3
$\begingroup$

Let $M$ be a connected smooth n-dimensional manifold and $G$ a lie group acting smoothly on $M$. for $x\in M$, the orbit $G\cdot x=\{g(x)\mid g\in G\} $ is a sub-manifold of $M$ and if the action is proper, namely the inverse image of every compact subset of $M\times M$ under the map $$ G\times M\rightarrow M\times M: (g,p)\mapsto(p,g(p))$$ is compact. Please prove the space of orbits is a Hausdorff space.\ Thanks in advance.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

The crucial fact is that for every compact $K \subset M$, the set

$$G\cdot K = \{ g(x) : x \in K, g \in G\}$$

is closed. Suppose $y \in \overline{G\cdot K}$. Denote that map $(g,p) \mapsto (p,g(p))$ by $\varphi$. Then, for every compact neighbourhood $C$ of $y$, the set

$$B_C := \varphi^{-1}(K\times C)$$

is compact - since $K\times C$ is compact - and nonempty, since $C$ is a neighbourhood of $y$. The family $\mathcal{B} = \{ B_C : C \text{ compact neighbourhood of } y\}$ has the finite intersection property (since every finite intersection of compact neighbourhoods of $y$ is a compact neighbourhood of $y$), so

$$B_y := \bigcap_{C} B_C \neq \varnothing.$$

But

$$B_y = \bigcap_C \varphi^{-1}(K\times C) = \varphi^{-1}\left(\bigcap_C K\times C\right) = \varphi^{-1}(K\times \{y\}),$$

so there is an $x\in M$ and a $g \in G$ with $\varphi(g,x) = (x,g(x)) \in K \times \{y\}$, and that means $y \in G\cdot K$.

For $K = \{x\}$, that implies that the orbit $G\cdot x$ is closed.

For $x,y \in M$ with $G\cdot x \neq G\cdot y$, we have $G\cdot x \cap G\cdot y = \varnothing$. In particular, since $G\cdot y$ is closed, there is a compact neighbourhood $C$ of $x$ with $C \cap G\cdot y = \varnothing$. That implies $G\cdot C \cap G\cdot y = \varnothing$. $G\cdot C$ is closed, hence there is a neighbourhood $U$ of $y$ with $U \cap G\cdot C = \varnothing$. Then also $G\cdot U \cap G\cdot C = \varnothing$. And that means that the images of $G\cdot C$ and $C\cdot U$ are disjoint neighbourhoods of $G\cdot x$ resp. $G\cdot y$ in $M/G$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Could you check this, Daniel? $\endgroup$ – Pedro Tamaroff Oct 11 '13 at 16:02
  • $\begingroup$ Good, but as commented, saying explicitly what you do wouldn't hurt. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Oct 11 '13 at 16:09

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.