1
$\begingroup$

Original setup

Consider the manifold $M=\mathbb R^3$ with the natural vector bundle connection $\nabla$. This connection, like any connection on a vector bundle, induces, or is induced by, a principal connection $\Theta$ on the frame bundle $FM=\mathbb R^3 \times \operatorname{GL}(3)$. The curvature of this connection is, of course, zero: $$ \Omega=d\Theta-[\Theta,\Theta]=0. $$

Cartan geometry

I want to obtain the pair $(\mathbb R^3,\Theta)$ from the point of view of Cartan geometry, to understand to what extent the flatness of $\mathbb{R}^3$ can be generalized to arbitrary homogeneous spaces. We have the affine group $G=\operatorname{Aff}(3)=\mathbb{R}^3 \rtimes \operatorname{GL}(3)$ (we fix it as the "relevant" transformations on $\mathbb R^3$) together with the closed subgroup $H=\operatorname{GL}(3)$ (the "relevant" transformations fixing a point). The Klein geometry $(G,H)$ provides the base space $M$, and the Maurer-Cartan form $A$ of $G$ is a Cartan connection with, of course, zero curvature $$ dA-[A,A]=0, $$ because of the Maurer-Cartan equation for any Lie group. Since this is a reductive Klein geometry, the Cartan connection $A$ splits $$ A=A_{\mathfrak{h}}+A_{\mathfrak{p}} $$ for every specific choice of the subspace $\mathfrak{p}\subset \mathfrak{g}$ such that $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{h}\oplus \mathfrak{p}$. The part $A_{\mathfrak{h}}$ is a principal connection on the frame bundle $FM$, playing the same role as $\Theta$, but not necessarily equal to $\Theta$ (is a different connection). Moreover, even if $A$ has zero curvature I think we cannot deduce that $A_{\mathfrak{h}}$ has zero curvature.

My questions are:

  1. What data am I missing from the original setup to be able to fix a $\mathfrak{p}$ such that $A_{\mathfrak{h}}=\Theta$?
  2. In general, what additional requirement do we have to impose to a reductive Klein geometry $(G,H)$ in such a way that we have a canonical choice of $\mathfrak{p}$ giving rise to a principal connection 1-form $\Theta:=A_{\mathfrak{h}}$ which is flat?

The motivation for my questions is that I have read that the Klein geometries are the flat models for the Cartan geometries. But even if I understand that they are flat, in the sense that their natural Cartan connections has zero curvature, I want to know which among them are "really flat", in the sense that they have a natural principal connection with zero curvature.

$\endgroup$
0

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

To get $A_{\mathfrak{h}}$ to be an affine connection, you need precisely that $\mathfrak{p}\subseteq\mathfrak{g}$ is an $H$-invariant linear subspace complementary to $\mathfrak{h}\subseteq\mathfrak{g}$. To make it flat, you need precisely that $\mathfrak{p}\subseteq\mathfrak{g}$ is bracket closed, so a Lie subalgebra complementary to $\mathfrak{h}\subseteq\mathfrak{g}$. For Euclidean space, this is precisely the fact that translations of Euclidean space are defined independent of any choice of basis, i.e. form a normal subgroup in the affine group, hence invariant under affine transformations, so invariant under linear transformations (the group $H$), and bracket closed, so a flat connection.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Ben's answer has been useful to me in order to understand things. But I think it is a bit incomplete, so I am going to write here my conclusions in case they are useful for someone else in the future. I want to point out that some of the statements I am going to do are based on my intuition, and I don't have a proof, so I hope anybody can teach me if something is wrong.

The goal is understand what do we have to require to an arbitrary Klein geometry $(G,H)$ so that it behaves in the same way that $\mathbb R^n$ "with respect to flatness". That is to say, in order to have $G/H$ be flat not only as a Cartan geometry, which is trivially true by virtue of Maurer-Cartan equations, but also to have that the principal bundle $$ G\to G/H $$ have a canonical flat principal connection.

