I Does L_g pass to the quotient G/H?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter PsychonautQQ
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    quotient
PsychonautQQ
Messages
781
Reaction score
10
Say H is a subgroup of topological group G. Let L_g: G--->G be denote a map of G acting on itself by a left translation of g. Show that L_g passes(descends) to the quotient G/H.

I am a bit confused here, for L_g to pass to the quotient G/H, it would have to be constant on the fibers of G/H. This means that if q: G--->G/H is the quotient map, then q(a)=q(b) implies that L_g(a) = L_g(b); I don't believe this implication is true. If q(a) = q(b) then ar = bs for some a,s in H. but if L_g(a) = L_g(b) this means that ag = bg.

Input anyone?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
PsychonautQQ said:
Say H is a subgroup of topological group G. Let L_g: G--->G be denote a map of G acting on itself by a left translation of g. Show that L_g passes(descends) to the quotient G/H.

I am a bit confused here, for L_g to pass to the quotient G/H, it would have to be constant on the fibers of G/H. This means that if q: G--->G/H is the quotient map, then q(a)=q(b) implies that L_g(a) = L_g(b); I don't believe this implication is true. If q(a) = q(b) then ar = bs for some a,s in H. but if L_g(a) = L_g(b) this means that ag = bg.

Input anyone?
We don't have to show ##ag = bg## and neither ##ga=gb## which I use here as you spoke of left multiplication. We must show that ##q(a)=aH=bH=q(b)## implies ##g.q(a) := q(ga)=gaH\stackrel{!}{=}gbH=q(gb) =: g.q(b)##. The cosets have to be equal, not the elements, so ##gah \in gbH## for any ##h \in H## has to be shown.

Of course we'll get in trouble if we want to identify the induced operation ##\overline{L_g}## on ##G/H## with the left multiplication ##L_{q(g)}## in ##G/H## because ##H## isn't required to be normal.
 
  • Like
Likes PsychonautQQ
Ooooooh so the left translation of G acting on elements of G whilst in their cosets, right?
 
PsychonautQQ said:
Ooooooh so the left translation of G acting on elements of G whilst in their cosets, right?
Not sure I know what you mean here. The left translation ##L_g\, : \,x \longmapsto g\cdot x## induces a map ##\overline{L_g}\, : \,xH \longmapsto g\cdot (xH)=(g\cdot x)H## which is well-defined as two representatives of the same coset ##xh=y## lead to the same (co-)set ##gxH=gyH## using ##H\cdot H = H##. However, since ##G/H## is no group, it is not the left multiplication as ##L_g## is in ##G##. So ##\overline{L_g}## is purely set theoretically defined.
 
  • Like
Likes PsychonautQQ
Okay, what you are saying is making a lot of sense. I guess when it said "passing to the quotient" I thought that the translation L_g: G-->G needed to equal the composition of some map from L_g to the quotient space and then the quotient space back to L_g... like usually when we say 'passes' or 'descends' to the quotient it means something along these lines i feel like.
 
A sphere as topological manifold can be defined by gluing together the boundary of two disk. Basically one starts assigning each disk the subspace topology from ##\mathbb R^2## and then taking the quotient topology obtained by gluing their boundaries. Starting from the above definition of 2-sphere as topological manifold, shows that it is homeomorphic to the "embedded" sphere understood as subset of ##\mathbb R^3## in the subspace topology.
Back
Top