Question on Lie group regular actions

mnb96
Messages
711
Reaction score
5
Hello,

it is known that "Every regular G-action is isomorphic to the action of G on G given by left multiplication".
Is this true also when G is a Lie group?

There is an ambiguous sentence in Wikipedia that is confusing me. It says: "The above statements about isomorphisms for regular, free and transitive actions are no longer valid for continuous group actions.". This sentence probably refers to the above statement about the isomorphism of regular actions and the action of G on itself, but I don't understand why it is supposed to be true for Lie group actions.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mnb96 said:
. It says: "The above statements about isomorphisms for regular, free and transitive actions are no longer valid for continuous group actions.".

I'm not an expert on this subject, but I think what happens is that the definition of "Isomorphism" changes when you move from groups to topological groups. The definitions of homomorphisms and isomorphism for a group don't have any requirements about the continuity of the mappings. So the fact that you proved something about a homomorphism for groups doesn't get you a proof of the same theorem for topological groups.

This sentence probably refers to the above statement about the isomorphism of regular actions and the action of G on itself, but I don't understand why it is supposed to be true for Lie group actions.

It's hard to interpret your sentence! When you say "it is supposed to be true for Lie Group actions", what does that mean?
 
Hi Stephen!

thanks for your reply. You are right! I didn't think that in the context of Lie groups we have to change the definition of isomorphism and impose some constraints of continuity on the mapping.
This basically answers my question.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top