Skip to main content
Notice removed Authoritative reference needed by CommunityBot
Bounty Ended with no winning answer by CommunityBot
Notice added Authoritative reference needed by Praphulla Koushik
Bounty Started worth 50 reputation by Praphulla Koushik
added 87 characters in body
Source Link

Let $\pi:P\rightarrow M$ is a principal $G$ bundle. I want to introduce the notion of connection as a way to uniquely lift the structures on $M$ to structures on $P$, namely vector fields and paths.

The notion of lifting of a structure is common in mathematics.

  1. Given a continuous map $f:X\rightarrow Y$, and a path $\gamma:[0,1]\rightarrow Y$, the question of whether it can be lifter to a path on $X$. Same is discussed for homotopy lifting and lifting of arbitrary maps.
  2. An $R$-module $P$ such that for each surjective morphism of $R$-modules $N’\rightarrow N$, any morphism of $R$ modules $P\rightarrow N$ can be lifted to an $R$module morphism $P\rightarrow N’$ is special and it also has a name; projective module.

In similar way, one can ask the question : given a structure on $M$, say a vector field $X:M\rightarrow TM$, can one lift it to a vector field on $P$? We can give a set level map $\tilde{X}:P\rightarrow TP$ as $p\mapsto \tilde{X}(p)$ where $\tilde{X}(p)$ is some element in the inverse image of $X(m)$ under the map $\pi_{*,p}:T_pP\rightarrow T_mM$. It is not obvious why this $\tilde{X}$ is smooth and it is clearly not uniquely defined. Connection on principal bundle fix this issue, by giving unique vector field (horizontal) on $P$ given a vector field on $M$. Same is true for paths on $M$. Because of local trivialisation, one can lift the path. But uniqueness is not clear. Connection fix this issue, given a path $\alpha:[0,1]\rightarrow M$, fixing a point in the fibre of $\alpha(0)\in P$, there exists unique lift of $\alpha$ in $P$ starting at the point specified.

Do we lose something if this is given as motivation to introduce the notion of connection? I want to motivate connection in this way to a group of graduate colleagues. Is this reasonable?

First thing to observe after defining Connection on principal bundle as splitting of Atiyah sequence $$0\rightarrow (P\times \mathfrak{g})/G\rightarrow (TP)/G\rightarrow TM\rightarrow 0$$ is that connection is giving a way to lift a vector field on $M$ to a vector field on $P$. So, I think this is reasonable motivation to introduce connection. Any comments are welcome.

Let $\pi:P\rightarrow M$ is a principal $G$ bundle. I want to introduce the notion of connection as a way to uniquely lift the structures on $M$ to structures on $P$, namely vector fields and paths.

The notion of lifting of a structure is common in mathematics.

  1. Given a continuous map $f:X\rightarrow Y$, and a path $\gamma:[0,1]\rightarrow Y$, the question of whether it can be lifter to a path on $X$. Same is discussed for homotopy lifting and lifting of arbitrary maps.
  2. An $R$-module $P$ such that for each surjective morphism of $R$-modules $N’\rightarrow N$, any morphism of $R$ modules $P\rightarrow N$ can be lifted to an $R$module morphism $P\rightarrow N’$ is special and it also has a name; projective module.

In similar way, one can ask the question : given a structure on $M$, say a vector field $X:M\rightarrow TM$, can one lift it to a vector field on $P$? We can give a set level map $\tilde{X}:P\rightarrow TP$ as $p\mapsto \tilde{X}(p)$ where $\tilde{X}(p)$ is some element in the inverse image of $X(m)$ under the map $\pi_{*,p}:T_pP\rightarrow T_mM$. It is not obvious why this $\tilde{X}$ is smooth and it is clearly not uniquely defined. Connection on principal bundle fix this issue, by giving unique vector field (horizontal) on $P$ given a vector field on $M$. Same is true for paths on $M$. Because of local trivialisation, one can lift the path. But uniqueness is not clear. Connection fix this issue, given a path $\alpha:[0,1]\rightarrow M$, fixing a point in the fibre of $\alpha(0)\in P$, there exists unique lift of $\alpha$ in $P$ starting at the point specified.

Do we lose something if this is given as motivation to introduce the notion of connection? I want to motivate connection in this way to a group of graduate colleagues. Is this reasonable?

First thing to observe after defining Connection on principal bundle as splitting of Atiyah sequence is that connection is giving a way to lift a vector field on $M$ to a vector field on $P$. So, I think this is reasonable motivation to introduce connection. Any comments are welcome.

