16
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand{\R}{\mathbf R}$ Let $V$ be an $n$-dimensional vector space and $k$ be an integer less than $n$. A $k$-frame in $V$ is an injective linear map $T:\R^k\to V$. Let the set of all the $k$-frames in $V$ be denoted by $F_k(V)$. It is clear that $F_k(V)$ is an open subset of $L(\R^k, V)$.

Define a relation $\sim$ on $F_k(V)$ as follows: We write $S\sim T$ for two members $S$ and $T$ in $F_k(V)$ if and only if $\text{span }T=\text{span }S$.

It can be easily seen that $S\sim T$ if and only if there is a $\tau\in GL_k(\R)$ such that $T=S\circ \tau$.

The Grassmannian manifold $GR_k(V)$ is defined as the quotient space $F_k(V)/\sim$.

I know that the projection map $\pi:F_k(V)\to GR_k(\R)$ is an open map.

I am trying to prove that $GR_k(V)$ is a Hausdorff space.

I proved the above by noting that the above statement is just this: Given linearly independent lists $(u_1, \ldots, u_k)$ and $(v_1, \ldots, v_k)$ in $V$ which do not span the same subspace, there are neighborhoods $U_i$'s of $u_i$'s and $V_j$'s of $v_j$'s such that whenever $(u_1',\ldots, u_k')\in U_1\times \cdots\times U_k$ and $(v_1',\ldots, v_k')\in V_1\times \cdots\times V_k$, the lists $(u_1', \ldots, u_k')$ and $(v_1', \ldots, v_k')$ are linearly independent and do not span the same subspace.

I had a rather long proof of this. Basically I established that given hyperplanes $H$ and $K$ in $V$, there is a hyperplane $P$ in $V$ such that $P$ is "between" $H$ and $K$.

I am looking for a more direct approach than recasting the problem in the aformentioned way.

edit: Also, I am trying to avoid the use of matrices and coordinates as much as possible.

Thanks.

EDIT.

I finally was able to put down the kind of proof I was looking for. Here it is.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ This answer - math.stackexchange.com/a/225711/59575 - outlines why the Grassmannian is a manifold. In particular, it shows the Grassmannian is locally Euclidean, hence Hausdorff. $\endgroup$
    – Zach H
    Jun 3, 2015 at 11:49
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Are you suggesting that any locally Euclidean space is Hausdorff? $\endgroup$ Jun 3, 2015 at 12:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I was, which is a mistake. This approach would need some additional work. $\endgroup$
    – Zach H
    Jun 3, 2015 at 12:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ To show $G_{k}(V)$ is Hausdorff, it may be easiest to equip $V$ with an inner product and argue (using Gram-Schmidt, for example) that every subspace has an orthonormal basis. Then you can view the Grassmannian as the quotient space $O(n)/O(k) \times O(n - k)$, and use compactness of the groups to your advantage. $\endgroup$ Jun 3, 2015 at 13:04

4 Answers 4

10
$\begingroup$

Here's an alternative way to deal with the topology : work with orthonormal $k$-frames instead! That is, pick an inner product $\langle-|-\rangle$ on $V$ and study the by the Stieffel manifold of orthonormal $k$-frames $$V_k(V)=\lbrace (v_1,\dots,v_k)\in V^k\mid\langle v_i\mid v_j\rangle=\delta_{ij}\rbrace$$ The equivalence relation induced by that on $F_k(V)$ now coincides with the one coming from the natural action of the matrix group $O(k)$. The advantage of this approach is that the quotient is automatically Hausdorff:

Lemma. Suppose $G$ is a compact group (Hausdorff not needed), and $X$ is a Hausdorff space with a continuous group action $\rho:G\times X\to X$. Then $X/G$ is Hausdorff.

Proof. Suppose $x,y\in X$ belong to different $G$-orbits. Our hope is to find two disjoint open neighborhoods of $x$ and $y$ that are unions of orbits. For every $x'\in G.y$, there exists disjoint open sets $V_{x'}\ni x'$ and $V_y^{x'}\ni y$. By continuity of the action, for every $g\in G$ there exist open sets $O_g\ni g$ and $V_{x}^g\ni x$ such that $\rho(O_g\times V_{x}^g)\subset V_{g.x}$. By compactness of $G$, there is a finite open covering $G=\cup_{i=1}^NO_{g_i}$. Set $W_x=\cap_{i=1}^NV_{x}^{g_i}$ and $W_y=\cap_{i=1}^NV_{y}^{g_i.x}$, the claim is that $\rho(G\times W_x)$ and $\rho(G\times W_y)$ are disjoint open sets, and it's easily checked.


Thus the grassmannian of $k$-planes, defined as the quotient the Stieffel-manifold under the action of the matrix group $O(k)$ is Hausdorff. But does this answer your question? It does!

