Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

A result of Borel and Lichnerowicz states that the holonomy group of a connection on a principal $G$-bundle is a Lie subgroup of $G$ (Cartan had earlier asserted this, but apparently without proof).
This restriction, that it be a Lie subgroup, allows for a lot of poorly-behaved subgroups, for example a line with irrational slope on a torus. This subgroup comes from a perfectly fine immersion of the Lie group $\mathbb{R}$, but it's not closed in the induced topology of the torus.

As an example of something that's not a Lie subgroup, let $G= \mathbb{R}$, consider an uncountable set of $\mathbb{Q}$-independent points, none of which are rational, and consider the subgroup they generate. If this were a Lie subgroup it would be the image of an uncountable discrete space (there can't be anything $1$-dimensional, since we left out the rationals), which wouldn't be second countable, hence not a manifold and not a Lie group.

This seems like a pretty contrived example, and I suspect there is more content to 'being a Lie subgroup' than having countably many components. However, I can't seem to pin down something that would illustrate this. Can anyone give me an example of a connected subgroup of a Lie group that is not a Lie subgroup?

share|improve this question
    
@Sammy: I think it is an immersion, unless I've got my definitions wrong. The derivative is clearly injective on tangent spaces. –  Kevin H. Lin Oct 28 '09 at 23:44
    
You're right, Kevin. I deleted my comment. –  Sammy Black Oct 29 '09 at 3:09
    
Your question inspired this one: mathoverflow.net/questions/3289/… –  David Speyer Oct 29 '09 at 17:14
add comment

3 Answers

As it turns out, any connected subgroup of a Lie group must be a Lie subgroup. See Sigurdur Helgason's book for more details.

share|improve this answer
    
I don't have the book, but it appears that the theorem is for path-connected subgroups: ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=38356. See mathoverflow.net/questions/3289/… for a counterexample that is connected but not path-connected. –  Eric Wofsey Oct 30 '09 at 2:46
    
I see. Thanks for making the distinction! –  Aaron Mazel-Gee Oct 30 '09 at 3:04
4  
On a quick skim, all I see is Theorem 2.3 which says that a connected closed subgroup is a Lie subgroup and prop. 2.11, a locally compact subgroup is closed. To my mind, this theorem gives a negative answer to the question Harold may have meant to ask, namely: "Are there are topologically reasonable subgroups which are not Lie subgroups?". –  David Speyer Oct 30 '09 at 3:24
add comment

As Aaron and Eric have pointed out, Yamabe's theorem is the statement that an arcwise connected subgroup of a Lie group must be a Lie subgroup. There is also a classical theorem by Cartan and Chevalley, also proved in Hochschild's book, that a connected locally compact topological group admitting a continuous homomorphism into a Lie group which is injective in a neighborhood of the identity must be a Lie group. In particular, if $H$ is a subgroup of a Lie group $G$ and $H$ is connected and locally compact with respect to a topology containing the relative topology, then $H$ is a Lie group (note that Prop. 2.11 in the book by Helgason only addresses local compactness in the relative topology).

I found a very interesting discussion by Shahla Ahdout and Sheldon Rothman in the Australian Mathematical Society Web Site - the Gazette in which they exhibit an example of connected, locally connected subgroup of the additive group $\mathbf R^2$ which contains no arcs and is dense in $\mathbf R^2$, essentially quoting F. Burton Jones, Connected and disconnected plane sets and the functional equation f(x) +f(y) =f(x+y), Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 49 (1942), 115-120. Such a subgroup is not a Lie group, indicating how essential is the role of arcwise connectivity.

Edit: Regarding Robert's post, it is certainly important to point out the different existing definitions of Lie subgroups. To make myself clear, I am using the definition of Lie subgroup as in the book by Helgason, ch.2 (or Warner, ch. 3), namely, a Lie subgroup of a Lie group is an abstract subgroup which is an (immersed) submanifold and may have a topology finer than the relative topology. I think this definition is very common and has the advantage of yielding, for a given Lie group, a bijective correspondence between Lie subalgebras of its Lie algebra and its Lie subgroups.

share|improve this answer
    
The definition in Helgason: a Lie subgroup of $G$ is a submanifold $H$ which is a subgroup of $G$, and is a topological group. A submanifold means that $H$ is a manifold endowed with an immersion $H\mapsto G$. In this def, any subgroup of $G$ could be considered as a 0-dimensional Lie subgroup, and we need beware that a Lie subgroup is not only determined by its image in $G$, and might be non-connected even if its image in $G$ is connected. A (quite artificial) way to avoid these issues is to assume $H$ has at most countably many components, as Helgason does explicitly in several propositions. –  Yves Cornulier Nov 28 '11 at 17:50
    
Yes, I also implicitly assumed manifolds are Hausdorff and second countable. I don't think the second countability is so artificial, as otherwise, e.g. $\mathbf R^2$ would have a very strange $1$-dimensional manifold structure by decomposing into a noncountably many copies of $\mathbf R$. It is also known that for a Lie group second countability follows from having countably many components. –  Claudio Gorodski Nov 28 '11 at 19:01
add comment

Apparently, there is no consensus in the literature on how to define a Lie subgroup of a Lie group. One should be careful not to mix different definitions. The result of Yamabe (1950) states that every arcwise connected subgroup of a real Lie group is Lie subgroup (in the sense of Yamabe). Bourbaki uses the notion of an integral subgroup (Lie Groups and Lie Algebras, Chapter III, §8, Exercise 4). Onishchik/Vinberg use the notion of a virtual Lie subgroup (Foundations of Lie theory in Lie groups and Lie algebras I, p. 39, Theorem 2.4). Note that Onishchik/Vinberg also use the (stronger) notion of a Lie subgroup and present a counterexample not fulfilling their definition on page 14. For more on the technical details one can refer to Bourbaki (Chapter III, §6 and §8) or Onishchik/Vinberg.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.