(By the way, this principal bundle is interpreted as the set of "$G$-frames" for the space $X=G/H$, and the principal connection is a way of deciding if an assignation of G-frames along a curve in $X$ is constant.)

And I think that the answer is that $G$ must have a normal subgroup $N$ such that $G$ is the semidirect product $$ G=N\rtimes H. $$

The key would be the following proposition, which I hope is true,

Proposition Let $G$ be a Lie group that is the semidirect product of a normal subgroup $N$ and a subgroup $H$, i.e., $G = N \rtimes H$. Then the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ of $G$ has a canonical decomposition as an $Ad(H)$-module given by $$ \mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{n} \oplus \mathfrak{h}, $$ where $\mathfrak{n}$ and $\mathfrak{h}$ are the Lie algebras of the subgroups $N$ and $H$, respectively.$\blacksquare$

Sketch of the proof

  • Show that $\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{n} \oplus \mathfrak{h}$ as vector spaces.
  • $\mathfrak{g}$ is an $Ad(H)$-module, and of course $Ad(H)(\mathfrak{h})\subset\mathfrak{h}$. But also, since $N$ is normal, we have that $Ad(H)(\mathfrak{n})\subset\mathfrak{n}$
  • The decomposition is canonical, once $N$ is given.$\blacksquare$

So, assuming this proposition is true, the requirement of being a semidirect product implies that we have a reductive Klein geometry $G/H$, and then the Maurer-Cartan form splits as $$ A=A_{\mathfrak{n}}+A_{\mathfrak{h}}, $$ being $A_{\mathfrak{h}}$ a principal connection on the principal bundle $G\to X$ (see this answer), in a "canonical way" (since $N$ is given).

Moreover, we have that $\mathfrak{n}$ is not merely a vector subspace of $\mathfrak{g}$, but a Lie algebra, so $[\mathfrak{n},\mathfrak{n}]\subset \mathfrak{n}$. And because of this we can prove that the flatness in the sense of Cartan geometry ($dA-[A,A]=0$) implies the flatness of the principal connection: $$ 0=dA-[A,A]= $$ $$ =dA_{\mathfrak{n}}+dA_{\mathfrak{h}}-[A_{\mathfrak{n}}+A_{\mathfrak{h}},A_{\mathfrak{n}}+A_{\mathfrak{h}}]= $$ $$ =dA_{\mathfrak{h}}-[A_{\mathfrak{h}},A_{\mathfrak{h}}]+dA_{\mathfrak{n}}-[A_{\mathfrak{n}},A_{\mathfrak{n}}], $$ and since $dA_{\mathfrak{h}}-[A_{\mathfrak{h}},A_{\mathfrak{h}}]$ is $\mathfrak{h}$-valued and $dA_{\mathfrak{n}}-[A_{\mathfrak{n}},A_{\mathfrak{n}}]$ is $\mathfrak{n}$-valued we have $$ dA_{\mathfrak{h}}-[A_{\mathfrak{h}},A_{\mathfrak{h}}]=0. $$

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ $G$ doesn't have to be a semidirect product. The Lie algebra is a semidirect sum. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 29, 2023 at 9:03
  • $\begingroup$ @BenMcKay I see, my requirement can be weakened to: $(G,H)$ is such that $\mathfrak{g}$ is decomposed as the semidirect sum of a "given" Lie subalgebra $\mathfrak{n}$ and the Lie subalgebra $\mathfrak{h}$. Anyway, I prefer my formulation, because (for me) the idea of semidirect product is nearer to intuition. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 29, 2023 at 10:49
  • $\begingroup$ By the way, I guess that there are examples when this semidirect sum is not coming from the existence of a semidirect product structure in $G$... $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 29, 2023 at 10:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For a counterexample, you can take $G$ a torus, $H$ a subtorus, and $\mathfrak{n}\subset\mathfrak{g}$ a linear subspace, complementary to the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{h}$ of $H$, but so that $\mathfrak{n}$ is the tangent space at $1\in G$ of a dense subgroup of $G$. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 29, 2023 at 15:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.