Consider a vector bundle $V\to E\to X$ with fiber $V$, with structure group $G$, and $X$ path-connected. Consider a connection $\nabla$ on $E$. Then for any loop $L$ in $X$, based at $p$, we have a mapping: $$ hol: L\mapsto hol(L)\in Aut(V), $$

the holonomy map, which gives us the (linear) transformation of vectors after parallel transport around the loop $L$. Its image $Hol(\nabla)$ (dropping the reference to the base point) is a subgroup of $Aut(V)$.

If $X$ is simply connected, then it is known that $Hol(\nabla)$ is a path-connected Lie subgroup of $Aut(V)$. (See for example "Riemannian Holonomy Groups and Calibrated Geometry" by D. Joyce, chapter 2.)

This can be seen in the following way: a continuous homotopy $L_s, s\in[0,1]$ between two loops $L_0$ and $L_1$ defines a continuous curve in $Hol(\nabla)$, given by: $$ \gamma:s\mapsto \gamma_s= hol(L_s). $$

Therefore, homotopic loops have path-connected images in $Hol(\nabla)$.

My question is: how further can we go?

Between points in $Hol(\nabla)$, having a continuous curve that joins them is an equivalence relation. If we denote by $\pi_0(Hol(\nabla))$ the equivalence classes of such relation, we have a well defined map $hol^1:\pi_1(X)\to \pi_0(Hol(\nabla))$. In fact, if two loops are homotopic, their images lie in the same class.

$\pi_0$ has no group structure defined (would it be possible to define it?), so our map $hol^1$ is not a morphism of groups.

Now, a 2-dimensional homotopy $S^2\to X$ can be thought of a homotopy $L_s$ of loops, like before, but where both $L_1$ and $L_0$ are trivial (while for generic $s$, $L_s$ may not be trivial). The curve $s\mapsto hol(L_s)$ now defines a closed loop in $Hol(\nabla)$, based at the identity. A homotopy between two 2-dimensional homotopies in $X$ defines a homotopy of loops in $Hol(\nabla)$. In particular, we can define a mapping $hol^2:\pi_2(X)\to \pi_1(Hol(\nabla))$. It is well defined, because as we saw $hol$ preserves homotopy of different orders.

So in general, I would expect that $hol$ defines mappings: $$ hol^k:\pi_k(X)\to \pi_{k-1}(Hol(\nabla)). $$

Moreover, for $k>0$, $\pi_k$ are groups, and since composing homotopies of order $k$ in $X$ corresponds to composing homotopies of order $k-1$ in $Hol(\nabla)$ (and the image of trivial homotopies are trivial), the maps $hol^k$ are morphisms at least for $k>1$. So I would say:

The holonomy map defines morphisms $hol^k:\pi_k(X)\to \pi_{k-1}(Hol(\nabla))$.

This would imply:

A bundle $V\to E\to X$ with holonomy $Hol(\nabla)$ can exist only if every $\pi_k(Hol(\nabla))$ admits as a subgroup a homomorphic image (i.e. a quotient) of $\pi_{k+1}(M)$.

Is this reasoning correct? Is it helpful? Has it been done anywhere?

EDIT: For $TS^2$, the tangent bundle to the 2-sphere, and the Levi-Civita connection, the Gauss-Bonnet theorem can be stated in this (beautiful!) way: since $Hol(\nabla)=SO(2)\cong S^1$,

The morphism $hol^2: \pi_2(S^2) \to \pi_1(S^1)$ induces an isomorphism $\Bbb{Z}\to 2\Bbb{Z}$.

Does this result generalize? Thank you!

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think the implication provides no real restriction -- at least in the way it is stated, since the quotient of $\pi_{k+1}(M)$ contained in $\pi_k(Hol(\nabla))$ might be the trivial group. $\endgroup$ Mar 20, 2014 at 9:34
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I think what you are saying is that the holonomy defines a continuous map of the loop space $\Omega X$ onto $Hol(\nabla)$, so there are induced homomorphisms $\pi _k(\Omega X)=\pi _{k+1}(X)\rightarrow \pi _k(Hol(\nabla))$. As Ulrich points out, I am afraid that doesn't give you any restriction on the possible holonomy groups. $\endgroup$
    – abx
    Mar 20, 2014 at 9:47
  • $\begingroup$ @Ulrich Right. Except in some interesting cases, like the sphere (see the edit). Is the rest of the reasoning true? Where has it been done? $\endgroup$
    – geodude
    Mar 20, 2014 at 10:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @abx: nice! Another remark: the map from $\Omega X$ to $Hol(\nabla)$ is a "group homomorphism"; usually, this imposes conditions on the possible maps. $\endgroup$ Mar 20, 2014 at 11:46

1 Answer 1


I can try to answer to myself, using the very helpful comments you wrote. (You are all still free to write an answer yourselves!)

Notice: For convenience, here I will denote by $hol^k$ what in the question I denoted by $hol^{k+1}$. So we look for group morphisms $hol^k:\pi_{k+1}(X)\to \pi_k(Hol(\nabla))$.

First of all, there is a very natural answer to:

Is it possible to define a group structure on $\pi_0(Hol(\nabla))$?

Yes. Since $Hol_0(\nabla)$ is a normal subgroup of $Hol(\nabla)$, we simply define: $$ \pi_0(Hol(\nabla)) := \frac{Hol(\nabla)}{Hol_0(\nabla)}. $$

Holonomies of loops of the same homotopy class differ by an element of $Hol_0(\nabla)$. This is easy to see, if loops $L,L'$ are homotopic, take their composition with reversed $L$: $L'L^{-1}$ is homotopic to the trivial loop. Therefore $hol^0$ maps homotopic loops into the same element of $\pi_0(Hol(\nabla))$.

It is naturally a morphism, because if $L,L'$ are loops: $$ hol(LL') = hol(L)hol(L'), $$

where the composition on the left member is loop concatenation, and the composition in the right member is group multiplication on $Hol(\nabla)$. The quotients $\pi_1(X)$ and $\pi_0(Hol(\nabla))$ inherit the multiplication law, which for $\pi_1(X)$ becomes a group law, and therefore we have a morphism. (Of course, trivial loops are mapped into the identity.)

Does $hol$ define morphisms $\pi_{k+1}(X)\to\pi_k(hol(\nabla))$?

Yes. As abx pointed out, $hol:\Omega X\to Hol(\nabla)$ defines maps: $$ hol^k:\pi_k(\Omega X)\to \pi_k(Hol(\nabla)), $$

where $\Omega X$ is the loop space of $X$, and $\pi_k(\Omega X) = \pi_{k+1}(X)$.

Does this impose restrictions on the bundles and connections?

Hardly, as was pointed out by abx, Ulrich Pennig, and Konrad Waldorf, because the image of $hol^k$ can be trivial.

This, nevertheless, and the remark on $TS^2$, raises the following question:

What happens when $Im(hol^k)$ is not trivial? What properties does it have?

Or, following the example of $TS^2$:

Are characteristic classes linked to the "size" of $Im(hol^k)$?

When I gather enough details of the problem, I will ask a new question, and post the link here.

EDIT: I asked the question, here it is. EDIT 2: It doesn't generalize in the way I (wrongly) thought. I'll ask more when I find something actually interesting.


Your Answer

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

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