The short answer is that many (most? all?) homogeneous spaces do NOT have such a nice description. In particular, at any point pinM, the set of the G or H invariant vectors is a strict subset of TpM. (Here, and below, I'm assuming G and H are compact - it's all I'm really familiar with)
Here's the quick counterexample when looking for G invariance: Take any HsubseteqG with rank(G) = rank(H). Then the Euler characteristic of G/H is greater than 0. It follows that EVERY vector field has a 0, and hence, the only G-invariant vector field is trivial (since G acts transitively).
For (much more) detail, including how it often fails even with rank(H)<rank(G)...
Suppose M=G/H (and hence, M is also compact), that is, I'm thinking of M as the RIGHT cosets of G. For notation, set einG as the identity and let mathfrakg and mathfrakh denote the Lie algebras to G and H.
Since G is compact, it has a biinvariant metric. The biinvariant metric on G is equivalent to an Ad(G) invariant inner product on mathfrakg. This gives an orthogonal splitting (as vector spaces) of mathfrakg as mathfrakhoplusmathfrakm. (The vector subspace mathfrakm is not typically an algebra)
Now, the tangent space TeHM is naturally be identified with mathfrakm. In fact, this identification is H invariant (where H acts on mathfrakm via Ad(H) and H acts on M by left multiplication: h∗(gH)=(hg)H).
Now, when you say "invariant vector fields", you must first specify G invariant or H invariant. Lets focus of G first, then H.
Typically, there are not enough G-invariant vector fields to span the tangent space at any point. This is because not only does G act transitively on M, but it acts very multiply transitive (an Hs worth of elements move any element to any other given element). Thus, a G-invariant vector field on M is actually equivalent to an H invariant vector in TeHM.
So, for example, viewing Sn=SO(n+1)/SO(n), You'd find that SO(n) acts transitively on the unit vectors in mathfrakm, and hence, there are no SO(n+1) invariant vector fields on Sn.
Now, on to H invariant vector fields. I haven't thought much about this, but even in this case, there are (often? always?) not enough. For example, viewing S2=SO(3)/SO(2), we see that H is a circle. In this case, viewing the north pole of S2 as eSO(2), the only H invariant vector fields are the velocity vectors of rotation through the north-south axis - i.e., the flows are lines of lattitude.
Then we see that at generic points, the set of all vectors tangent to an H invariant vector is a 1 dimensional vector space (and hence, doesn't span the whole tangent space), and the situation at the north and south pole is even worse: the only H invariant vectors are trivial.
Even if you come up with a case where at some point, there were enough H invariant vector fields, you can not translate them around all of M, since H does NOT act transitively on M.
No comments:
Post a Comment