1
$\begingroup$

Previously I mentioned in Automorphism group of a Lie group $G$ vs that of a double covering group $\tilde{G}$: same or not? that the automorphism group of a Lie group 𝐺 may be the same as that of its double covering group $\tilde{𝐺̃}$. So $1 \to \mathbf{Z}/2 \to \tilde{G} \to G \to 1,$ either if it is (1) a double cover or (2) a universal double cover ($\pi_1(\tilde{𝐺̃})=0$).

More concretely, let us consider the indefinite orthogonal group $O(p,q)$. There are as many as 8 different double covers of $O(p, q)$.

For $p, q \neq 0$, which correspond to the extensions of the center (which is either $\mathbf{Z}/2 \times \mathbf{Z}/2$ or $\mathbf{Z}/4$) by $\mathbf{Z}/2$. Only two of them are pin groups—those that admit the Clifford algebra as a representation. They are called $Pin(p, q)$ and $Pin(q, p)$ respectively. I suppose are these $Pin(p, q)$ and $Pin(q, p)$ are universal double covers, because they are both simply connected.

  • Am I correct that all the others are also simply connected? Thus, they are all universal double covers?

  • Are the automorphism group (including Inn, Out and Aut) of indefinite orthogonal Lie group $G=O(p,q)$ is the same as that of a double covering group $\tilde{G}$?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What is the distinction you mean to make between (1) a double cover and (2) a universal double cover? That is, surely (2) is a subset of (1), so why mention it as an alternative hypothesis? $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Oct 6, 2021 at 22:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also, as repeatedly mentioned by others, a double cover of an SO group need not have the same automorphism group as SO. Is there some way in which that part of your question is different from your two previous questions? (I assume you mean SO rather than O, since, as also pointed out, disconnectedness introduces all kinds of trouble. Although for $p + q$ odd it doesn't matter much.) $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Oct 6, 2021 at 22:40

0

You must log in to answer this question.