Generating group homomorphisms between Lie groups

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the generation of group homomorphisms between Lie groups, specifically examining the relationship between Lie algebras and their corresponding Lie groups through homomorphisms. Participants explore the implications of these mappings and the conditions under which they may or may not define group homomorphisms.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the mapping defined by \(\Phi:G\to H\) as \(\Phi(\exp(A))=\exp(\phi(A))\) will be a group homomorphism, noting that the property \(\exp(A)\exp(B)=\exp(A+B)\) does not hold in general.
  • Another participant suggests that the example of \(G = SO(3)\) and \(H = SU(2)\) with the identity map from \(\mathfrak{so}(3)\) to \(\mathfrak{su}(2)\) could serve as a counter-example, while expressing concern about the implications of this mapping being two-valued.
  • A different participant points out that the equation \(\Phi(\exp(A)) = \exp(\phi(A))\) may not yield a well-defined mapping due to the non-injectivity of the exponential mapping, and asks how to prove that the canonical mapping from \(SU(2)\) to \(SO(3)\) is a group homomorphism.
  • Another participant proposes that the induced mapping creates a submanifold of \(G \times H\) that projects onto \(G\) as a local homeomorphism, suggesting that this submanifold might be a subgroup, although they admit to relying on intuition rather than expertise.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the existence and nature of group homomorphisms generated by Lie algebra homomorphisms, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the injectivity of the exponential map and the conditions under which the mappings are well-defined, which are not fully resolved in the discussion.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K