I have a filtered vector bundle $\underline{\omega} \subset \mathcal{H}$ over a space $X$. The subbundle $\underline{\omega}$ is rank $1$, and the full bundle $\mathcal{H}$ is rank $2$. I also have a connection on the full vector bundle $\nabla \colon \mathcal{H} \to \mathcal{H} \otimes \Omega^1_X$, which does not restrict to a connection on the subbundle $\underline{\omega}$. (i.e., even if $s$ is a section of $\underline{\omega}$, we expect that $\nabla(s) \not\in \underline{\omega} \otimes \Omega^1_X$.)

I know that we can use the Leibniz rule and $\nabla$ to induce connections on each of $\operatorname{Sym}^k\mathcal{H}$, $\operatorname{Sym}^k\mathcal{H}^*$, and $\left(\bigwedge^2 \mathcal{H} \right)^{\otimes k}$ for any $k$, which taken together give a connection on the frame bundle $\operatorname{Frames}(\mathcal{H})$, a $\operatorname{GL}_2$-torsor. It does not give a connection on $\operatorname{Frames}(\underline{\omega})$, a $\mathbb{G}_m$-torsor, since it doesn't even give a connection on $\underline{\omega}$.

However, there is one more torsor around: the "filtered frame bundle" $N$, a torsor for the upper triangular matrices $B$, consisting locally of bases $(\omega_1,\omega_2)$ for $\mathcal{H}$ with the condition that $\omega_1 \in \underline{\omega}$. Can $\nabla$ determine a connection on $N$? Or does a connection on the "filtered frame bundle" $N$ determine a connection on $\operatorname{Frames}(\underline{\omega})$?

One extra buzzword that I know is relevant to the situation is Griffiths transversality, which states in this case that the induced operator $\underline{\omega}^{k-r} \otimes \operatorname{Sym}^r\mathcal{H} \hookrightarrow \operatorname{Sym}^k\mathcal{H} \xrightarrow{\nabla} \operatorname{Sym}^k\mathcal{H} \otimes \Omega^1_X$ actually lands in $\underline{\omega}^{k-r-1} \otimes \operatorname{Sym}^{r+1}\mathcal{H} \otimes \Omega^1_X \subset \operatorname{Sym}^k \mathcal{H} \otimes \Omega^1_X$. Does this relate in any way to the answer to the question above?

EDIT: Maybe another question, trying to get at the same information. What's the difference between a connection on $\mathcal{H}$ that restricts to a connection on the subspace $\underline{\omega}$, versus one that simply satisfies Griffiths transversality? If the second does not induce a connection on the $B$-torsor $N$, what kind of differential operator does it induce?


1 Answer 1


I think I've figured this out. The way that I tend to manipulate connections on $G$-torsors $p \colon E \to X$ is by thinking about the equivalent data of a $G$-equivariant splitting of the exact sequence $$ 0 \to p^*\Omega^1_X \to \Omega^1_E \to \Omega^1_G \to 0. $$ If $E^\prime \subset E$ is a $G^\prime$-torsor for $G^\prime \subset G$, there's a way to "restrict the connection" in certain cases (especially when $G^\prime$ is an open subgroup of $G$). When I see this done, the new splitting is said to be $G^\prime$-equivariant because $G^\prime \subset G$. But the $GL_2$-equivariance should make the operator descend, e.g., to a connection $\operatorname{Sym}^k\mathcal{H} \to \operatorname{Sym}^k\mathcal{H} \otimes \Omega^1_X$, while the $B$-equivariance should give connections $\underline{\omega}^r \otimes \operatorname{Sym}^k\mathcal{H} \to \underline{\omega}^r \otimes \operatorname{Sym}^k\mathcal{H} \otimes \Omega^1_X$, which it does not e.g. for $k=0$ by assumption. So even if we can still get a splitting of that exact sequence, it shouldn't be $B$-equivariant.

My vague, naive reasoning for this is that $GL_2$ treats all vectors in the representation $\operatorname{Sym}^k\mathcal{H}$ the same, while $B$ does not. So when you move to a different element of $\operatorname{Sym}^k\mathcal{H}$, $GL_2$ has no problem compensating, but $B$ can't. I would love to hear if this reasoning is correct, and it would be useful to hear if all of this is wrong.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Your argument is a little garbled to me, but the fact is true: a connection preserving a sub-bundle is the same as the corresponding principal connection restricting to the filtered frame bundle. I suggest you write the meaning of these things out in local coordinates to really get a feel for what is going on. $\endgroup$ Dec 1, 2020 at 17:46

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.