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.

Given a topological group $G$ and a space $X$ with a transitive $G$ action, let $G_x$ be the isotropy group of a point. In Folland "A course in harmonic analysis", there is a statement that $X$ is homeomorphic to $G/G_x$, if $G$ is $\sigma$ compact. (Proposition 2.44, page 55)

Are there counter examples? Theo Buehler's answer in the comments: any compact infinite group $X=K$ and $K_d$ being the $K$ with the discrete topology still acts continuously and transitively, but $X \neq K_d$.

I have a certain issue with a proof, which assumes something similar without mentioning $\sigma$ compactness at all. The statement for a closed subgroup $H$ and a compact subgroup $K$ in a locally compact Hausdorff group $G$ with $G = KH$, we have an isomorphism $G \cong K \times H / K \cap H$. They use that $K \times H$ acts transitively on $G$ with $K \cap H$ as isotropy group, but do not mention any $\sigma$ compactness condition. Theo Buehler's counterexample does not apply here, since the groups carry the subspace topology. But why is this argument correct?

share|improve this question
1  
Re: first question. Let $G$ be locally compact non-discrete and let $G_d$ be $G$ equipped with the discrete topology. Let $G_d$ act on $G$ via left translations. –  t.b. Aug 10 '11 at 10:33
1  
For the 2nd question, if $G$ really only locally compact, or locally compact Hausdorff? –  John M Aug 10 '11 at 11:30
    
The group is locally compact Hausdorff. Sorry for that imprecision, but the reference assumes per definition that locally compact groups are Hausdorff, but why are you asking? –  plusepsilon.de Aug 10 '11 at 13:00
    
Hi I was just asking to be sure. For the 2nd result re: G=KH etc, it does feel like we're missing some additional hypothesis here. Maybe Theo can weigh in, but I think that rather than sigma-compact, I think you can get away with 2nd countable - perhaps that's in your 2nd result somewhere? Do you have a reference for it? –  John M Aug 10 '11 at 14:16
1  
ah...in the proof they've "identified", i.e. as sets, not necessarily as isomorphic or homeomorphic. –  John M Aug 10 '11 at 14:43
show 3 more comments

1 Answer

up vote 3 down vote accepted

You didn't specify it, but I think the only way to interpret the second question is the following:

The group $H \times K$ acts on $G$ by $(h,k)g = hgk^{-1}$. Since $G = HK = HK^{-1}$ this action is transitive and the stabilizer of the neutral element is $L = (l,l)$ with $l \in H \cap K$ and clearly $L \cong H \cap K$ is compact as $H$ is closed and $K$ is compact in $G$. Then $G$ is indeed homeomorphic to $(H \times K) \,/\,L$ because we have:

Claim. The action of $H \times K$ on $G$ is proper.

For background and references on proper actions, see my answer on MO. Given this, we have that the orbit map $H \times K \to G$ given by $(h,k) \mapsto hk^{-1} = (h,k)e$ is proper and therefore the map $(H \times K) \,/\,L \to G$ is a proper bijection, hence a homeomorphism since proper maps are closed.

To prove that the action is indeed proper, let $C_1, C_2 \subset G$ be compact. We need to show that $\{(h,k) \in H \times K\,:\,((h,k)C_1) \cap C_2 \neq \emptyset\}$ is relatively compact in $H \times K$. However, this is clear because it is contained in the set $C \times K$ where $C = \overline{\{h \in H\,:\,(hC_1K) \cap C_2 \neq \emptyset\}} \subset H$ is obviously compact.

share|improve this answer
    
This discussion is reminiscent of another either here or MO... Note, for $G$ transitive on $X$, $G_x$ the isotropy group of a point $x\in X$, if we already assume that $G=HG_x$ and that $X\approx H/(H\cap G_x)$, we've assumed away one serious issue, which would need Baire category, I think. Beyond that, countably-based, locally-compact, Hausdorff seems needed for $G$, and $G\times X\rightarrow X$ continuous, and no assumption that the isotropy group is either compact or co-compact. –  paul garrett Aug 10 '11 at 20:28
    
Oh, yes! The 'apocryphal lemma!' Now that you mention it, of course... I should have remembered :) I think it is this discussion you have in mind. Your solenoid notes are still on my big I should read that more attentively stack. –  t.b. Aug 10 '11 at 20:38
1  
Ha! @Theo B. Hahaha! Indeed. And, kind of you to think of solenoid notes... My disappointment is that "kids these days" read "ur-solenoid" (the adelic sequel to the 2-adic version) as "your"... and I get email and paper-mail spam about winding-coil products and seminars. :) –  paul garrett Aug 10 '11 at 23:15
    
... and why does no one remember Mesopotamia, Ninevah, not to mention Sumer... anymore? –  paul garrett Aug 10 '11 at 23:22
    
... What can I say? Things get all the more mysterious when observing that people might know what is meant by writings on the wall, mene mene tekel, u-parsin and relate Nebukhadnezzar to either Babylon or a space-ship-like device in a successful movie named after a linear algebra gadget... Not to mention that many mathematicians know what an Eilenberg-Mac Lane space is but don't know what rôle "your" Solenoid played in the history of category theory... As a side note: googling "ur-solenoid" gives me your notes as a first hit, and the second hit says "ur solenoid is buzzing"... –  t.b. Aug 11 '11 at 1:25
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.