I'm looking for a proof (that I can understand) of the following fact: If $K$ and $G$ are Lie groups, and $K$ is compact, then nearby homomorphisms $K\to G$ are conjugate.

That is, if $\mathrm{Hom}(K,G)$ is the set of Lie group homomorphisms, endowed with a suitable topology (I'd like to say compact-open), then the orbits of the conjugation-by-$G$ action on it are open. (Note that there are obvious conterexamples if $K$ is not compact.)

This is referred to in The space of Lie group homomorphisms. A reference is given there to Connor-Floyd, Differentiable Periodic Maps, Ch. VIII, Lemma 38.1.

Following the reference, we see that Connor and Floyd derive this as an easy consequence of a theorem from Montgomery-Zippin, Topological Transformation Groups, p. 216. That is, by thinking about the graph $K\to K\times G$, of a homomorphism, the statement can be deduced from the following:

  • If $K\subseteq G$ is a compact subgroup, then there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $K$ in $G$ such that for any subgroup $H\subset U$, there exists $g\in G$ such that $gHg^{-1}\subseteq K$. (I.e., all subgroups "close" to a compact subgroup are conjugate to a subgroup of it.)

Montgomery-Zippin's proof is an exercise involving geodesics in symmetric spaces, which is opaque to me and will probably always remain so. (They have statements such as: "there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $x$ such that for any geodesic in $U$, for any points $a,b,c$ in that order along the geodesic, $d(x,b)< \mathrm{max}(d(x,a),d(x,c))$" (quoting from memory, don't take it literally). I'm just a simple algebraic topologist, and sort of thing goes right over my head.)

Can anyone describe a more modern proof, or give a reference? I'm imagining such a proof will be an exercise involving the exponential map. (In fact, it seems easy to prove that any subgroup "close" to the identity is trivial in just this way.)

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You could derive this from the fixed point property for affine actions of compact groups, a la the proof of Property T. The point is that lack of local rigidity for representations of a compact group means that $H^1$ of $K$ with coefficients in Lie algebra is nonzero, which is impossible. Note also that geodesic property you are referring to is just the fact that the distance function on a totally normal neighborhood in Riemannian mld is convex. $\endgroup$ – Misha Mar 5 '13 at 16:11
  • $\begingroup$ Check out the short survey staff.science.uu.nl/~Schat001/survey_Lie_algebras.pdf I think it might go in the direction you want. $\endgroup$ – Claudio Gorodski Mar 5 '13 at 16:11
  • $\begingroup$ Claudio: it goes in a nice direction, but I don't see that it gets there. The claim is true for $\mathrm{Hom}(U(1),U(1))$, but false for $\mathrm{Hom}(\mathbb{R}, U(1))$, so I don't see how I can prove it purely from Lie algebra considerations. As Misha suggests, I probably need to know something about $H^1(K,\mathfrak{g})$, not just $H^1(\mathfrak{k},\mathfrak{g})$. What I'm missing is probably really easy. $\endgroup$ – Charles Rezk Mar 5 '13 at 19:47
  • $\begingroup$ That $H^1(K,\mathgfrak{g})$ is easy: indeed a continuous 1-cocycle induces an affine continuous action of $K$ on the finite-dimensional vector space $\mathfrak{g}$, which has a fixed point iff the 1-cocycle is a 1-coboundary. Now for $K$ compact there is a fixed point (integrate along an orbit, or fix a $K$-invariant Euclidean metric and take the circumcenter of an orbit). $\endgroup$ – YCor Mar 5 '13 at 21:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It looks like you need the vanishing of a kind of nonabelian continuous cohomology: If $K$ acts continuously on $G$ then any continuous 1-cocycle $K\to G$ (crossed homomorphism, $f(xy)=f(x)^yf(y)$) that is close enough to the trivial one is a coboundary, i.e. is determined by an element $a\in G$ ($f(x)=a^xa^{−1}$). $\endgroup$ – Tom Goodwillie Mar 6 '13 at 2:52

Here is a sketch of the proof expanding on my comment.

Suppose that there exists a sequence of continuous homomorphisms $\rho_i: K\to G$ which converges (uniformly) to a representation $\rho: K\to G$. Repeating the arguments from A.Weil "Remarks on cohomology of groups", Annals of Math. (1964), you obtain a cocycle $\zeta\in Z^1(K, {\mathfrak g}_{Ad\circ \rho})$. (Think of rescaling the group $G$, so that in the limit it becomes its Lie algebra ${\mathfrak g}$ and the homomorphism condition for $\rho_i$'s becomes a cocycle condition for $\zeta$.)

