Let $\phi:\mathcal{G}\rightarrow \mathcal{K}$ and $\psi:\mathcal{H}\rightarrow \mathcal{K}$ be morphisms of Lie groupoids.

We define weak pullback/2-fibre product corresponding to $\phi:\mathcal{G}\rightarrow \mathcal{K}$ and $\psi:\mathcal{H}\rightarrow \mathcal{K}$ to be a groupoid $\mathcal{G}\times_{\mathcal{K}}\mathcal{H}$ whose object set is $$(\mathcal{G}\times_{\mathcal{K}}\mathcal{H})_0=\{(a,\alpha,b)| a\in \mathcal{G}_0, b\in \mathcal{H}_0,\alpha:\phi(a)\rightarrow \psi(b) \in \mathcal{K}_1\}.$$ Given $(a,\alpha,b ),(a',\alpha',b')\in (\mathcal{G}\times_{\mathcal{K}}\mathcal{H})_0$ we declare $$\text{Mor}((a,\alpha,b),(a',\alpha,b'))=\{u:a\rightarrow a'\in \mathcal{G}_1, v:b\rightarrow b'\in \mathcal{H}_1| \alpha'\circ \phi(u)=\psi(v)\circ \alpha\}.$$

We then see that $$(\mathcal{G}\times_{\mathcal{K}}\mathcal{H})_0= \mathcal{G}_0\times_{\phi,\mathcal{K}_0,s}\mathcal{K}_1\times_{t\circ pr_2,\mathcal{K}_0,\psi}\mathcal{H}_0$$

$$(\mathcal{G}\times_{\mathcal{K}}\mathcal{H})_1=\mathcal{G}_1\times_{t\circ \phi,\mathcal{K}_0,s}\mathcal{K}_1\times_{t,\mathcal{K}_0,s\circ \psi}\mathcal{H}_1.$$ Source, target maps are given by $$s(u,\gamma,v)=(s(u),\gamma\circ \phi(u),s(v))$$ $$t(u,\gamma,v)=(t(u),\psi(v)\circ \gamma, t(v))$$

Moerdijk (in page no $5$) says that assuming $t\circ pr_2:\mathcal{G}_0\times_{\mathcal{K}_0}\mathcal{K}_1\rightarrow \mathcal{K}_0$ is a submersion confirm that $\mathcal{G}\times_{\mathcal{K}}\mathcal{H}$ is a Lie groupoid. All I can see is $(\mathcal{G}\times_{\mathcal{K}}\mathcal{H})_0$ and $(\mathcal{G}\times_{\mathcal{K}}\mathcal{H})_1$ are manifolds (being pullbacks under submersions) if $t\circ pr_2:\mathcal{G}_0\times_{\mathcal{K}_0}\mathcal{K}_1\rightarrow \mathcal{K}_0$ is a submersion.

But, what I do not understand is, why does $s,t$ are smooth?

For source map, first and third coordinates are submersions. Second projection $\gamma\circ \phi(u)$ does not seem to be submersion, unless I assume $\phi:\mathcal{G}_1\rightarrow \mathcal{K}_1$ is a submersion. Similarly, to prove target map is submersion, first and third projections are submersions but second projection is $\psi(v)\circ \gamma$ does not seem to be submersion unless I assume $\psi:\mathcal{H}_1\rightarrow \mathcal{K}_1$ is a submersion.

I think we should also assume $\phi:\mathcal{G}_1\rightarrow \mathcal{K}_1$ and $\psi:\mathcal{G}_1\rightarrow \mathcal{K}_1$ are submersions.

Does it follow with out assuming $\phi,\psi$ are submersions?

If $\phi$ is submersion, then, $$\mathcal{G}_1\times_{t\circ \phi,\mathcal{K}_0,s} \mathcal{K}_1\rightarrow \mathcal{K}_1\times_{t,\mathcal{K}_0,s}\mathcal{K}_1$$ given by $(u,\gamma)\mapsto (\phi(u),\gamma)$ is submersion. As multiplication map $\mathcal{K}_1\times_{t,\mathcal{K}_0,s}\mathcal{K}_1\rightarrow \mathcal{K}_1$ is submersion (thanks to David Roberts), the composition map given by $$(u,\gamma)\mapsto (\phi(u),\gamma)\mapsto \gamma\circ \phi(u)$$ is submersion.

So, for $(u,\gamma,v)\mapsto \gamma\circ \phi(u)$ to be submersion, we need $\phi$ to be submersion even after using multiplication map is submersion.

What am I missing here?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The composition map in a finite-dimensional Lie groupoid is a submersion. I've not seen this anywhere, I had to prove it myself. $\endgroup$ – David Roberts Feb 15 '19 at 12:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oh.. Thanks. I will check it :) @DavidRoberts $\endgroup$ – Praphulla Koushik Feb 15 '19 at 13:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DavidRoberts I see why it is submersion... Given a Lie group $G$ the multiplication map $m:G\times G\rightarrow G$ is a submersion... Same idea for Lie groupoid also.. the multiplication map (composition) is submersion... so source, target maps for groupoid mentioned above are submersions... $\endgroup$ – Praphulla Koushik Feb 15 '19 at 15:48
  • $\begingroup$ Allow me to consider a special case of this question: is it necessary for $M \to N \leftarrow M'$ to be submersions for $M\times_N M'$ to be a manifold? In fact no, since transversality is a sufficient condition. And, if $M$ is a closed submanifold of $N$, and $M'=M$, then $M\times_N M = M\cap M = M$ is a manifold, and the derivative of both inclusions is nowhere surjective. $\endgroup$ – David Roberts Mar 27 '19 at 21:37
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidRoberts that’s true. For pullback to be manifold, all we need is intersection is transversal.. Here I am trying to see if $t\circ pr_2: \mathcal{G}_0\times_{\mathcal{K}_0}\mathcal{K}_1\rightarrow \mathcal{K}_0$ being submersion is sufficient to prove $\mathcal{G}\times_{\mathcal{K}}\mathcal{H}$ is a Lie groupoid.... $\endgroup$ – Praphulla Koushik Mar 29 '19 at 3:21

This answer is too big to fit into a comment, and doesn't quite answer the question.

Lemma Given a diagram $$ \array{ U & \to & V & \leftarrow &W \\ \downarrow && \downarrow && \downarrow \\ X & \to & Y & \leftarrow & Z } $$ of finite dimensional manifolds and submersions, then the induced map $U\times_V W \to X\times_Y Z$ is a submersion.

This is proved by taking $(u,w) \in U\times_V W$ and looking at the diagram of tangent spaces and seeing that the induced linear map at $(u,w)$ is surjective.

You can iterate this lemma to deal with the case of maps between limits of longer zig-zags, like $A \to B \leftarrow C \to D \leftarrow E$.

The source and target maps for the groupoid you are looking for are almost examples of such maps between pullbacks. What you need is a generalisation of this above lemma that applies in your situation. Do the source map, without loss of generality, the target map then follows immediately. If you pick a point in the arrow space of the pullback, look at the diagram of tangent spaces at all the other points in the image of that point. You will get a diagram of vector spaces, and it should be possible to see why the map you are interested in is then surjective. As this was for a generic point, the source map has surjective derivative everywhere.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ In the diagram, it should be sufficient that the downward arrows are submersions, as well one pair of the horizontal arrows, that is, either both left-pointing or both right-pointing arrows, so that the pullbacks exist. $\endgroup$ – David Roberts Mar 29 '19 at 6:25
  • $\begingroup$ I will write down the details and will reply soon. Thank you :) $\endgroup$ – Praphulla Koushik Apr 4 '19 at 7:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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