In John Lee's book Introduction to Smooth Manifolds, there is the following Theorem.

Theorem 7.35 (Characterization of Semidirect Products). Suppose $G$ is a Lie group, and $N,H\subseteq G$ are closed Lie subgroups such that $N$ is normal, $N\cap H=\{e\}$, and $NH=G$. Then the map $(n,h)\mapsto nh$ is a Lie group isomorphism between $N\rtimes_\theta H$ and $G$, where $\theta:H\times N\to N$ is the action by conjugation: $\theta_h(n)=hnh^{-1}$.

The proof is left as an exercise so I cannot verify if I am correct, but I believe that it is unnecessary to assume that $H$ is a closed Lie subgroup. It appears that we only need $H$ to be an immersed Lie subgroup of $G$ (but $N$ still needs to be closed). Am I correct?

Here is my proof without assuming that $H$ is closed:

Proof. We first show that $\theta$ is smooth. Since $N$ is normal, we have $\theta_h(H\times N)\subseteq N$. Moreover, $N$ is an embedded submanifold of $G$ since it is closed (Theorem 7.21), and $H\times N$ is an immersed submanifold of $G\times G$, so the conjugation map $C:G\times G\to G$, $C(a,b)=aba^{-1}$ restricts to a smooth map $\theta:H\times N\to N$ (Corollaries 5.27 and 5.30). Moreover, for each $h\in H$, $\theta_h:N\to N$ is a Lie group isomorphism, so $\theta$ is an action by automorphisms and hence defines a semi-direct product $N\rtimes_\theta H$. Now, the map $$F:N\rtimes_\theta H\to G,\quad F(n,h)=nh$$ is smooth since it is the restriction of the multiplication map $m:G\times G\to G$ to the immersed submanifold $N\times H$ of $G\times G$. Moreover, $F$ is a Lie group homomorphism since $$F((n,h)(n',h'))=F(nhn'h^{-1},hh')=nhn'h^{-1}hh'=nhn'h'=F(n,h)F(n',h').$$ Therefore, $F$ has constant rank (Theorem 7.5) so, by the Global Rank Theorem, to show that it is a diffeomorphism it suffices to show that it is bijective. But if $F(n,h)=nh=e$ then, $h^{-1}nh=h^{-1}\in N\cap H=\{e\}$, so $h=e$ and $n=e$. Thus, $F$ is injective, and also surjective since $NH=G$. $\tag{Q.E.D.}$


You're right, but note that $H$ is automatically closed since it's the preimage of $\{1\}\times H$ under the diffeomorphism $G\to N\times H$, so there's no harm in adding this hypothesis.

  • $\begingroup$ I agree, but then you need the theorem without the closedness assumption to prove that $H$ is necessarily closed. In a situation where $H$ is not a priori closed, you are stuck if you only have the above version of the theorem. (Such a situation happened to me; that's why I asked this question.) $\endgroup$ – Spenser Jun 10 '15 at 20:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Spenser: You're right. I hadn't realized that you could get away with the weaker hypothesis. I'll file that away on my list of things to change if I ever decide to publish a third edition. $\endgroup$ – Jack Lee Jun 11 '15 at 18:37
  • $\begingroup$ @JackLee Thank you very much Professor Lee. $\endgroup$ – Spenser Jun 11 '15 at 18:54

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.