Generating group homomorphisms between Lie groups

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
3 replies · 2K views
jostpuur
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
19
Suppose [itex]\mathfrak{g}[/itex] and [itex]\mathfrak{h}[/itex] are some Lie algebras, and [itex]G=\exp(\mathfrak{g})[/itex] and [itex]H=\exp(\mathfrak{h})[/itex] are Lie groups. If

[tex] \phi:\mathfrak{g}\to\mathfrak{h}[/tex]

is a Lie algebra homomorphism, and if [itex]\Phi[/itex] is defined as follows:

[tex] \Phi:G\to H,\quad \Phi(\exp(A))=\exp(\phi(A))[/tex]

will [itex]\Phi[/itex] be a group homomorphism?

Since [itex]\exp(A)\exp(B)=\exp(A+B)[/itex] is not true in general, I see no obvious way to prove the claim.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I expect G = SO(3) and H = SU(2) along with the identity map so(3)-->su(2) constitute a counter-example.

It feels like cheating, though, since this surely induces the bundle SU(2) --> SO(3) which could be thought of as a two-valued homomorphism from SO(3) to SU(2). (e.g. compare with the square-root function of the complex plane)
 
I see. In general the equation

[tex] \Phi(\exp(A)) = \exp(\phi(A))[/tex]

will not give a well defined mapping, because exponential mapping is not injective.

But for example, how do you prove that the canonical mapping SU(2) -> SO(3) is group homomorphism? It is easy to verify that the mapping su(2) -> so(3) is a Lie algebra isomorphism, but then what?
 
I think what gets induced is a submanifold of GxH whose projection onto G is a local homeomorphism.

I expect the submanifold to be a subgroup.


Why? By doing the differential geometry to sew the differential facts into an integral whole.

Or...
[itex] \exp(A)\exp(B)=\exp(A+B)[/itex]
by using the variation on that identity that is valid.


But I'm mainly running off of intuition here, and this is far from my field of expertise.