Are you sure?
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
and Symplectic Geometry
A series of nine lectures on Lie groups and symplectic
geometry delivered at the Regional Geometry Institute in
Park City, Utah, 24 June–20 July 1991.
by
Robert L. Bryant
Duke University
Durham, NC
bryant@math.duke.edu
This is an unoﬃcial version of the notes and was last modiﬁed
on 20 September 1993. The .dvi ﬁle for this preprint will be available
by anonymous ftp from publications.math.duke.edu in the directory
bryant until the manuscript is accepted for publication. You should get
the ReadMe ﬁle ﬁrst to see if the version there is more recent than this
one.
Please send any comments, corrections or bug reports to the above
email address.
Introduction
These are the lecture notes for a short course entitled “Introduction to Lie groups and
symplectic geometry” which I gave at the 1991 Regional Geometry Institute at Park City,
Utah starting on 24 June and ending on 11 July.
The course really was designed to be an introduction, aimed at an audience of stu
dents who were familiar with basic constructions in diﬀerential topology and rudimentary
diﬀerential geometry, who wanted to get a feel for Lie groups and symplectic geometry.
My purpose was not to provide an exhaustive treatment of either Lie groups, which would
have been impossible even if I had had an entire year, or of symplectic manifolds, which
has lately undergone something of a revolution. Instead, I tried to provide an introduction
to what I regard as the basic concepts of the two subjects, with an emphasis on examples
which drove the development of the theory.
I deliberately tried to include a few topics which are not part of the mainstream
subject, such as Lie’s reduction of order for diﬀerential equations and its relation with
the notion of a solvable group on the one hand and integration of ODE by quadrature on
the other. I also tried, in the later lectures to introduce the reader to some of the global
methods which are now becoming so important in symplectic geometry. However, a full
treatment of these topics in the space of nine lectures beginning at the elementary level
was beyond my abilities.
After the lectures were over, I contemplated reworking these notes into a comprehen
sive introduction to modern symplectic geometry and, after some soulsearching, ﬁnally
decided against this. Thus, I have contented myself with making only minor modiﬁcations
and corrections, with the hope that an interested person could read these notes in a few
weeks and get some sense of what the subject was about.
An essential feature of the course was the exercise sets. Each set begins with elemen
tary material and works up to more involved and delicate problems. My object was to
provide a path to understanding of the material which could be entered at several diﬀerent
levels and so the exercises vary greatly in diﬃculty. Many of these exercise sets are obvi
ously too long for any person to do them during the three weeks the course, so I provided
extensive hints to aid the student in completing the exercises after the course was over.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the many people who made helpful sugges
tions for these notes both during and after the course. Particular thanks goes to Karen
Uhlenbeck and Dan Freed, who invited me to give an introductory set of lectures at the
RGI, and to my course assistant, Tom Ivey, who provided invaluable help and criticism in
the early stages of the notes and tirelessly helped the students with the exercises. While
the faults of the presentation are entirely my own, without the help, encouragement, and
proofreading contributed by these folks and others, neither these notes nor the course
would never have come to pass.
I.1 2
Background Material and Basic Terminology. In these lectures, I assume that
the reader is familiar with the basic notions of manifolds, vector ﬁelds, and diﬀerential
forms. All manifolds will be assumed to be both second countable and Hausdorﬀ. Also,
unless I say otherwise, I generally assume that all maps and manifolds are C
∞
.
Since it came up several times in the course of the course of the lectures, it is probably
worth emphasizing the following point: A submanifold of a smooth manifold A is, by
deﬁnition, a pair (o. 1) where o is a smooth manifold and 1: o → A is a onetoone
immersion. In particular, 1 need not be an embedding.
The notation I use for smooth manifolds and mappings is fairly standard, but with a
few slight variations:
If 1: A → Y is a smooth mapping, then 1
: TA → TY denotes the induced mapping
on tangent bundles, with 1
(r) denoting its restriction to T
x
A. (However, I follow tradition
when A = R and let 1
(t) stand for 1
(t)(∂´∂t) for all t ∈ R. I trust that this abuse of
notation will not cause confusion.)
For any vector space \ , I generally use ¹
p
(\ ) (instead of, say, Λ
p
(\
∗
)) to denote
the space of alternating (or exterior) pforms on \ . For a smooth manifold `, I denote
the space of smooth, alternating jforms on ` by /
p
(`). The algebra of all (smooth)
diﬀerential forms on ` is denoted by /
∗
(`).
I generally reserve the letter d for the exterior derivative d: /
p
(`) →/
p+1
(`).
For any vector ﬁeld A on `, I will denote lefthook with A (often called interior
product with A) by the symbol A . This is the graded derivation of degree −1 of /
∗
(`)
which satisﬁes A (d1) = A1 for all smooth functions 1 on `. For example, the Cartan
formula for the Lie derivative of diﬀerential forms is written in the form
L
X
φ = A dφ + d(A φ).
