
            Dec 27 '18 at 15:35










          • $begingroup$
            Also, I wonder if it matters that we assumed here $gamma^{-1} dot gamma in mathfrak g$ and not $dot gamma gamma^{-1} in mathfrak g$?
            $endgroup$
            – Asaf Shachar
            Dec 27 '18 at 15:38












          • $begingroup$
            @AsafShachar Bear with me, I haven't thought about this answer in 3 years. The tangent space $T_e G subset T_e H$ is $mathfrak g subset mathfrak h$. To identify this with the tangent space $T_g G$, you apply the operator $L_{g^{-1}}$, left-multiplication by $g^{-1}$; this gives an isomorphism of pairs $(T_g H, T_g G) to (mathfrak h, mathfrak g)$. All the same, if you want to identify the tangent space $T_h hG$ with $T_e G$, apply left mult by $h^{-1}$. When I write $gamma^{-1}(t) gamma'(t)$, I mean the element of $T_e H$ given by $dL_{gamma^{-1}(t)}: T_{gamma(t)} H to T_e H$.
            $endgroup$
            – user98602
            Dec 27 '18 at 15:50


















          4












          $begingroup$

          Yes. Actually, it's a much more general fact. Suppose I have a smooth manifold $M$ and a foliation on it: that is, a subbundle of the tangent bundle such that, at every point, there is locally a submanifold such that the subbundle is its tangent bundle. Then I can integrate the foliation to get a partition of my manifold into disjoint immersed submanifolds (which are also weakly embedded, if you know the term).



          Then given a Lie subgroup of a Lie group $H$ (Lie subgroup meaning injective immersive homomorphism $G to H$ from another Lie group), the tangent bundles of its cosets give a foliation of $H$. (The immersed submanifolds here are the cosets.)



          I'm going to ignore the above formalism now, since it doesn't help you see the trees. If you like, you can see how the following argument ports over in general.



          1) That $gamma^{-1} dot gamma in mathfrak g$ is precisely the same thing as saying that $gamma$ is tangent to the cosets of $G$ (precisely, $gamma'(t)$ is tangent to the coset through $gamma(t)$). We will show that, if $gamma(t) in G$, so is $gamma(t+h)$, $h$ a small number (positive or negative). So around $gamma(t)$, use the implicit function theorem to get a chart $U$ in which the inclusion of $G$ is just the map $Bbb R^n hookrightarrow Bbb R^{n+k}$, and the inclusion of $hG$ for $h$ near $1$ is $Bbb R^n times {c} hookrightarrow Bbb R^{n+k}$. In this chart, your claim is just that if $gamma(t) in Bbb R^n$, and $dot gamma in Bbb R^n$ (here we are using the special form of the chart, where orbits look like parallel copies of $Bbb R^n$), then for all times $gamma$ remains in the chart, $gamma$ is in $Bbb R^n$. But this is obvious - you can just integrate! This proves the desired theorem.



          So the times for which $gamma in G$ forms an open set. But the times for which $gamma in hG$ (that is, for which $gamma$ is in some specified coset) are also open by the exact same argument. So you've obtained a partition of $Bbb R$ into disjoint open sets. This is only possible if only one of the open sets is nonempty; and $gamma(0) in G$, so $gamma(t) in G$ for all $t$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            The contrast between foliation-bundle-subbundle part and part where you locally straighten subgroup as submanifold is just "ah!" :) Thanks for an explanation!
            $endgroup$
            – Evgeny
            Dec 15 '15 at 19:34










          • $begingroup$
            Something here bothers me a bit: In the image that I have in mind, it is certainly possible that $gamma(t) notin G$ for some small $t>0$. If we identify a small part of $G$ inside $GL_n$ as $Bbb R^n times {0} hookrightarrow Bbb R^{n+k}$, then we have $dot gamma(t) in mathbb{R}^n$ but $gamma(t) notin Bbb R^n$ so $gamma(t)$ is not tangent to $G=Bbb R^n times {0}$, but to a copy of $G$ ($Bbb R^n times {c}$). Am I missing something? I am not claiming that your final conclusion that $gamma(t) in G$ is false...
            $endgroup$
            – Asaf Shachar
            Dec 27 '18 at 15:31