Note they Weyl's arguments deal with finitely-generated groups, while your group $K$ is compact and infinitely generated, so you have to work a bit more and use uniformity of convergence to guarantee that the cocycle $\zeta$ is continuous. Now, if you have a continuous $V$-valued cocycle $\zeta$ of a topological group $K$ (where $V$ is a topological vector space), it gives you a continuous affine action of $K$ on $V$ by the formula $g\cdot v= L(g)v + \zeta(g)$, where $L(g)$ is the linear action of $g$ on $V$. In your case, $V$ is the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak g}$ of $G$ and the linear action of $K$ on $V$ is via composition of $Ad$ and $\rho$. Since $K$ is compact, the action on the finite-dimensional space $V$ in question will be isometric for some choice of an inner product, thus, by taking the center of a $K$-orbit on $V$ (with respect to the invariant Euclidean metric), we conclude that the affine action of $K$ has a fixed point. In other words, the cocycle $\zeta$ is a coboundary.

Now, the space of continuous coboundaries $B^1_{c}(K, V)$ is tangent to the orbit of $\rho$ under the group $G$ acting on representations $K\to G$ via conjugation (see Weil's paper). If, again, $K$ were finitely-generated, the space of cocycles would be finite-dimensional and you could take a complementary subspace ${\mathcal H}^1(K, V)\subset Z^1(K, V)$ to $B^1(K, V)$ and postcompose the representations $\rho_i$ with the action of $G$ by conjugation, so that the sequence $\rho_i$ converges to $\rho$ in a conical neighborhood of ${\mathcal H}^1(K, V)$. This would ensure that the cocycle $\zeta$ cannot be a coboundary, thereby giving you a contradiction. In your setting, you maye have to do some analysis to make sure that this argument works (again, using uniformity of convergence).

One possible simplification would be to take a finitely-generated dense subgroup $F$ in $K$ (it always exists: The proof goes back to Hausdorff-Banach-Tarsky paradox) for the last part of the argument and argue with the restriction of the cocycle $\zeta$ and representations $\rho_i$ to $F$, thereby reducing the problem to finite-dimensional one.

  • $\begingroup$ This is very helpful! Though I'm a little confused by the penultimate paragraph, since it seems that by this point we've shown that $Z^1=B^1$. Looking at Weil's paper, it seems that the deformation theory already tells us that $\mathrm{Hom}(K,G)$ is a manifold (assuming $K$ finitely generated), and so we are done once we have $H^1=0$. $\endgroup$ – Charles Rezk Mar 7 '13 at 14:22
  • $\begingroup$ Charles: Yes, you are absolutely right. I lost track of the fact that in your setting $Hom(K, G)$ is a real-analytic variety (as a homomorphism for connected $K$ is determined by the homomorphism of Lie algebras), so things are easier than I thought. Thus, everything reduces to the fact that $H^1_{cont}(K, {\mathfrak g})=0$, as in Weil's paper. There is one issue you need to check though: Uniform convergence of representations implies $C^1$-convergence (in order to use Lie algebras). But, if you use the topology of $C^1$-convergence, this will not be a problem. $\endgroup$ – Misha Mar 7 '13 at 23:01

Here is a proof sketch using cohomological ideas. The argument is in four main steps:

I. General theory of families of Lie algebra homomorphisms.

II. The case of a semisimple $G$.

III. The case of a torus (here is a major gap in my argument)

IV. combining both cases.

A preliminary observation: if $H$ is the full linear group of a complex vector space, then the result is well-known, because up to conjugacy, a homomorphism $G \to H$ is given by its character; and the set of characters is a discrete subspace of the space of all smooth maps $G \to \mathbb{C}$.

I. For arbitrary Lie algebras, $Hom_{Lie -alg} (\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{h})$ is a real algebraic variety and thus it is locally path- connected. Therefore, nearby homomorphisms can be connected by smooth families of homomorphisms (I am not entirely sure whether this is true, but it seems so).

Now consider a smooth family $f_t$, $t \in \mathbb{R}$, of Lie algebra homomorphisms. We study the problem of finding $h: \mathbb{R} \to H$ such that $f_t (X) = Ad (h(t)) f_0 (X)$ holds for all $t$ and $X \in \mathfrak{g}$. If $f_t$ is the derivative of a smooth family of group homomorphisms $\phi_t$, then $h(t)$ conjugates $\phi_0$ to $\phi_t$ and thus solves the original problem.

Let $F_t$ be the derivative of $f_t$ with respect to $t$. Differentiating the equation $[f_t X,f_t Y]=f_t [X,Y]$ shows that $F_t\in Hom (\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{h})$ satisfies $F_t ([X,Y])= [F_t (X);Y]-[F_t (Y);X]$. This means that $F_t$ is a $1$-cocycle in the Chevalley-Eilenberg complex for $H^{\ast}(\mathfrak{g};f_t)$. By the cohomology I mean cohomology of $\mathfrak{g}$ with coefficients in $\mathfrak{h}$, viewed as a $\mathfrak{g}$-module via $f_t$.

