3
$\begingroup$

Let $G$ be a Lie group with Lie algebra $\mathfrak g$, and let $M$ be a smooth manifold. Suppose $G$ acts on $M$, $G \to \text{Diff}(M)$. This naturally induces an action $\mathfrak g \times M \to M$ by $X \mapsto \exp(X) \cdot m$.

Suppose we have a symplectic form $\omega$ on $M$, then if the $G$-action leaves $\omega$ invariant, this implies that the $\mathfrak g$-action also leaves $\omega$ invariant. My question is about the converse: under what conditions does $\mathfrak g$-invariance of $\omega$ imply $G$-invariance?

Surely it would be sufficient if the exponential map is a surjection. However, in the notes I'm reading it's stated that the $G$-invariance follows when $G$ is connected, and there are examples of connected Lie groups for which the exponential map is not surjective. I'm having trouble proving this claim. How does $G$-invariance follow from $\mathfrak g$-invariance for connected $G$?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$
  1. The exponential map $\textrm{exp}:\mathfrak g\to G$ is a local diffeomorphism at $0$ and therefore $\textrm{exp}(\mathfrak g)$ is a neighborhood of $\textrm{exp}(0)=e$ in $G$.
  2. Obviously the elements of $G$ acting sympctically on $(M,\omega)$ constitute a subgroup $H$. The left multiplications are diffeomorphisms of $G$ onto itself, and $\{g\cdot H:g\in G\}$ is a partition of $G$, therefore: $$H\textrm{ is open in }G\Rightarrow H\textrm{ is closed in }G,$$ $$H\textrm{ is open in }G\Leftrightarrow H\textrm{ is a neighborhood of }e\textrm{ in }G.$$

In conclusion, denoting by $G_0$ the connected component of $e$ in $G$, if $H\supseteq\textrm{exp}(\mathfrak g)$ then by 1. and 2. we get that $H$ is closed-open subset of $G$ containing $e$, therefore $H\supseteq G_0$.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

How does $G$-invariance follow from $\mathfrak{g}$-invariance for connected $G$?

This follows from the following fact (for topological groups):

The identity component $G_0$ of $G$ is generated by an open neighbourhood of the identity.

In other words, take an open neighbourhood $U$ of $1$, then any $g \in G_0$ can be given by $g_1 \dots g_k$ for some $g_1, \dots, g_k \in U$.

The $\mathfrak{g}$-invariance implies "$U$-invariance". So $G_0$-invariance follows.

(I think you can find the proof of the above fact in books on topological groups or Lie groups.)

$\endgroup$

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.