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.

Cosnider the following scaling action: $$ \epsilon . x = e^{2\epsilon}x, \ \ \ \epsilon. y = e^{\epsilon}y. $$

I have to prove that this is a one paraemter group action. What does this mean? I can show that this is invariant under the scaling transformation i.e. scaling symmetry but I don't know how to show it's a one parameter group action. Any help appreciated.

Thanks

share|improve this question
add comment

2 Answers

A one parameter group action is an action of $\mathbb{R}$ on some space (usually linear action on a vector space). In this case, it's a representation from $\mathbb{R}$ into the invertible linear transformations of $\mathbb{R}^2$, since you have a real number acting on pairs of real numbers.

So this problem amounts to showing that the map $$\rho:\epsilon\mapsto \begin{pmatrix}e^{2\epsilon} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{\epsilon}\end{pmatrix}$$ is a homomorphism from $\mathbb{R}$ to $GL(2;\mathbb{R})$. That is, show that $\rho(s+t) = \rho(s)\rho(t)$.

share|improve this answer
add comment

I find the notation rather odd, but I'll run with it, and further extend it so that $\epsilon.(x,y)=(e^{2\epsilon}x,e^\epsilon y)$. Then you need to prove that $(\epsilon+\eta).z=\epsilon.(\eta.z)$, and also that $0.z=z$. A more fancy way to say this is that the action is a group homomorphism from the additive group of real numbers to a group of transformations of the pairs $(x,y)$.

I said I find the notation odd: As you cansee from the equation I gave, there is a clashed between addition and the dot, as the latter looks more multiplicative than additive. So you suffer some cognitive upset when you use this notation.

share|improve this answer
    
I can see that the notation is odd. When I write $\epsilon . x$ I have meant $\epsilon$ acting over $x$. –  user45503 Jan 12 '13 at 16:54
    
Yes, I gathered as much. It is, however, unhelpful that $\epsilon.$ means different things depending on whether it acts on $x$ or on $y$. Finding good notation is often difficult, but always important, as bad notation gets in the way of clear thinking! (I edited my answer a bit, as an earlier edit had put the additional $0.z=z$ in the wrong place. Also clarified my variant of the notation, which is marginally better than the original.) –  Harald Hanche-Olsen Jan 12 '13 at 17:00
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.