Skip to main content
1 of 2
Greg Kuperberg
  • 56.6k
  • 10
  • 203
  • 282

This answer is a little bit redundant with the other two answers given so far, but here goes anyway.

It is easier to describe the real Grassmannian case. We can look at the Grassmannian $\text{Gr}(n,k)$, and suppose that $2k \le n$; if not then you can pass to the opposite Grassmannian. If $V$ and $W$ are two $k$-planes in $\mathbb{R}^n$, then there a set of $k$ 2-dimensional planes that are each perpendicular to each other and each intersect $V$ and $W$ in a line. Call the angles between these lines $\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_k$. Then in the connecting geodesic $V_t$ with $V_0 = W$ and $V_1 = V$, the angles are instead $t\theta_1,\ldots,t\theta_k$. This is an explicit description that is basically equivalent to Mariano's remark about invariant complements.

The complex version has the same system of angles, but complexified lines, 2-planes, and $k$-planes. The "angle" between two lines in a 2-plane can be defined as the geometric angle between their slopes plotted on the Riemann sphere. Actually these angles are twice as large as the angles in the real case in the previous paragraph, but that makes no difference.

Greg Kuperberg
  • 56.6k
  • 10
  • 203
  • 282