          • $begingroup$
            All I am saying is that I do not understand your first sentence "$gamma^{-1} dot gamma in mathfrak g$ is precisely the same thing as saying that γ is tangent to the subgroup $G$". It seems to me your argument "assumes the conclusion" in some sense. Or are you using some specific facts regarding foliations (flat charts or something?). I would appreicate any clarification or elaboration you can give.
            $endgroup$
            – Asaf Shachar
            Dec 27 '18 at 15:35










          • $begingroup$
            Also, I wonder if it matters that we assumed here $gamma^{-1} dot gamma in mathfrak g$ and not $dot gamma gamma^{-1} in mathfrak g$?
            $endgroup$
            – Asaf Shachar
            Dec 27 '18 at 15:38












          • $begingroup$
            @AsafShachar Bear with me, I haven't thought about this answer in 3 years. The tangent space $T_e G subset T_e H$ is $mathfrak g subset mathfrak h$. To identify this with the tangent space $T_g G$, you apply the operator $L_{g^{-1}}$, left-multiplication by $g^{-1}$; this gives an isomorphism of pairs $(T_g H, T_g G) to (mathfrak h, mathfrak g)$. All the same, if you want to identify the tangent space $T_h hG$ with $T_e G$, apply left mult by $h^{-1}$. When I write $gamma^{-1}(t) gamma'(t)$, I mean the element of $T_e H$ given by $dL_{gamma^{-1}(t)}: T_{gamma(t)} H to T_e H$.
            $endgroup$
            – user98602
            Dec 27 '18 at 15:50
















          4












          4








          4





          $begingroup$

          Yes. Actually, it's a much more general fact. Suppose I have a smooth manifold $M$ and a foliation on it: that is, a subbundle of the tangent bundle such that, at every point, there is locally a submanifold such that the subbundle is its tangent bundle. Then I can integrate the foliation to get a partition of my manifold into disjoint immersed submanifolds (which are also weakly embedded, if you know the term).



          Then given a Lie subgroup of a Lie group $H$ (Lie subgroup meaning injective immersive homomorphism $G to H$ from another Lie group), the tangent bundles of its cosets give a foliation of $H$. (The immersed submanifolds here are the cosets.)



          I'm going to ignore the above formalism now, since it doesn't help you see the trees. If you like, you can see how the following argument ports over in general.



          1) That $gamma^{-1} dot gamma in mathfrak g$ is precisely the same thing as saying that $gamma$ is tangent to the cosets of $G$ (precisely, $gamma'(t)$ is tangent to the coset through $gamma(t)$). We will show that, if $gamma(t) in G$, so is $gamma(t+h)$, $h$ a small number (positive or negative). So around $gamma(t)$, use the implicit function theorem to get a chart $U$ in which the inclusion of $G$ is just the map $Bbb R^n hookrightarrow Bbb R^{n+k}$, and the inclusion of $hG$ for $h$ near $1$ is $Bbb R^n times {c} hookrightarrow Bbb R^{n+k}$. In this chart, your claim is just that if $gamma(t) in Bbb R^n$, and $dot gamma in Bbb R^n$ (here we are using the special form of the chart, where orbits look like parallel copies of $Bbb R^n$), then for all times $gamma$ remains in the chart, $gamma$ is in $Bbb R^n$. But this is obvious - you can just integrate! This proves the desired theorem.



          So the times for which $gamma in G$ forms an open set. But the times for which $gamma in hG$ (that is, for which $gamma$ is in some specified coset) are also open by the exact same argument. So you've obtained a partition of $Bbb R$ into disjoint open sets. This is only possible if only one of the open sets is nonempty; and $gamma(0) in G$, so $gamma(t) in G$ for all $t$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Yes. Actually, it's a much more general fact. Suppose I have a smooth manifold $M$ and a foliation on it: that is, a subbundle of the tangent bundle such that, at every point, there is locally a submanifold such that the subbundle is its tangent bundle. Then I can integrate the foliation to get a partition of my manifold into disjoint immersed submanifolds (which are also weakly embedded, if you know the term).



