Is There a Simple Way to Show GL(n,C) is a Lie Group?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ergospherical
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Group Lie group
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around demonstrating that the general linear group ##\mathrm{GL}(n,\mathbf{C})## is a Lie group by establishing an isomorphism with a subgroup of ##\mathrm{GL}(2n,\mathbf{R})##. Participants explore the properties of matrix multiplication and the smoothness of group operations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the method of representing complex matrices as block matrices and the implications for group isomorphism. There are attempts to simplify the verification of the isomorphism by focusing on smaller blocks of matrices. Questions arise regarding the clarity and efficiency of the calculations involved in these transformations.

Discussion Status

Several participants have provided insights into the properties of matrix operations and their implications for the smoothness of the group structure. There is an ongoing exploration of the necessary conditions for ##\mathrm{GL}(n,\mathbf{C})## to be a Lie group, with no explicit consensus reached yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem may involve complex calculations and the need to consider polynomial properties of matrix operations. The discussion includes references to specific mathematical properties and resources for further exploration.

ergospherical
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
1,100
Reaction score
1,387
Homework Statement
As per title
Relevant Equations
N/A
I'd like to clarify a few things; the approach is basically just to show that ##\mathrm{GL}(n,\mathbf{C})## is isomorphic to a subgroup of ##\mathrm{GL}(2n,\mathbf{R})## which is a smooth manifold (since ##\mathbf{R} \setminus \{0\}## is an open subset of ##\mathbf{R}##, so its pre-image ##\mathrm{det}^{-1}(\mathbf{R} \setminus \{ 0\}) = \mathrm{GL}(2n,\mathbf{R})## under the continuous determinant map is a smooth manifold.)

The hint is to consider replacing each ##X_{ij} = a_{ij} + ib_{ij}## with a matrix block ##\begin{pmatrix} a_{ij} & -b_{ij} \\ b_{ij} & a_{ij} \end{pmatrix}##. To show this map is a group isomorphism means to show that ##\Phi(XY) = \Phi(X) \Phi(Y)##, right? So I could write (summation implied over repeated suffices)\begin{align*}
(XY)_{ij} = X_{ik} Y_{kj} &= (a_{ik} + ib_{ik})(c_{kj} + id_{kj}) \\
&= a_{ik} c_{kj} - b_{ik} d_{kj} + i(a_{ik} d_{kj} + b_{ik} c_{kj})
\end{align*}I tried to write the affect of the map ##\Phi## on the elements explicitly, i.e. \begin{align*}
\Phi(X)_{ij} =
\begin{cases}
a_{\mathrm{ceil}{\frac{i}{2}} \mathrm{ceil}{\frac{j}{2}}}, & i+j \ \mathrm{even} \\
(-1)^i b_{\mathrm{ceil}{\frac{i}{2}} \mathrm{ceil}{\frac{j}{2}}}, & i+j \ \mathrm{odd}
\end{cases}
\end{align*}but this becomes a mess to work out ##(\Phi(X) \Phi(Y))_{ij}##. I think it is clear, by considering e.g. a ##1 \times 1## matrix ##(a_{11} + ib_{11})##, that it works, but there is surely a better approach?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
For two nxn matrices (which expand to 2nx2n) you should be able to convince yourself that if you just look at the first two rows of X and the first two columns of Y, that if the multiplication works out that it will work out for the rest of the rows) columns. Then you have a much more tractable problem, just pick an arbitrary 2x2 block in the result and check that e.g. the top left entry is the sum of product of real parts of the original n complex numbers minus sum of the product of the imaginary parts.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ergospherical
Part of the longer way , in showing product and inversion are smooth is using that both of these are polynomials on the entries. And for a Lie Group, a subgroup is also a Lie Group if it's a closed subgroup.
 
Multiplication are linear polynomials, hence analytic. Inversion, too, extended by the inverse of the determinants as a factor. But they are quotients of polynomials without singularity, hence analytic as well.

Here is the calculation for ##T_{\operatorname{id}}(\operatorname{SL}(n)) = \mathfrak{sl}(n)##
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/pantheon-derivatives-part-iv/

It contains the derivative of the determinant.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: ergospherical

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K