Inverse in lie group, tangent space

jostpuur
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
19

Homework Statement



I'm supposed to prove, that when G is a Lie group, [itex]i:G\to G[/itex] is the inverse mapping [itex]i(g)=g^{-1}[/itex], then

[tex] i_{*e} v = -v\quad\quad\forall \; v\in T_e G[/tex]

where [itex]i_{*e}:T_e G \to T_e G[/itex] is the tangent mapping.

Homework Equations



I'm not sure how standard the tangent mapping notation or terminology is, so here's how it is defined on our course. If [itex]\phi:M\to N[/itex] is a smooth function between two manifolds, then for each [itex]p\in M[/itex]

[tex] \phi_{*p}:T_p M\to T_{\phi(p)} N,\quad\quad (\phi_{*p} v) f = v(f\circ \phi)\quad<br /> \forall \; v\in T_p M \quad f:N\to\mathbb{R}[/tex]

Quick googling revealed that this is often given other notations similar to derivative notations.

The Attempt at a Solution



We can choose some chart [itex]x:U\to\mathbb{R}^n[/itex], where [itex]U\subset G[/itex] is some environment of the [itex]e\in G[/itex], so that x(e)=0. After simply writing down some definitions, I was able to show that the result follows if we know

[tex] \partial_j (x_k\circ i\circ x^{-1})(0) = -\delta_{jk}[/tex]

Here [itex]x^{-1}:(x(U)\subset \mathbb{R}^n)\to U[/itex] is the inverse of the x, [itex]x_k:U\to\mathbb{R}[/itex] is a component mapping of the x, and [itex]\partial_j[/itex] is a normal partial derivative in an Euclidean space.

This is where I ran out of ideas. I have no clue how the group structure gets related to what happens in the chart images. I know that [itex]g\mapsto g^{-1}[/itex] is supposed to be smooth, but this merely justifies the existence of the partial derivative in the above equation.

(btw. I will not return any solution anywhere. I'm preparing to an exam by doing old exercises)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You can think of tangent vectors as represented by differentiable curves through e, the group identity. So pick g(s) to be a representative of v, i.e. g(0)=e, g'(0)=v. Now g(s)*i(g(s))=e. Differentiate both sides, put s=0 and get t+i_*(t)=0.
 
Last edited:
Your hint certainly pushed in the right direction, but I still have some problems with this. One way to prove

[tex] i_{*e} v = -v[/tex]

would be to show

[tex] vf = -v(f\circ i)[/tex]

for arbitrary smooth [itex]f:U\to\mathbb{R}[/itex] on some environment [itex]U\subset G[/itex] of [itex]e\in G[/itex].

If [itex]g:I\to G[/itex] has been chosen so that [itex]0\in I[/itex], [itex]g(0)=e[/itex], and [itex]\dot{g}_0 = v[/itex], then the left side is

[tex] \dot{g}_0 f = D_t (f\circ g)(t)\Big|_{t=0}[/tex]

and the right side is

[tex] -\dot{g}_0 (f\circ i) = -D_t(f\circ i\circ g)(t)\Big|_{t=0}.[/tex]

According to you hint, it looks like I should start computing something like this

[tex] 0 = D_t f\big(g(t)\cdot (i\circ g)(t)\big)\Big|_{t=0} = \cdots[/tex]

But I don't know how to do anything to that. How do you get the derivation inside the f?

I would know how to compute

[tex] D_t\Big((f\circ g)(t)\; (f\circ i\circ g)(t)\Big)\Big|_{t=0} =\cdots = f(e)\big( vf + (i_{*e} v) f\big)[/tex]

for example, but for this there does not seem to be any obvious reason why this would be zero.
 
Last edited:
If you think of the Lie group as a matrix group, then the argument I gave is not just a hint, it IS the proof. I'm having more than a little trouble wrapping my head around your more abstract formalism.
 
Dick said:
If you think of the Lie group as a matrix group, then the argument I gave is not just a hint, it IS the proof.

I can see this.

I'm having more than a little trouble wrapping my head around your more abstract formalism.

This is the rigor general formalism. In general Lie group is just a differentiable manifold with a group structure. Tangent vectors are linear mappings that map smooth functions into real numbers.

In fact the problem comes down to this:

If [itex]\gamma^1[/itex] and [itex]\gamma^2[/itex] are some smooth paths [itex]I\to G[/itex] on some Lie group, so that [itex]\gamma^1(0)=\gamma^2(0)=e[/itex], then we get a new smooth path

[tex] t\mapsto \gamma^1(t)\cdot \gamma^2(t)[/tex]

by multiplying the images.

Is the equation

[tex] \dot{(\gamma^1\cdot\gamma^2)}_0 = \dot{\gamma}^1_0 + \dot{\gamma}^2_0[/tex]

true? (okey, that dot looks horrible, when its trying to be above both of the gammas...)

It seems to be, but I don't know the proof. Once this is clear, the previous problem becomes solved as you showed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K