          Then given a Lie subgroup of a Lie group $H$ (Lie subgroup meaning injective immersive homomorphism $G to H$ from another Lie group), the tangent bundles of its cosets give a foliation of $H$. (The immersed submanifolds here are the cosets.)



          I'm going to ignore the above formalism now, since it doesn't help you see the trees. If you like, you can see how the following argument ports over in general.



          1) That $gamma^{-1} dot gamma in mathfrak g$ is precisely the same thing as saying that $gamma$ is tangent to the cosets of $G$ (precisely, $gamma'(t)$ is tangent to the coset through $gamma(t)$). We will show that, if $gamma(t) in G$, so is $gamma(t+h)$, $h$ a small number (positive or negative). So around $gamma(t)$, use the implicit function theorem to get a chart $U$ in which the inclusion of $G$ is just the map $Bbb R^n hookrightarrow Bbb R^{n+k}$, and the inclusion of $hG$ for $h$ near $1$ is $Bbb R^n times {c} hookrightarrow Bbb R^{n+k}$. In this chart, your claim is just that if $gamma(t) in Bbb R^n$, and $dot gamma in Bbb R^n$ (here we are using the special form of the chart, where orbits look like parallel copies of $Bbb R^n$), then for all times $gamma$ remains in the chart, $gamma$ is in $Bbb R^n$. But this is obvious - you can just integrate! This proves the desired theorem.



          So the times for which $gamma in G$ forms an open set. But the times for which $gamma in hG$ (that is, for which $gamma$ is in some specified coset) are also open by the exact same argument. So you've obtained a partition of $Bbb R$ into disjoint open sets. This is only possible if only one of the open sets is nonempty; and $gamma(0) in G$, so $gamma(t) in G$ for all $t$.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Dec 27 '18 at 17:35

























          answered Dec 15 '15 at 15:16







          user98602



















          • $begingroup$
            The contrast between foliation-bundle-subbundle part and part where you locally straighten subgroup as submanifold is just "ah!" :) Thanks for an explanation!
            $endgroup$
            – Evgeny
            Dec 15 '15 at 19:34










          • $begingroup$
            Something here bothers me a bit: In the image that I have in mind, it is certainly possible that $gamma(t) notin G$ for some small $t>0$. If we identify a small part of $G$ inside $GL_n$ as $Bbb R^n times {0} hookrightarrow Bbb R^{n+k}$, then we have $dot gamma(t) in mathbb{R}^n$ but $gamma(t) notin Bbb R^n$ so $gamma(t)$ is not tangent to $G=Bbb R^n times {0}$, but to a copy of $G$ ($Bbb R^n times {c}$). Am I missing something? I am not claiming that your final conclusion that $gamma(t) in G$ is false...
            $endgroup$
            – Asaf Shachar
            Dec 27 '18 at 15:31












          • $begingroup$
            All I am saying is that I do not understand your first sentence "$gamma^{-1} dot gamma in mathfrak g$ is precisely the same thing as saying that γ is tangent to the subgroup $G$". It seems to me your argument "assumes the conclusion" in some sense. Or are you using some specific facts regarding foliations (flat charts or something?). I would appreicate any clarification or elaboration you can give.
            $endgroup$
            – Asaf Shachar
            Dec 27 '18 at 15:35










          • $begingroup$
            Also, I wonder if it matters that we assumed here $gamma^{-1} dot gamma in mathfrak g$ and not $dot gamma gamma^{-1} in mathfrak g$?
            $endgroup$
            – Asaf Shachar
            Dec 27 '18 at 15:38