First of all note that the grassmannian, as you define it, is compact. This is because there is a contiuous surjection $V_k(V)\hookrightarrow Fr_k(V)\rightarrow Gr_k(V)$ : every subspace admits an orthonormal basis. Also, the Gram-Schmidtification map $$\mathrm{GS}:Fr_k(V)\to V_k(V)$$ is continuous, and compatible with the equivalence relations, and induces a continuous bijection between your definition of the Grassmannian and mine $$\overbrace{\widetilde{\mathrm{GS}}:\underbrace{Fr_k(V)/\sim}_{\text{compact}}\;\longrightarrow\;\underbrace{V_k(V)/\sim}_{\text{Hausdorff}}}^{\text{continuous bijection}}$$ Hence $\widetilde{\mathrm{GS}}$ is a homeomorphism, and your grassmannian is Hausdorff.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for this answer. I will need some time to study it because a lot of things are new to me. I have on question. When you write "the equivalence relation by that no $F_k(V)$ coincides with.." do you mean that the equivalence relation on $V_k(V)$ gotten by restricting $\sim$ on $V_k(V)$ coincides with the natural action of $O_k(V)$? $\endgroup$ Jun 3, 2015 at 16:40
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. ${}{}{}{}$ $\endgroup$ Jun 3, 2015 at 16:41
  • $\begingroup$ Looks great on first look. Wasn't as difficult as I thought. Disturbingly neat! $\endgroup$ Jun 3, 2015 at 16:49
  • $\begingroup$ "Disturbingly neat" ^^ oh really? But you're right, it's pretty mundane stuff. $\endgroup$ Jun 3, 2015 at 16:53
  • $\begingroup$ I cannot call it mundane! From where I am this seems quite masterful. How do achieve this kind of awesomeness? $\endgroup$ Jun 4, 2015 at 0:36
3
$\begingroup$

One simple, clean way to show that the Grassmannian is Hausdorff is to define a metric on it. Here are the steps in the proof:

  1. Let $S$ be the unit sphere in $V$, and let $d$ be a metric on $S$. If $A\subset S$ is closed and $p\in S$, define $$ d(p,A) \;=\; \min\{d(p,a) \mid a\in A\}. $$ It is easy to show that $d(p,A)$ is a continuous function of $p$.

  2. Now, if $A,B\subset S$ are closed, define $$ d_H(A,B) \;=\; \max\biggl(\max_{a\in A} \,d(a,B),\, \max_{b\in B}\,d(b,A)\biggr) $$ Note that $d_H(A,B) = 0$ if and only if $A=B$.

  3. Finally, if $H$ and $K$ are $k$-dimensional subspaces of $V$, define $$ \rho(H,K) \;=\; d_H(H\cap S,K\cap S) $$ Then it suffices to prove that $\rho\colon \textit{GR}_k(V)\times \textit{GR}_k(V) \to\mathbb{R}$ is continuous. Since $\textit{GR}_k(V)$ is defined as a quotient space, this is the same as proving that the composition $$ F_k(V) \times F_k(V) \to \textit{GR}_k(V)\times \textit{GR}_k(V) \to\mathbb{R} $$ is continuous, which should be relatively quick. (The details depend on how you have defined the topology on $L(\textbf{R}^k,V)$.)

Of course, $d_H$ is actually a metric on the collection of closed subsets of $S$ (the Hausdorff distance), so $\rho$ is actually a metric on $\textit{GR}_k(V)$. Indeed, if you use the geodesic metric $d$ on $S$, then $\rho$ is precisely the angle between $k$-dimensional subspaces. However, we don't need to prove this if the goal is just to establish that $\textit{GR}_k(V)$ is Hausdorff.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

There are at least two approaches:

  1. Any $(n - k)$-plane $A \in Gr_{n - k}(V)$ determines a natural chart on the (open) subset $U_A \subset Gr_k(V)$ consisting of planes $B \in Gr_k(V)$ transverse to $A$ (i.e. such that $A \oplus B = V$): We get a map $$\Phi_A: \text{Hom}(A, B) \cong B \otimes A^* \to U_A$$ that sends any linear map $T: A \to B$ to its graph, $$\text{graph } T := \{(x, T(x)) : x \in A\} \subset A \oplus B = V.$$ If we fix bases of $A, B$, we can identify $\text{Hom}(A, B)$ with $M((n - k) \times k, \Bbb R) \cong \Bbb R^{(n - k) k}$, furnishing coordinates on $U_A$. At least when $k \neq 0, n$, for any $k$-planes $B, C \in Gr_k(V)$ there is some $(n - k)$-plane $A \in Gr_{n - k}(V)$ transverse to both, and hence $B$ and $C$ are both in $U_A$, in which case (because Euclidean space is Hausdorff) the topology separates $B$ and $C$. (Of course, there are more details to check, namely that the charts $(U_A, \Phi_A^{-1})$ are compatible with the smooth structure on $Gr_k(V)$ implicit in the frame construction of that space.)

