I am trying to see if it's possible to construct a left invariant isotropic Riemannian metric on $GL_n^+$. (the group of $n \times n$ invertible real matrices with positive determinant)

(When by isotropic I mean that the sectional curvature $k(p,\sigma)$ for $\sigma \subseteq T_pM$ does not deped on $\sigma$. By left invariance it does not depend on $p$ as well).


Is there a simple proof such a metric cannot exist?

Here is a possible explanation, but I suspect there is a much simpler argument:

Suppose such a metric $g$ exists. Then the left invariance implies $(GL_n^+,g)$ is complete. Hence it's universal covering space is complete*, simply connected, and with constant curvature , so it must be diffeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^{n^2}$ or $\, \mathbb{S}^{n^2}$.

Since compact spaces can cover only compact spaces, this rules out $\mathbb{S}^{n^2}$.

So the universal cover of $GL_n^+$ must be $\mathbb{R}^{n^2}$.

However, Milnor states here that the universal cover of a Lie group $G$ is not homeomorphic to Euclidean space iff $G$ contains a compact non-abelian subgroup**. Since $GL_n^+$ contains $SO(n)$ we have a contradiction.

*I am not entirely sure why completeness of a Riemannian manifold implies completeness of the universal cover. Do we lift the geodesics?

**I actually don't know how to prove this. Any hints or references would be welcome. Milnor states this in theorem 3.4.

  • $\begingroup$ Well, The original argument that required using the result on non-parallelizability of spheres was eliminated quite trivially (by me). However, I would still like to see if there is any simpler way of showing this. (without using the classification of simply connected, complete, constant curvature manifolds) $\endgroup$ – Asaf Shachar Nov 8 '15 at 21:57

$GL_n^{+}$ deformation retracts onto $SO(n)$. The universal cover of this (for $n \ge 3$) is a double cover, since $\pi_1(SO(n)) = \mathbb{Z}_2$. It's known as the Spin group $Spin(n)$, and in particular, because it's a double cover it's compact. Hence it's certainly not homotopy equivalent to a Euclidean space (e.g. because its top $\mathbb{Z}_2$ homology is nontrivial), which means the universal cover of $GL_n^{+}$ can't be either.

Various other arguments are possible. For example, we also know that (again, for $n \ge 3$) $\pi_3(Spin(n)) \cong H_3(Spin(n)) \cong \mathbb{Z}$, so the same is true of the universal cover of $GL_n^{+}$.

  • $\begingroup$ 1) I guess you are using the fact that homotopy equivalence of the spaces implies homotopy equivalence of the covers? 2) Why the top $Z_2$ homology detects compactness? ( I only know about cohomology in this sense mathoverflow.net/questions/101554/…) $\endgroup$ – Asaf Shachar Nov 11 '15 at 23:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 1) Yes. 2) Every closed manifold is orientable over $\mathbb{Z}_2$. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Nov 12 '15 at 0:33

Here is a topological argument ruling out covering by $\mathbb R^{n^2}$. However, it might be an overkill for this statement.

Assume $n>2$. If $\mathbb R^{n^2}$ were the universal cover of $GL^+_n$, we have $GL^+_n=K(\pi, 1)$, where $\pi=\pi_1(GL_n^+)$. At the same time, $\pi_1(GL_n^+)=\pi_1(SO(n))=\mathbb Z_2$, so $K(\pi, 1)=\mathbb R P^{\infty}$, which is clearly not homotopy equivalent to a finite dimensional space.

  • $\begingroup$ What's $K(\pi, 1)$ ? $\endgroup$ – Bey Alexander Jul 23 '18 at 3:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $K(\pi,1)$ is a topological space with $\pi_1=\pi$ and $\pi_k=0$ for $k\ge 2$. This space is unique up to homotopic equivalence in the category of CW complexes. $\endgroup$ – Yury Ustinovskiy Jul 25 '18 at 11:13

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.