As far as I am aware, for a group to be the direct product of groups it is sufficient that $G\cong H\times K$ as a set and $H$ and $K$ are normal in $G$. For Lie groups, normal groups corresspond to ideals of the Lie algebra. For $G$ compact, given an ideal $\mathfrak{h} \subset \mathfrak{g}$, we can always find a complementary ideal $\mathfrak{k}$ such that $\mathfrak{g}\cong\mathfrak{k}\oplus\mathfrak{h}$ by using an appropriate inner product, however, in order for the the group to be a direct product proofs require that $G$ be simply connected. As it seems we can get the product structure on $G$ from using the fact that $exp$ is surjective, I am not sure where the requirement for $G$ to be simply connected comes in... Additionally, if $G$ is not simply connected, is there a condition one can add to ensure the group is still a direct product?


First, your original supposition is wrong: If we let $G = \mathbb{Z}_4$ and $H = K = \mathbb{Z}_2$, then $G\cong H\times K$ as sets (since both are $4$ element sets), but $G$ is not a non-trivial direct product.

In the Lie group setting, it makes more sense to ask that $G\cong H\times K$ as smooth manifolds. There are still counterexamples:

Let $G' = S^1\times SU(2n)$ and $G = G'/\pm(1,I)$. We let $H$ be the image of the $S^1$ factor in $G'$ in $G$, and $K$ be the image of the $SU(2n)$ factor.

Because $H$ and $K$ are images of normal subgroups under a surjective map, they are normal subgroups of $G$. Further, we claim that $G$ is diffeomorphic to $H\times K$.

To make this diffeomorphism, we first let $\phi:S^1\rightarrow SU(2n)$ be given by $\phi(z) = \operatorname{diag}(z,z,z...,z, \overline{z}, \overline{z},...,\overline{z})$, where there are $n$ copies of $z$ and $\overline{z}$. Then $\phi$ is a homomorphism, embedding $S^1$ into $SU(2n)$.

Now, let $f:G'\rightarrow H\times K$ be given by $f([z,A]) = (z^2, \phi(z)A)$.

This is well defined: $f([-z,-A]) = (z^2, \phi(z)A) = f([z,A])$.

This is injective: if $(z^2, zA) = (w^2, wB)$, then $z^2 = w^2$ which forces $z = \pm w$. If $z = w$, clearly $A=B$. If $z = -w$, clearly $A = -B$, so $(w,B) = -(z,A)$, so $[w,B] = [z,A]$.

This is surjective: Given $(w,B)\in H\times K$, let $z$ be any square root of $w$. Then $f([z, \phi(z^{-1})B]) = (w,B)$.

This is smooth: If one precomposes with the map $G'\rightarrow G\rightarrow H\times K$, one gets the map $(z,A)\mapsto (z^2, zA)$, which is obviously smooth. Since $G'\rightarrow G$ is a submersion, $f$ must be smooth as well.

The inverse is smooth: At a point $(w,B)\in H\times K$, we pick a square root of $w$ and call it $z$. Then, locally, the inverse of $f$ at $(w,B)$ looks like $([\sqrt{w}, \sqrt{w}^{-1} B])$. Since the square root function, viewed as a map $\mathbb{C}\setminus\{0\}\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ is locally smooth (if we keep picking the same branch), this is smooth.

As far as your intuition regarding $\exp$, the issue is that we could have $\exp(h) = \exp(k)\neq e$ for some $h\in \mathfrak{h}\subseteq \mathfrak{g}$ and $k\in\mathfrak{k}\subseteq \mathfrak{g}$. For the $G$ example above, the vector $h = \pi \in \mathfrak{h}\oplus\mathfrak{k}$ and $k = \pi I$ exponentiate to $(-1, I)$ and $(1,-I)$ in $H\times K$. But in $G$, these get identified to the same (non-identity) point.

Finally, to answer your last question:

Suppose $G$ is any compact Lie group for which $Z(G) = \{e\}$, i.e., $G$ is centerless. If $\mathfrak{g} = \mathfrak{h}\oplus\mathfrak{k}$ with both $\mathfrak{h}$ and $\mathfrak{k}$ ideals, then $G$ is a direct product.

(So, for example, $SO(4)/\pm I$ must be a direct product, and indeed, it is $SO(3)\times SO(3)$.)

Proof: Let $\pi: G'\rightarrow G $ denote the universal cover of $G$. Using the group theoretic fact that $\pi(Z(G'))\subseteq Z(G) = \{e\}$, it follows that $Z(G')\subseteq \ker \pi$. The reverse inclusion $\ker \pi \subseteq Z(G')$ is always true for the universal cover (see this answer by Jack Lee and the references he gives). Thus, $Z(G') = \ker \pi$. Of course, writing $G' = H\times K$ (where $H$ and $K$ are the unique simply connected groups with Lie algebras $\mathfrak{h}$ and $\mathfrak{k}$), it follows that $Z(G') = Z(H)\times Z(K)$.

Then $G = G'/\ker \pi = (H\times K)/(Z(H)\times Z(K)) = (H/Z(H)) \times (K/Z(K))$ is a direct product, as claimed. $\square$

Edit Your claim in the comment is correct:

Theorem Assume $G$ is a connected compact Lie group with Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$, which decomposes as a sum of two ideals $\mathfrak{h}\oplus \mathfrak{k}$. Assume further that $H:=\exp(\mathfrak{h})$ and $K:=\exp(\mathfrak{k})$ intersect only at $e\in G$. Then $G$ is Lie isomorphic to $H\times K$.

Proof: Consider $f:H\times K\rightarrow G$ given by $f(h,k) = hk$. This is clearly smooth because the multiplication in $G$ is smooth. This map induces an isomorphism on the Lie algebra level, so it follows from general Lie theory that $f$ is a covering.

However, $f$ is injective: if $f(h,k) = e$, then $hk = e$, so $h = k^{-1} \in H\cap K =\{e\}$. An injective covering map is a diffeomorphism, so we are done.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for such a thorough and informative answer! $\endgroup$ – R Mary Jul 24 '18 at 15:31
  • $\begingroup$ Dear Jason, sorry to bother you again after you put such trouble into your answer, but just so I know I have fully understood: the problem here is that even though the lie algebra split $\mathfrak{g}\cong\mathfrak{k}\oplus\mathfrak{h}$, we don't necessarily have $exp(\mathfrak{k})\cap exp(\mathfrak{h})=\{e\}$. So if $G$ is not simply connected, checking this would be enough i.e. the statement "if the lie algebra of $G$ is the sum ideals $\mathfrak{h}, \mathfrak{k}$ and $exp(\mathfrak{k})\cap exp(\mathfrak{h})={e}$, then $G$ is the direct product of Lie groups" is true? $\endgroup$ – R Mary Jul 24 '18 at 17:47
  • $\begingroup$ I am not certain, but I think that's right. That's certainly the condition you need on the group level to guarantee that that $G$ is isomorphic to $H\times K$. (That is, for an abstract group $G$, if you have normal subgroups $H,K\subseteq G$ with $H\cap K = \{e\}$, then $G\cong H\times K$). I am not 100% confident about the topological aspects, but I would bet everything works. I'll think about it for a bit and then edit the answer if I can get all the details straight. $\endgroup$ – Jason DeVito Jul 24 '18 at 17:53

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.