Still wondering exp(so(N)) and SO(N)

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jostpuur
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the exponential of the Lie algebra of the special orthogonal group, \( e^{\mathfrak{so}(N)} \), and the special orthogonal group itself, \( \textrm{SO}(N) \). Participants explore whether the equality \( e^{\mathfrak{so}(N)} = \textrm{SO}(N) \) holds true, particularly in the context of various dimensions \( N \). The conversation includes theoretical considerations, mathematical reasoning, and references to literature.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the equality \( e^{\mathfrak{so}(N)} = \textrm{SO}(N) \) and seeks proof, noting that they have established the inclusion \( e^{\mathfrak{so}(N)} \subset \textrm{SO}(N) \) but not equality for \( N \geq 4 \).
  • Another participant suggests that the connectedness of \( \textrm{SO}(N) \) implies \( e^{\mathfrak{so}(N)} \) should represent the identity component, but questions the definition of "prove" and the assumptions involved.
  • A further contribution references a corollary from a book on Lie groups, indicating that if \( \textrm{SO}(N) \) is connected, then \( e^{\mathfrak{so}(N)} \) generates \( \textrm{SO}(N) \) if it forms a group, raising the challenge of proving this group property.
  • Another participant clarifies that while the exponential map is surjective onto the identity component, additional properties of compactness are necessary to conclude that it covers all of \( \textrm{SO}(N) \).
  • One participant provides a reference to notes that may contain an elementary proof of surjectivity using matrix exponential properties.
  • Another participant identifies a book related to the notes and discusses the complexity of proving that \( e^{\mathfrak{g}} \) is a group, suggesting reliance on Riemannian geometry theorems.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the proof of the equality \( e^{\mathfrak{so}(N)} = \textrm{SO}(N) \). While some agree on the implications of connectedness and surjectivity, there is no consensus on how to definitively prove that \( e^{\mathfrak{so}(N)} \) forms a group or whether it equals \( \textrm{SO}(N) \) for all \( N \).

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the need for specific definitions and assumptions when addressing the proof of the equality. The relationship between connectedness, compactness, and the properties of the exponential map in the context of Lie groups remains a point of contention.

jostpuur
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
19
I still don't know whether

[tex] e^{\mathfrak{so}(N)}=\textrm{SO}(N)[/tex]

is true or not with certainty. Somebody, please, prove this.

Obviously I know

[tex] e^{\mathfrak{so}(N)}\subset\textrm{SO}(N)[/tex]

so that's not the problem. I have managed to prove the equality in cases N=2,3, but the cases N=4,5,6,... have remained a mystery to me.

In my attempts to prove the equality, I think I have managed to prove a relation

[tex] \textrm{SO}(N)\subset e^{\mathfrak{su}(N)}[/tex]

through diagonalization of the rotation matrix, and this looks interesting, but hasn't resolved the original problem.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It should be true, because ##SO(n)## is connected, and ##e^{\mathfrak{so}(n)}## should give the component connected to the identity.

There must be some easy simplification that will give you the answer you want. However, it is difficult to figure out what you mean by "prove". In particular, from what assumptions, definitions, etc., are you starting?
 
Ben Niehoff said:
It should be true, because ##SO(n)## is connected, and ##e^{\mathfrak{so}(n)}## should give the component connected to the identity.

I have investigated this direction. A Corollary 0.20 in Anthony W. Knapp's book Lie Groups Beyond an Introduction states that If [itex]G[/itex] is a closed linear group and [itex]\mathfrak{g}[/itex] is its Lie algebra, then [itex]\exp\mathfrak{g}[/itex] generates the identity component [itex]G_0[/itex]

Therefore, if we know that [itex]\textrm{SO}(N)[/itex] is connected, we also know that [itex]e^{\mathfrak{so}(N)}[/itex] is a set that generates the [itex]\textrm{SO}(N)[/itex]. This implies that [itex]e^{\mathfrak{so}(N)}[/itex] will be equal to [itex]\textrm{SO}(N)[/itex] precisely if it is a group. So how do you prove that [itex]e^{\mathfrak{so}(N)}[/itex] is a group? You must prove that for all [itex]X,Y\in\mathfrak{so}(N)[/itex] there exists a [itex]Z\in\mathfrak{so}(N)[/itex] such that [itex]e^Xe^Y=e^Z[/itex]. This looks like precisely as difficult as [itex]\textrm{SO}(N)\subset e^{\mathfrak{so}(N)}[/itex], so this result about generating the identity component isn't resolving the issue.

However, it is difficult to figure out what you mean by "prove". In particular, from what assumptions, definitions, etc., are you starting?

I mean proving like proving in mathematics.

The definitions are

[tex] \textrm{SO}(N) = \big\{A\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}\;\big|\; \det(A)=1,\;\;A^{-1}=A^T\big\}[/tex]

[tex] \mathfrak{so}(N) = \big\{X\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}\;\big|\; X+X^T=0\big\}[/tex]

[tex] e^X = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n!}X^n[/tex]
 
It is certainly true that the exponential is surjective here but the previous post is missing one of the reasons why. The fact that [itex]SO(n)[/itex] is connected only implies that [itex]exp(\mathfrak{so(n)})[/itex] is contained in the identity component of [itex]SO(n)[/itex]. To further conclude that it is all of the identity component requires the additional fact that [itex]SO(n)[/itex] is also compact.

If you want an elementary proof of surjectivity using just the matrix exponential and some standard forms of matrices, try theorem 14.2.2 in the following notes:
http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~cis610/geombchap14.pdf
.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby and jostpuur
Do you know what book that extract is from?
 
I believe it is "Geometric Methods and Applications: For Computer Science and Engineering" by Jean Gallier. If you want to backtrack to the proofs of the various normal forms he uses to get surjectivity, they are also posted on his website:
http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~cis610/geombchap11.pdf
.

Also the abstract proof that exp is surjective for any any connected compact Lie group, at least the way I've seen it done, is by appealing to some theorems from Riemannian geometry so I kind of doubt there will be any simple way to show that [itex]exp (\mathfrak{g})[/itex] is a group as you were suggesting in a previous post.

A brief sketch of the usual proof starts out by observing that every compact Lie group can be given a bi-invariant Riemannian metric (just take left/right translates of a nondegenerate, positive definite, Ad-invariant bilinear form on the Lie algebra .) By the Hopf-Rinow theorem [itex]G[/itex] is geodesically complete so you can connect any [itex]g\in G[/itex] to the identity using a geodesic. Then show that the geodesics of [itex]G[/itex] are precisely left/right translates of one parameter subgoups of [itex]G[/itex]. Hence the geodesic connecting the identity to [itex]g\in G[/itex] is of the form [itex]\mathrm{exp(tX)}[/itex] for some [itex]X\in \mathfrak{g}[/itex] and therefore [itex]g =\mathrm{exp}(X)[/itex].
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K