  2. It's easy to see by choosing bases that $GL(V)$ acts transitively on $Gr_k(V)$, and with a little more work one can show that this action is smooth. If we choose a basis $(E_1, \ldots, E_n)$ of $V$, then the stabilizer of the $k$-plane $\langle E_1, \ldots, E_k \rangle \in Gr_k(V)$ is the Lie subgroup $H$ consisting of block upper triangular matrices of the form $$\pmatrix{\ast & \ast \\ 0 & \ast}$$ in $GL(n, \Bbb R) \cong GL(V)$, where the lower-left zero block has size $(n - k) \times k$. So, we can identify $$Gr_k(V) \cong GL(V) / H ;$$ in particular, $H$ is closed, and so $Gr_k(V)$ admits a unique smooth manifold structure such that the natural quotient map $GL(V) \to Gr_k(V)$ is a smooth submersion.

$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks fro the generous answer. I have one question. Can you argue that $U_A$ is open in $GR_k(V)$ under the definitions I am using for the Grassmannian. $\endgroup$ Jun 3, 2015 at 13:50
  • $\begingroup$ You're welcome, I hope you found it useful. And yes, that shouldn't be too hard; one could, say, show that the quotient map defined by the relation $\sim$ is open and then show that the preimage of $U_A$ under that quotient is open. $\endgroup$ Jun 3, 2015 at 14:08
  • $\begingroup$ Okay then let me try doing that later. Am really sleepy. Will get back in a few hours. $\endgroup$ Jun 3, 2015 at 14:10
  • $\begingroup$ I am facing the same kind of difficulty proving that $U_A$ is open in $GR_k(V)$ which I was facing in proving Hausdorffness of $GR_k(V)$. My argument would be on the same lines as what I have mentioned after the block quote in my question. Do you have an easy argument. I have a short proof of the fact that the projection map $\pi:F_k(V)\to GR_k(V)$ is an open map. $\endgroup$ Jun 3, 2015 at 16:26
  • $\begingroup$ Since $\pi$ is open, it suffices to show that $\pi^{-1}(U_A)$ is open in $F_k(V)$, that is, that the set of $k$-frames spanning a plane transverse to $A$ is open: Pick a frame $(X_1,\ldots,X_{n - k})$ of $A$; for any $k$-frame $(Y_a)$, $A$ and $\langle Y_1,\ldots,Y_k\rangle$ are transverse iff (w.r.t. any, equivalently, every basis) the matrix $$Q[(Y_a)] := \pmatrix{X_1&\cdots &X_{n-k}&Y_1&\cdots Y_k}$$ has nonzero determinant. So, $\pi^{-1}(U_A)$ is the preimage of the open set $\Bbb R - \{0\}$ under the continuous the map $F_k(V)\to\Bbb R$ defined by $(Y_a)\mapsto\det Q[(Y_a)]$. $\endgroup$ Jun 3, 2015 at 17:42
3
$\begingroup$

Another 'neat' proof that has not been mentioned already (I hope) goes as follows:

You can view $Gr(k,V)$ as equivalence classes of $n\times k$ matrices of full rank. Trivialised sets $U_\alpha$ are those matrices $X$ which give invertible $k\times k$ matrices $X_\alpha$ by selecting the rows $\alpha$. Here $\alpha$ is a multi-index of $k$ integers between $1$ and $n$. You would map these matrices to $\mathbb{R}^{k(n-k)}$ by changing coordinates to make the $\alpha$ submatrix the identity. It is 'easy' to see this is a cover with polynomial transition functions.

To show this space is Hausdorff, consider two points $A$, $B$ in $U_\alpha$, $U_\beta$ respectively, neither one being in the intersection. Define functions $h_{\alpha\beta}:U_\alpha \rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ and $h_{\beta\alpha}:U_\beta \rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ by $h_{\alpha\beta}(X):=det(X_{\beta}X_\alpha^{-1})$ and $h_{\beta\alpha}(X):=det(X_{\alpha}X_\beta^{-1})$ respectively. These are well defined and multiply to give $1$ on $U_\alpha\cap U_\beta$.

Since neither $A$ nor $B$ is in the intersection, they respectively map to $0$ by the functions. The claim is that $h_{\alpha\beta}^{-1}(-1,1)$ and $h_{\beta\alpha}^{-1}(-1,1)$ are disjoint open neighbourhoods for $A$ and $B$. To see they are disjoint, use the fact that $h_{\alpha\beta}$ and $h_{\beta\alpha}$ multiply to give $1$ on $U_\alpha \cap U _\beta$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the response. It's probably because I was trying to avoid the use of matrices that this answer was not posted. Also, I had found the kind of proof I was looking for, which I linked in the question later. $\endgroup$ Dec 23, 2016 at 1:36
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, I should of read the question entirely. $\endgroup$ Dec 23, 2016 at 16:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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