-2
$\begingroup$

there is no classification of (simply connected) nilpotent lie groups, but I am tempted to try to generalize the construction of the Heisenberg group. For an upper triangular matrix:

$$ \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 1 & \boxed{\cdot}& \boxed{\cdot}& \boxed{\cdot} \\ 0 & 1 & \boxed{\cdot} & \boxed{\cdot} \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & \boxed{\cdot}\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{array} \right) $$

here I use a $4 \times 4$ matrix, but could be $n \times n$. Each $\boxed{\cdot} \in \big\{ \mathbb{R}, \{ 0\} \big\} $ and since Lie groups are closed under multiplication (or lie algebras are closed under commutators if we populate one square with an $\mathbb{R}$) we might initially put a $\{0\}$ but have to complete to an $\mathbb{R}$.

If my combinatorial construction could generate make all simply connected nilpotent Lie groups, I would have found a basic classification theorem. Therefore, are there any such groups that live outside this classification?

The idea is... they are all matrix groups, but since there is no classification, I should be able to make a fairly general construction and there will be groups falling outside of this class.


What if I changed the Euler number of the circle bundle over the torus? Does this have a matrix representation?

$$ (x,y,z) (x,y,z) = (\,x+x \,,\, y+y+ {\color{#9FB825}n}\,xz \,,\, z+z\,) $$

There are lots of examples of these simply connected nilmanifolds coming from matrices, but it's not hard to find examples without an obvious matrix representation (e.g. changing the structure constants), or a reasonable-looking classifiction scheme (that will eventually fail).

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ The two-dimensional nilpotent Lie group doesn't fit this model: it would only have two non-zero boxes, but you can easily check that any non-abelian guy in your scheme has at least 3. $\endgroup$
    – Ben Webster
    May 7, 2017 at 17:27
  • $\begingroup$ @BenWebster Can you post an answer with the matrix representation of the group you describe? I can't picture it. Doesn't this work? $$ \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & \mathbb{R} & \mathbb{R} \\ 0 & 1 &0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{array} \right)$$ $\endgroup$ May 7, 2017 at 18:13
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Chong-Yun Chao's paper "UNCOUNTABLY MANY NONISOMORPHIC NILPOTENT LIE ALGEBRAS" implies that there are uncountably many nonisomorphic nilpotent real Lie algebras (in any dimension greater than 9), but your scheme only includes countably many. I'm not sure what the simplest non example is. $\endgroup$ May 7, 2017 at 18:14
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidCohen thank you David. my scheme is very limited and yet these are all matrix groups. so what does is matrix of the counterexample? Perhaps I need to include diagonal matrices such as $$ \left( \begin{array}{cc} \mathbb{R} & 0 \\ 0 & \mathbb{R} \end{array} \right) $$ $\endgroup$ May 7, 2017 at 18:18
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @johnmangual Why would that help? $\endgroup$ May 7, 2017 at 18:31

1 Answer 1

6
$\begingroup$

Here is a simple example of an uncountable family of nilpotent Lie groups. Fix real numbers $\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_n$. Fix integers $k_1, \dots, k_n$. Let $V$ be the set of all functions of the form $f(x)=\sum_i e^{\lambda_i x} p_j(x)$ for $p_j(x)$ a polynomial function of degree at most $k_j$. Let $G=\mathbb{R} \times V$ with multiplication $(x_0,f_0(x))(x_1,f_1(x))=(x_0+x_1,f_0(x)+f_1(x-x_0))$. I proved in my paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.2487 that the values of $\lambda_j$ and $k_j$ are invariants under isomorphism. The proof is a long computation, expanding out the condition of being a Lie group morphism. It is easy to see that $G$ is nilpotent.

Edit: It is not so easy to see, because it isn't true. Actually this is solvable, but not nilpotent unless all $\lambda_j$ vanish. The paper mentioned above, Chong-Yun Chao, "Uncountably many nonisomorphic nilpotent Lie algebras", Proc. AMS. has a very simple construction. Take a vector space with basis $x_1,\dots,x_{n-4},y_1,\dots,y_4$ with brackets $[x_i,x_j]=\sum_{k=1}^4 c^k_{ij} y_k$ and all other brackets zero. He proves that if we take algebraically independent $c^k_{ij}$ over the rationals, then the various algebras we obtain for different choices of these $c^k_{ij}$ are not isomorphic over the real numbers. The paper is only 3 pages long and the argument is elementary.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Of course, these examples were known first to Lie, and he knew how to classify their isomorphism types. Actually, I am not quite being honest in saying that all of those $\lambda_j$ are invariants, but the precise statement is in my paper, and makes clear that there are uncountably many isomorphism types. $\endgroup$
    – Ben McKay
    May 7, 2017 at 19:30

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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