We can consider the collection of all Chevalley-Eilenberg complexes $C^{\ast} (\mathfrak{g},f_t)$ as a complex of vector bundles on the real line; denote the vector bundles by $C^{\ast}(\mathfrak{g},f)$. The derivatives $F_t$ are a smooth family of $1$-cocycles and $[F_t]$ is a family of cohomology classes, smooth in a certain sense. I say that $[F_t]$ is uniformly trivial if there is a smooth family $H_t$ of $0$-cochains such that $[f_t (X);H_t]=F_t (X)$ for all $t$ and all $X \in \mathfrak{g}$ (this means that $d H_t =F_t$, but in a ''uniform way'').

Suppose that the cohomology class $[F_t]$ is uniformly trivial. Then

$$f_t (X) = \int_{0}^{t} F_s (X) ds = - \int_{0}^{1}[H_s;f_s (X)] ds;$$

in other words $f_t (X)$ solves the ODE $\frac{d}{dt} f_t (X) = - [H_t;f_t(X)]$ with initial value $f_0$. Another solution of the same ODE is $Ad (h(t)) f_0(X)$, where $h(t) \in H$ solves $\frac{d}{dt} h(t)= H_t$. So $f_t$ is conjugate to $f_0$. Vice versa, if $Ad (h(t)) f_0(X)$, then $[F_t]$ is uniformly trivial.

If $f_t$ is the derivative of a group homomorphism $G \to H$ and $G$ is compact, then pointwise triviality ($[F_t]=0$ for each $t$) implies uniform triviality. This is by the preliminary observation, which implies that $d_0:C^0 (\mathfrak{g},f) \to C^1 (\mathfrak{g},f)$ has constant rank and so its image is a vector bundle (pass to the complexification of $\mathfrak{h}$, which is unproblematic as we are only interested in the dimension of the invariant subspace). Thus we can pick a smooth $r: im (d_0) \to C^0 (\mathfrak{g},f)$ with $d_0 r = id$. Choosing $H_t:= r (F_t)$ solves the problem. Thus we arrive at

THEOREM: ''If $f_t: \mathfrak{g} \to \mathfrak{h}$ is a family of homomorphisms of Lie algebras and $H$ a Lie group with Lie algebra $\mathfrak{h}$, then there is a smooth map $h: \mathbb{R} \to H$ with $f_t = Ad (h(t))f_0$ if and only if the obstruction cocycle $[F_t]$ is uniformly trivial.''

ADDENDUM: ''If $G$ is a compact Lie group with Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ and if $f_t$ is the derivative of a smooth family of homomorphisms $G \to H$, then pointwise triviality of $[F_t]$ implies uiform triviality.''


Assume $G$ is semisimple. For each representation $V$ of $\mathfrak{g}$, we have an isomorphism $H^{\ast} (\mathfrak{g};V) \cong H^{\ast} (\mathfrak{g};V^{\mathfrak{g}})$, because of the compactness of $G$. But $H^1 (\mathfrak{g})=0$ since $G$ is semisimple, and so the cohomology class $[F_t]$ is zero, and by the addendum, it is uniformly trivial. Thus by the theorem, nearby homomorphisms are conjugate if $G$ is semisimple.


Assume $G=T$ is a torus (sketch). Let $V$ be the universal cover (equal to $\mathfrak{t}$) and $\Gamma \subset V$ be the kernel; this is a lattice. Smooth families $f_t:\mathfrak{t} \to \mathfrak{h}$ are in bijection with smooth families $\psi_t: V \to H$ and induce families of group homomorphisms $g_t: \Gamma \to H$. As Misha indicates, there is a parallel obstruction theory for such families; with an obstruction in $H^{1}_{group}(\Gamma;\mathfrak{h})$. Consult Weil's paper quoted in Mishas answer.

There is the Van Est isomorphism $H_{Lie}^{\ast} (\mathfrak{t},\mathfrak{h}) \cong H_{smooth} (V,\mathfrak{h})$ to smooth group cohomology and furthermore a restriction $H_{smooth} (V,\mathfrak{h}) \to H^{\ast}_{group}(\Gamma; \mathfrak{h})$; this latter map is an isomorphism. This isomorphism should map the corresponding obstructions onto each other (this is the part of the argument where I do not know the details).

