5
$\begingroup$

$\DeclareMathOperator\GL{GL}$Let $M$ be a smooth manifold, $G$ a Lie group and $P(M,G)$ a principal $G$-bundle and $\rho: G \to \GL(V)$ of $G$ a representation with $V$ finite-dimensional $\mathbb{F}$-vector space (where $\mathbb{F} = \mathbb{R},\mathbb{C}$) with inner product $\langle\cdot \, , \cdot \rangle_V$. Let $g$ be a metric in the associated vector bundle $E(M,V,G,P)$.

Now, in Kobayashi-Nomizu "Foundations of differential geometry" on page 117 it is stated the following:

The set $$Q:= \{u \in P \, | \, g(u\xi,u\eta) = \langle\xi, \eta\rangle_V \ \forall \ \xi,\eta \in V \}$$ is a closed submanifold of $P$ and has a canonical structure as principal $H$-bundle over $M$, where $$H := \rho^{-1}(O(V, \langle\cdot\, , \cdot\rangle_V)) = \{a \in G \ | \ \langle \rho(a)\xi, \rho(a)\eta\rangle_V = \langle\xi, \eta \rangle_V \ \forall \ \xi,\eta \in V\}.$$

I want to proof this fact and did the following:

It is clear that $$Q\cdot h = Q$$ for all $h \in H$. Further it is clear that for $u,u' \in Q$ with $\pi(u) = \pi(u')$ and $u' = ug$ for some $g \in G$ it follows that $g \in H$. Also $H$ is clearly a closed subgroup of $G$.

What is missing is that for all $x \in M$ there should be an open neighborhood $U \subseteq M$ of $x$ and a local section $\sigma: U \to P$ of $P$ with $$\sigma(U) \subseteq Q.$$ Why should this exist? Why is even $Q \neq \emptyset$? Is this statement above even true? In Kobayashi-Nomizu it is stated that it is "easy to verify".

I tried Gram-Schmidt but it didn't work:

If $G$ is extended by $\rho$ to the whole $\GL(V)$ then it should work by choosing an local orthonormal frame $(e_i)$ of $E$ and local section $\sigma$ of $P$ on $U$. Then $e_i(\pi(u)) = u\cdot f_i(u)$ for $u \in P$ for some $G$-equivariant smooth $f_i: \pi^{-1}(U) \to V$ and $g(e_i,e_j) = \delta_{ij}$. Now choose a smooth function $b: U \to \GL(V)$ such that $b(x)^{-1} (f_1(\sigma(x)),...,f_n(\sigma(x)))$ is an orthonormal basis of $V$ for all $x \in U$. Set $\tilde\sigma := \sigma\cdot b$ and $\tilde f_i = b(\cdot)^{-1}f_i$. Then $e_i = \tilde \sigma \cdot \tilde f_i$ and thus $g(e_i,e_j) = \delta_{ij} = \langle\tilde f_i,\tilde f_j \rangle_V$.

The problem: $b$ has image in $\GL(V)$ and not in $G$.

Also a simple example didn't work:

Take $M = P$, $G = 1$ and $V = \mathbb{R}$. Then $E = M \times \mathbb{R}$. Take the standard inner product in $\mathbb{R}$. Take some positive smooth function $f: M \to (0,\infty)$ with $f(x) \neq 1$ for all $x \in M$ and define $g_x((x,s),(x,t)) := f(x)st$ for $x \in M$ and $s,t \in \mathbb{R}$. Then $g$ is a metric in $E$ and $Q = \emptyset$. So the above is not true.

What is wrong here? What am I missing? Is this an error in Kobayashi-Nomizu?

(See also https://math.stackexchange.com/q/5011091).

$\endgroup$
5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ An 'erratum' in mathematical publishing is usually a document correcting errors, I think you mean to ask simply if this is an error. $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts
    Commented yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidRoberts Yes, I thought in Latin it just means error and it is the singular form of errata. I thought only errata is the page or document which lists the errors with corrections. But I will change it. $\endgroup$
    – psl2Z
    Commented yesterday
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Well, maybe if there is only a single error to fix, the Latinists would be happier if one used 'erratum' rather than 'errata'. Though I just learned that 'erratum' is for when the mistake is the publisher's, and 'corrigendum' for when the mistake is due to the author(s): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erratum $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts
    Commented yesterday
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think the results in this section hold if $\rho \colon G \to \mathrm{GL}(V)$ is a surjective submersion, in which case you can use Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization to get your section. Otherwise, the construction does not go through in general. Furthermore, the claim that a metric on the vector bundle associated to a principal bundle $P \to M$ over a paracompact manifold has a metric connection in $P$ also seems to be false. For example, take $P = M = V = \mathbb{R}$ and $g_x(v, w) = vw\exp(x)$. $\endgroup$
    – user527492
    Commented 16 hours ago
  • $\begingroup$ @user527492 Do you know if this or a similar result also appear in other differential geometry texts? Maybe they have forgotten some assumptions? I only have the old edition and don't know if it maybe occurs in the errata of newer versions. It feels that it is quite unlikely that after 60 years there is still an error like this in a standard reference, so I am sceptical. Maybe I am missing something stupid. $\endgroup$
    – psl2Z
    Commented 15 hours ago

0

You must log in to answer this question.