          • $begingroup$
            @AsafShachar Bear with me, I haven't thought about this answer in 3 years. The tangent space $T_e G subset T_e H$ is $mathfrak g subset mathfrak h$. To identify this with the tangent space $T_g G$, you apply the operator $L_{g^{-1}}$, left-multiplication by $g^{-1}$; this gives an isomorphism of pairs $(T_g H, T_g G) to (mathfrak h, mathfrak g)$. All the same, if you want to identify the tangent space $T_h hG$ with $T_e G$, apply left mult by $h^{-1}$. When I write $gamma^{-1}(t) gamma'(t)$, I mean the element of $T_e H$ given by $dL_{gamma^{-1}(t)}: T_{gamma(t)} H to T_e H$.
            $endgroup$
            – user98602
            Dec 27 '18 at 15:50




















          • $begingroup$
            The contrast between foliation-bundle-subbundle part and part where you locally straighten subgroup as submanifold is just "ah!" :) Thanks for an explanation!
            $endgroup$
            – Evgeny
            Dec 15 '15 at 19:34










          • $begingroup$
            Something here bothers me a bit: In the image that I have in mind, it is certainly possible that $gamma(t) notin G$ for some small $t>0$. If we identify a small part of $G$ inside $GL_n$ as $Bbb R^n times {0} hookrightarrow Bbb R^{n+k}$, then we have $dot gamma(t) in mathbb{R}^n$ but $gamma(t) notin Bbb R^n$ so $gamma(t)$ is not tangent to $G=Bbb R^n times {0}$, but to a copy of $G$ ($Bbb R^n times {c}$). Am I missing something? I am not claiming that your final conclusion that $gamma(t) in G$ is false...
            $endgroup$
            – Asaf Shachar
            Dec 27 '18 at 15:31












          • $begingroup$
            All I am saying is that I do not understand your first sentence "$gamma^{-1} dot gamma in mathfrak g$ is precisely the same thing as saying that γ is tangent to the subgroup $G$". It seems to me your argument "assumes the conclusion" in some sense. Or are you using some specific facts regarding foliations (flat charts or something?). I would appreicate any clarification or elaboration you can give.
            $endgroup$
            – Asaf Shachar
            Dec 27 '18 at 15:35










          • $begingroup$
            Also, I wonder if it matters that we assumed here $gamma^{-1} dot gamma in mathfrak g$ and not $dot gamma gamma^{-1} in mathfrak g$?
            $endgroup$
            – Asaf Shachar
            Dec 27 '18 at 15:38












          • $begingroup$
            @AsafShachar Bear with me, I haven't thought about this answer in 3 years. The tangent space $T_e G subset T_e H$ is $mathfrak g subset mathfrak h$. To identify this with the tangent space $T_g G$, you apply the operator $L_{g^{-1}}$, left-multiplication by $g^{-1}$; this gives an isomorphism of pairs $(T_g H, T_g G) to (mathfrak h, mathfrak g)$. All the same, if you want to identify the tangent space $T_h hG$ with $T_e G$, apply left mult by $h^{-1}$. When I write $gamma^{-1}(t) gamma'(t)$, I mean the element of $T_e H$ given by $dL_{gamma^{-1}(t)}: T_{gamma(t)} H to T_e H$.
            $endgroup$
            – user98602
            Dec 27 '18 at 15:50


















          $begingroup$
          The contrast between foliation-bundle-subbundle part and part where you locally straighten subgroup as submanifold is just "ah!" :) Thanks for an explanation!
          $endgroup$
          – Evgeny
          Dec 15 '15 at 19:34




          $begingroup$
          The contrast between foliation-bundle-subbundle part and part where you locally straighten subgroup as submanifold is just "ah!" :) Thanks for an explanation!
          $endgroup$
          – Evgeny
          Dec 15 '15 at 19:34












          $begingroup$
          Something here bothers me a bit: In the image that I have in mind, it is certainly possible that $gamma(t) notin G$ for some small $t>0$. If we identify a small part of $G$ inside $GL_n$ as $Bbb R^n times {0} hookrightarrow Bbb R^{n+k}$, then we have $dot gamma(t) in mathbb{R}^n$ but $gamma(t) notin Bbb R^n$ so $gamma(t)$ is not tangent to $G=Bbb R^n times {0}$, but to a copy of $G$ ($Bbb R^n times {c}$). Am I missing something? I am not claiming that your final conclusion that $gamma(t) in G$ is false...
          $endgroup$
          – Asaf Shachar
          Dec 27 '18 at 15:31






