Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Modified question There was $sl(2,\mathbb R)$ used instead of $su(2)$ in the previous version. Thanks to MattE for pointing it out.

I have seen it claimed many times that $so(4,\mathbb R)=su(2)\times su(2)$. If $C$ is a Cartan subalgebra of $so(2n)$ then the Weyl group on $so(2n)$ is generated by permutations of $(x_1,...,x_n)\in C$ and by negations of even number of $x_i$s. Hence, for $so(4)$, the orbit of $(x_1,x_2)\in C$ under the Weyl group action is $(x_1,x_2), (-x_1,-x_2), (x_2,x_1), (-x_2,-x_1).$

The Weyl group of $su(2)\times su(2)$ is the product of Weyl groups of its two components. Hence, the orbit of $(x_1,x_2)$ in a Cartan subalgebra of $su(2)\times su(2)$ under its Weyl group action is $(x_1,x_2), (-x_1,x_2), (x_1,-x_2), (-x_1,-x_2).$

That looks like a contradiction! Where do I go wrong? You can of course reformulate this question for $SO(4,\mathbb R)=SU(2)\times SU(2)$ or $SO(4,\mathbb C)=SL(2,\mathbb C)\times SL(2,\mathbb C).$


Original question

I have seen it claimed many times that $SO(4,\mathbb R)=SL(2,\mathbb R)\times SL(2,\mathbb R),$ However, the orbit of $(x_1,x_2)$ in a max torus of $SO(4)$ under the Weyl group action is $(x_1,x_2), (x_1^{-1},x_2^{-1}), (x_2,x_1), (x_2^{-1},x_1^{-1}),$ while the orbit of $(x_1,x_2)$ in a max torus of $SL(2)\times SL(2)$ under the Weyl group action is $(x_1,x_2), (x_1^{-1},x_2), (x_1,x_2^{-1}), (x_1^{-1},x_2^{-1}).$

That looks like a contradiction! Where do I go wrong?

share|improve this question
1  
What are your $(x_1, x_2)$ for the $SO(4)$ representation? –  Steven Stadnicki Aug 7 '12 at 16:10
3  
@student One should never edit the question in such a way that renders answers extended to you look irrelevant. This wastes people's effort. I have restored the original question alongside the updated version. –  Sasha Aug 7 '12 at 18:13
2  
Dear student, I think you should complexify your Lie algebras in order for your claimed isomorphism to be true. Regards, –  Matt E Aug 7 '12 at 18:16
1  
Also, there is a question as to whether one's choice of coordinates is necessarily a/the one which makes an isomorphism visible. Sometimes one proves that the "obvious" choice isn't it! –  paul garrett Aug 7 '12 at 20:57
1  
Dear student, I dont' understand your lack of agreement. If it were true that $so(4)$ were the product of $sl_2$ with itself, then by the Lie group/Lie algebra correspondence, the Lie group $SL_2(\mathbb R) \times SL_2(\mathbb R)$ would be a finite cover of $SO(4)$, which it's not. Alternatively, $sl_2(\mathbb R) \times sl_2(\mathbb R)$ is a split Lie algebra, while $so(4)$ is not. Am I blundering? Regards, –  Matt E Aug 7 '12 at 21:37
show 4 more comments

3 Answers 3

up vote 5 down vote accepted

There is a double cover $SU(2) \times SU(2) \to SO(4)$, which induces an isomorphism of Lie algebras $so(3) \times so(3) \cong so(4)$. One convenient way to compute this double cover is in terms of quaternions:

The unit length quaternions are isomorphic to $SU(2)$. If we define the action of $SU(2) \times SU(2)$ on $\mathbb H = \mathbb R^4$ (the space of quaternions) via $(p,q)\cdot v := p v q^{-1},$ it is not hard to check that this action preserves the norm on $\mathbb H$, and in fact induces a double cover $SU(2) \times SU(2) \to SO(4)$.

In terms of this explicit description of the double cover, it won't be hard to compute what happens on Cartan subgroups of the source and target.

share|improve this answer
    
Dear Matt: how do you arrive from $SU(2)\times SU(2)\rightarrow SO(4)$ to $so(3)\times so(3)\cong so(4)$? Is there a typo here? –  Bombyx mori Aug 7 '12 at 22:22
1  
@user32240: Dear user, there is a double cover $SU(2) \to SO(3)$, which is an isomorphism on Lie algebras. So I wrote $so(3)$ rather than $su(2)$, just because I thought the former notation fitted in better to the context of the question. You are free to write $su(2) \times su(2) \cong so(4)$ instead, if you prefer. Regards, –  Matt E Aug 7 '12 at 22:34
    
Dear Matt: Thanks. I was confused by using type $D$ in case for type $C$. Now this is making a lot sense. –  Bombyx mori Aug 8 '12 at 0:02
add comment

This is quite false because the LHS is compact and the RHS is not. (Where have you seen this claimed?)

The correct statement is an isomorphism of Lie algebras; $\mathfrak{so}(4) \cong \mathfrak{su}(2) \times \mathfrak{su}(2)$. This is induced by an exceptional isogeny between corresponding Lie groups, either

$$\text{SU}(2) \times \text{SU}(2) \to \text{SO}(4)$$

or

$$\text{SO}(4) \to \text{SO}(3) \times \text{SO}(3).$$

These are both double covers. The first can be constructed using quaternions and the second can be constructed using the action of $\text{SO}(4)$ on bivectors.

share|improve this answer
1  
FYI, The OP has updated the question based on your answer. Please see the updated question. –  Sasha Aug 7 '12 at 18:15
add comment

I think I figured the relation between Cartan subalgebras of $su(2)\times su(2)$ and $so(4)$. The pair $$\left(\begin{matrix} x_1 & 0\\ 0 & -x_1\end{matrix}\right), \left(\begin{matrix} x_2 & 0\\ 0 & -x_2\end{matrix}\right)$$ in the Cartan subalgebra of $su(2)\times su(2)$ is mapped to $$\left(\begin{matrix} 0 & y_1 & 0 & 0\\ -y_1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & y_2\\ 0 & 0 & -y2 & 0 \end{matrix}\right),$$ where $y_1=x_1+x_2$ and $y_2=x_1-x_2.$ This map is Weyl group equivariant! Thank you all who responded.

share|improve this answer
    
I think the $-y_1$ in the 2nd row, 2nd column should be a $0$, but other wise I think you're exactly right. –  Jason DeVito Aug 8 '12 at 1:21
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.