Let $\pi:P\rightarrow M$ is a principal $G$ bundle. I want to introduce the notion of connection as a way to uniquely lift the structures on $M$ to structures on $P$, namely vector fields and paths.

The notion of lifting of a structure is common in mathematics.

  1. Given a continuous map $f:X\rightarrow Y$, and a path $\gamma:[0,1]\rightarrow Y$, the question of whether it can be lifter to a path on $X$. Same is discussed for homotopy lifting and lifting of arbitrary maps.
  2. An $R$-module $P$ such that for each surjective morphism of $R$-modules $N’\rightarrow N$, any morphism of $R$ modules $P\rightarrow N$ can be lifted to an $R$module morphism $P\rightarrow N’$ is special and it also has a name; projective module.

In similar way, one can ask the question : given a structure on $M$, say a vector field $X:M\rightarrow TM$, can one lift it to a vector field on $P$? We can give a set level map $\tilde{X}:P\rightarrow TP$ as $p\mapsto \tilde{X}(p)$ where $\tilde{X}(p)$ is some element in the inverse image of $X(m)$ under the map $\pi_{*,p}:T_pP\rightarrow T_mM$. It is not obvious why this $\tilde{X}$ is smooth and it is clearly not uniquely defined. Connection on principal bundle fix this issue, by giving unique vector field (horizontal) on $P$ given a vector field on $M$. Same is true for paths on $M$. Because of local trivialisation, one can lift the path. But uniqueness is not clear. Connection fix this issue, given a path $\alpha:[0,1]\rightarrow M$, fixing a point in the fibre of $\alpha(0)\in P$, there exists unique lift of $\alpha$ in $P$ starting at the point specified.

Do we lose something if this is given as motivation to introduce the notion of connection? I want to motivate connection in this way to a group of graduate colleagues. Is this reasonable?

First thing to observe after defining Connection on principal bundle as splitting of Atiyah sequence $$0\rightarrow (P\times \mathfrak{g})/G\rightarrow (TP)/G\rightarrow TM\rightarrow 0$$ is that connection is giving a way to lift a vector field on $M$ to a vector field on $P$. So, I think this is reasonable motivation to introduce connection. Any comments are welcome.

Source Link

Introducing connection on principal bundle as lifting of vector field and paths

Let $\pi:P\rightarrow M$ is a principal $G$ bundle. I want to introduce the notion of connection as a way to uniquely lift the structures on $M$ to structures on $P$, namely vector fields and paths.

The notion of lifting of a structure is common in mathematics.

  1. Given a continuous map $f:X\rightarrow Y$, and a path $\gamma:[0,1]\rightarrow Y$, the question of whether it can be lifter to a path on $X$. Same is discussed for homotopy lifting and lifting of arbitrary maps.
  2. An $R$-module $P$ such that for each surjective morphism of $R$-modules $N’\rightarrow N$, any morphism of $R$ modules $P\rightarrow N$ can be lifted to an $R$module morphism $P\rightarrow N’$ is special and it also has a name; projective module.

In similar way, one can ask the question : given a structure on $M$, say a vector field $X:M\rightarrow TM$, can one lift it to a vector field on $P$? We can give a set level map $\tilde{X}:P\rightarrow TP$ as $p\mapsto \tilde{X}(p)$ where $\tilde{X}(p)$ is some element in the inverse image of $X(m)$ under the map $\pi_{*,p}:T_pP\rightarrow T_mM$. It is not obvious why this $\tilde{X}$ is smooth and it is clearly not uniquely defined. Connection on principal bundle fix this issue, by giving unique vector field (horizontal) on $P$ given a vector field on $M$. Same is true for paths on $M$. Because of local trivialisation, one can lift the path. But uniqueness is not clear. Connection fix this issue, given a path $\alpha:[0,1]\rightarrow M$, fixing a point in the fibre of $\alpha(0)\in P$, there exists unique lift of $\alpha$ in $P$ starting at the point specified.

Do we lose something if this is given as motivation to introduce the notion of connection? I want to motivate connection in this way to a group of graduate colleagues. Is this reasonable?

First thing to observe after defining Connection on principal bundle as splitting of Atiyah sequence is that connection is giving a way to lift a vector field on $M$ to a vector field on $P$. So, I think this is reasonable motivation to introduce connection. Any comments are welcome.