          $begingroup$
          Something here bothers me a bit: In the image that I have in mind, it is certainly possible that $gamma(t) notin G$ for some small $t>0$. If we identify a small part of $G$ inside $GL_n$ as $Bbb R^n times {0} hookrightarrow Bbb R^{n+k}$, then we have $dot gamma(t) in mathbb{R}^n$ but $gamma(t) notin Bbb R^n$ so $gamma(t)$ is not tangent to $G=Bbb R^n times {0}$, but to a copy of $G$ ($Bbb R^n times {c}$). Am I missing something? I am not claiming that your final conclusion that $gamma(t) in G$ is false...
          $endgroup$
          – Asaf Shachar
          Dec 27 '18 at 15:31














          $begingroup$
          All I am saying is that I do not understand your first sentence "$gamma^{-1} dot gamma in mathfrak g$ is precisely the same thing as saying that γ is tangent to the subgroup $G$". It seems to me your argument "assumes the conclusion" in some sense. Or are you using some specific facts regarding foliations (flat charts or something?). I would appreicate any clarification or elaboration you can give.
          $endgroup$
          – Asaf Shachar
          Dec 27 '18 at 15:35




          $begingroup$
          All I am saying is that I do not understand your first sentence "$gamma^{-1} dot gamma in mathfrak g$ is precisely the same thing as saying that γ is tangent to the subgroup $G$". It seems to me your argument "assumes the conclusion" in some sense. Or are you using some specific facts regarding foliations (flat charts or something?). I would appreicate any clarification or elaboration you can give.
          $endgroup$
          – Asaf Shachar
          Dec 27 '18 at 15:35












          $begingroup$
          Also, I wonder if it matters that we assumed here $gamma^{-1} dot gamma in mathfrak g$ and not $dot gamma gamma^{-1} in mathfrak g$?
          $endgroup$
          – Asaf Shachar
          Dec 27 '18 at 15:38






          $begingroup$
          Also, I wonder if it matters that we assumed here $gamma^{-1} dot gamma in mathfrak g$ and not $dot gamma gamma^{-1} in mathfrak g$?
          $endgroup$
          – Asaf Shachar
          Dec 27 '18 at 15:38














          $begingroup$
          @AsafShachar Bear with me, I haven't thought about this answer in 3 years. The tangent space $T_e G subset T_e H$ is $mathfrak g subset mathfrak h$. To identify this with the tangent space $T_g G$, you apply the operator $L_{g^{-1}}$, left-multiplication by $g^{-1}$; this gives an isomorphism of pairs $(T_g H, T_g G) to (mathfrak h, mathfrak g)$. All the same, if you want to identify the tangent space $T_h hG$ with $T_e G$, apply left mult by $h^{-1}$. When I write $gamma^{-1}(t) gamma'(t)$, I mean the element of $T_e H$ given by $dL_{gamma^{-1}(t)}: T_{gamma(t)} H to T_e H$.
          $endgroup$
          – user98602
          Dec 27 '18 at 15:50






          $begingroup$
          @AsafShachar Bear with me, I haven't thought about this answer in 3 years. The tangent space $T_e G subset T_e H$ is $mathfrak g subset mathfrak h$. To identify this with the tangent space $T_g G$, you apply the operator $L_{g^{-1}}$, left-multiplication by $g^{-1}$; this gives an isomorphism of pairs $(T_g H, T_g G) to (mathfrak h, mathfrak g)$. All the same, if you want to identify the tangent space $T_h hG$ with $T_e G$, apply left mult by $h^{-1}$. When I write $gamma^{-1}(t) gamma'(t)$, I mean the element of $T_e H$ given by $dL_{gamma^{-1}(t)}: T_{gamma(t)} H to T_e H$.
          $endgroup$
          – user98602
          Dec 27 '18 at 15:50




















          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.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1576871%2flie-group-question-if-gamma-1-dot-gamma-in-mathfrakg-everywhere-does%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

          Wiesbaden

          Marschland

          Dieringhausen