$\DeclareMathOperator\At{At}\DeclareMathOperator\Obj{Obj}\DeclareMathOperator\Mor{Mor}$According to https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Atiyah+Lie+groupoid#idea the Atiyah Lie groupoid $\At(P)$ of a principal $G$ bundle $\pi:P \rightarrow X$ is a category for which $$\Obj(\At(P))=\lbrace \pi^{-1}(x): x \in X \rbrace$$ and $$\Mor(\At(P))=\big\lbrace f:\pi^{-1}(x)\rightarrow \pi^{-1}(y): \text{$f$ is a $G$ equivariant morphism}\big\rbrace.$$ Structure maps of this category are easy to guess. Now it is easy to see that $\At(P)$ is indeed a groupoid.

Although it is mentioned in https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Atiyah+Lie+groupoid#idea that the Atiyah Lie groupoid is indeed a Lie groupoid, I am not able to guess appropriate smooth structures on $\Obj(\At(P))$ and $\Mor(\At(P))$ such that the source and the target maps are surjective submersions and other structure maps are smooth.

Is there any natural choice of such smooth structures on both $\Obj(\At(P))$ and $\Mor(\At(P))$ such that $At(P)$ is a Lie groupoid so that if someone talks about the Atiyah Lie groupoid of a principal $G$ bundle then he/she is precisely assuming those natural choice of smooth structures on $\Obj(\At(P))$ and $\Mor(\At(P))$?

I would also be very grateful if someone point me to any literature in this direction.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @LSpice I was asking about the definition given in the section idea ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Atiyah+Lie+groupoid#idea not ncatlab.org/nlab/show/…. So are you saying both are actually same notion and the definition given in the idea section is just an informal notion? $\endgroup$ Jul 27, 2020 at 22:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, that is what I am saying. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Jul 27, 2020 at 22:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There is no definition in the 'idea' section; it is just an idea, and, as not rigorously defined, cannot be checked against a rigorous definition. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Jul 27, 2020 at 22:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @LSpice Ok I got your point. Thanks. $\endgroup$ Jul 27, 2020 at 22:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The objects as defined on the nLab and on Wikipedia give isomorphic sets. That the morphism sets are the same is less obvious, but it boils down to knowing that a map between principal homogeneous $G$-spaces is determined entirely by its value at a single point. It's worth thinking about the case of a trivialisable bundle first. $\endgroup$ Jul 27, 2020 at 23:42

1 Answer 1


Contrary to what is claimed in the comments, I would argue that the definition given in nLab's Idea section is rigorous enough to be an actual definition in a research-level paper, possibly with an additional phrase thrown in like “The sets of objects and morphisms are equipped with the obvious smooth structures that turn this groupoid into a Lie groupoid.”

Let's see how these smooth structures are constructed. Recall that the set of objects is $\{π^{−1}(x)\mid x∈X\}$, i.e., the set of fibers of $P$. Fibers are in a bijective correspondence with points in the base $X$, and the latter is a smooth manifold.

The set of morphisms is $\{f\colon π^{−1}(x)→π^{−1}(y)\mid \text{$f$ is a $G$-equivariant morphism}\}$. A morphism between two $G$-torsors $U→V$ is uniquely determined by its value $v∈V$ at some point $u∈U$. That is, for any pair $(u,v)∈U⨯V$ there is exactly one morphism that sends $u↦v$. The pair $(gu,gv)$ gives rise to the same morphism $U→V$ as $(u,v)$. It is also easy to see that the converse is true: $(u,v)$ and $(u',v')$ yield the same morphism if there is $g∈G$ such that $(u',v')=(gu,gv)$. Thus, the set of morphisms $U→V$ is $(U⨯V)/G$, where $G$ acts on $U⨯V$ via $g(u,v)=(gu,gv)$. The action of $G$ on $U⨯V$ is a smooth free proper action, so the quotient $(U⨯V)/G$ is a smooth manifold and the quotient map $U⨯V→(U⨯V)/G$ is a submersion.

From here, we see that the set of all morphisms is $(P⨯P)/G$ and therefore possesses a canonical smooth structure. The source and target maps are surjective submersions by the 2-out-of-3 property.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you Sir very much for the answer! $\endgroup$ Jul 28, 2020 at 4:58
  • $\begingroup$ Calling a fibre $X$ if the base is already called $X$ is a bit awkward. I suggest to pick different letters in the middle paragraph, maybe $F_x$ and $F_y$. $\endgroup$ Jul 28, 2020 at 15:02

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.