So a family of group homomorphisms $V \to H$ is constant up to conjugacy iff the restriction to the lattice $\Gamma$ is constant up to conjugacy. If the family $V \to H$ is the universal cover of a family $T \to H$, then the restriction to $\Gamma$ is constant; thus $T \to H$ is constant up to conjugacy.


Consider an arbitrary compact $G$. Without loss of generality, we can pass to a finite cover and thus assume $G=T \times K$, $T$ a torus and $K$ semisimple. Consider a family of group homomorphisms $\phi_t:G \to H$, with Lie algebra maps $f_t$ and obstruction cocycle $F_t$ as above. By the solution of the problem for $T$, the restriction $F_t|_{\mathfrak{t}}$ is uniformly trivial. But by the Künneth formula, the restriction $H^1 (\mathfrak{g} ) \cong H^1 (\mathfrak{k})\oplus H^1 (\mathfrak{t})\to H^1 (\mathfrak{t})$ is an isomorphism. Therefore, $[F_t]$ is trivial and thus uniformly trivial, again by the addendum.

Afterthought: It is probably better to study the whole question in the context of smooth cohomology. A family $\phi_t:G \to H$ should give an obstruction class in $H^{1}_{smooth} (G; \mathfrak{h})$. If $G$ is compact, this space is trivial by invariant integration.


How's this for another sketch? I don't know if it's "modern". It's a homemade attempt by another simple algebraic topologist.

Let $f:K\to G$ and $f_1:K\to G$ be continuous homomorphisms, where $K$ is a compact group and $G$ is a Lie group. There is a continuous action of $K$ on $G$ given by $f$, which we denote by writing $g^x=f(x)^{-1}gf(x)$. Define $h:K\to G$ by $f_1(x)=f(x)h(x)$. The fact that $f_1$ is another homomorphism means that $$ h(xy)=h(x)^yh(y). $$ Call $h$ a crossed homomorphism if it satisfies this equation. Assume that $f_1$ is close to $f$. This means that $h$ is close to the constant function taking all of $K$ to the identity in $G$. We want $a\in G$ such that $f_1(x)=a^{-1}f(x)a$. This is equivalent to $$ h(x)=a^xa^{-1}.$$ So forget about $f$; the problem is to show that if $K$ acts continuously on $G$ by homomorphisms then any small crossed homomorphism $h:K\to G$ can be expressed in this way for some $a$.

Actually $G$ acts on the set of crossed homomorphisms $h$ as follows: given $a\in G$ and $h$, let $h'(x)=(a^x)^{-1}h(x)a$. So the problem is to show that if $h$ is small then some $a$ takes it to the trivial map.

First look at the case where $G$ is abelian. Switching to additive notation, we have $G$ acting linearly on a finite-dimensional vector space and the problem is to show that if $h$ is such that $$h(xy)=h(x)^y+h(y)$$ then there exists $a$ such that $$h(x)=a^x-a.$$ Let $-a$ be the average $Av_x h(x)$. Then $$ -a=Av_x h(xy)=Av_x (h(x)^y + h(y))=-a^y+h(y).$$ Thus $h(x)=a^x-a$.

Now for the general case: use linear coordinates in $G$ near the identity, writing the group multiplication as $x\ast y=x+y+Q(x,y)$ where $|Q(x,y)|\le |x||y|$ if $|x|$ and $|y|$ are small enough. So we have $K$ acting on a neighborhood of $0$ so as to preserve the multiplication $\ast$, and we have a small $h$ such that $$ h(xy)=h(x)^y\ast h(y)$$ and we want to be able to modify $h$ into $$ h'(x)=(a^x)^{-1}\ast h(x)\ast a$$ so as to make it $0$. Do it in steps. First, again let $a$ be the average of $h$. Now, modulo second-order terms, averaging $ h(xy)=h(x)^y\ast h(y)$ over $x$ again we have $a=a^y+h(y)$. That is, if we modify $h$ by this $a$ then the $h'$ that we get is zero modulo second-order terms. If $h$ is small enough, $|h(x)|\le \epsilon $, then $|h'(x)|\le \epsilon ^2$.

Repeating this infinitely often and taking a limit, surely this gives $0$ as the result of acting on the original $h$ by some $a\in G$, the infinite product of smaller and smaller elements..

  • $\begingroup$ I'm worried about averaging $h(x)=h(x)^y*h(y)$ over $x$. In the local coordinates, $x\mapsto x^y$ isn't linear, and a non-linear transformation might not play well with the integral. $\endgroup$ – Charles Rezk Mar 8 '13 at 15:24
  • $\begingroup$ That is the worrisome part, isn't it? But I believe that the error should just give more second-order terms. $\endgroup$ – Tom Goodwillie Mar 8 '13 at 16:47

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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