Jets. Occasionally, it will be convenient to use the language of jets in describing
certain constructions. Jets provide a coordinate free way to talk about the Taylor expansion
of some mapping up to a speciﬁed order. No detailed knowledge about these objects will
be needed in these lectures, so the following comments should suﬃce:
If 1 and o are two smooth maps from a manifold A
m
to a manifold Y
n
, we say that
1 and o agree to order / at r ∈ A if, ﬁrst, 1(r) = o(r) = n ∈ Y and, second, when
n: l →R
m
and ·: \ →R
n
are local coordinate systems centered on r and n respectively,
the functions 1 = · ◦1 ◦n
−1
and G = · ◦o ◦n
−1
have the same Taylor series at 0 ∈ R
m
up
to and including order /. Using the Chain Rule, it is not hard to show that this condition
is independent of the choice of local coordinates n and · centered at r and n respectively.
The notation 1 ≡
x,k
o will mean that 1 and o agree to order / at r. This is easily
seen to deﬁne an equivalence relation. Denote the ≡
x,k
equivalence class of 1 by ,
k
(1)(r),
and call it the /jet of 1 at r.
For example, knowing the 1jet at r of a map 1: A →Y is equivalent to knowing both
1(r) and the linear map 1
(r): T
x
→T
f(x)
Y .
I.2 3
The set of /jets of maps from A to Y is usually denoted by J
k
(A. Y ). It is not hard
to show that J
k
(A. Y ) can be given a unique smooth manifold structure in such a way
that, for any smooth 1: A →Y , the obvious map ,
k
(1): A →J
k
(A. Y ) is also smooth.
These jet spaces have various functorial properties which we shall not need at all.
The main reason for introducing this notion is to give meaning to concise statements like
“The critical points of 1 are determined by its 1jet”, “The curvature at r of a Riemannian
metric o is determined by its 2jet at r”, or, from Lecture 8, “The integrability of an almost
complex structure J: TA → TA is determined by its 1jet”. Should the reader wish to
learn more about jets, I recommend the ﬁrst two chapters of [GG].
Basic and SemiBasic. Finally, I use the following terminology: If π: \ → A is
a smooth submersion, a jform φ ∈ /
p
(\ ) is said to be πbasic if it can be written in
the form φ = π
∗
(ϕ) for some ϕ ∈ /
p
(A) and πsemibasic if, for any πvertical*vector
ﬁeld A, we have A φ = 0. When the map π is clear from context, the terms “basic” or
“semibasic” are used.
It is an elementary result that if the ﬁbers of π are connected and φ is a jform on \
with the property that both φ and dφ are πsemibasic, then φ is actually πbasic.
At least in the early lectures, we will need very little in the way of major theorems,
but we will make extensive use of the following results:
• The Implicit Function Theorem: If 1: A → Y is a smooth map of manifolds
and n ∈ Y is a regular value of 1, then 1
−1
(n) ⊂ A is a smooth embedded submanifold
of A, with
T
x
1
−1
(n) = ker(1
(r): T
x
A →T
y
Y )
• Existence and Uniqueness of Solutions of ODE: If A is a vector ﬁeld on a
smooth manifold `, then there exists an open neighborhood l of ¦0¦ ` in R` and
a smooth mapping 1: l →` with the following properties:
i. 1(0. :) = : for all : ∈ `.
ii. For each : ∈ `, the slice l
m
= ¦t ∈ R[ (t. :) ∈ l¦ is an open interval in R
(containing 0) and the smooth mapping φ
m
: l
m
→ ` deﬁned by φ
m
(t) = 1(t. :) is
an integral curve of A.
iii. ( Maximality ) If φ: 1 → ` is any integral curve of A where 1 ⊂ R is an interval
containing 0, then 1 ⊂ l
φ(0)
and φ(t) = φ
φ(0)
(t) for all t ∈ 1.
The mapping 1 is called the (local) ﬂow of A and the open set l is called the domain
of the ﬂow of A. If l = R `, then we say that A is complete.
Two useful properties of this ﬂow are easy consequences of this existence and unique
ness theorem. First, the interval l
F(t,m)
⊂ R is simply the interval l
m
translated by −t.
Second, 1(: + t. :) = 1 (:. 1(t. :)) whenever t and : + t lie in l
m
.
* A vector ﬁeld A is πvertical with respect to a map π: \ →A if and only if π
A(·)
=
0 for all · ∈ \
I.3 4
• The Simultaneous FlowBox Theorem: If A
1
, A
2
, . . ., A
r
are smooth vector
ﬁelds on ` which satisfy the Lie bracket identities
[A
i
. A
j
] = 0
for all i and ,, and if j ∈ ` is a point where the : vectors A
1
(j). A
2
(j). . . . . A
r
(j) are
linearly independent in T
p
`, then there exists a local coordinate system r
1
. r
2
. . . . . r
n
on
an open neighborhood l of j so that, on l,
A
1
=
∂
∂r
1
. A
2
=
∂
∂r
2
. . . . . A
r
=
∂
∂r
r
.
The Simultaneous FlowBox Theorem has two particularly useful consequences. Be
fore describing them, we introduce an important concept.
Let ` be a smooth manifold and let 1 ⊂ T` be a smooth subbundle of rank j. We
say that 1 is integrable if, for any two vector ﬁelds A and Y on ` which are sections of
1, their Lie bracket [A. Y ] is also a section of 1.
• The Local Frobenius Theorem: If `
n
is a smooth manifold and 1 ⊂ T` is
a smooth, integrable subbundle of rank :, then every j in ` has a neighborhood l on
which there exist local coordinates r
1
. . . . . r
r
. n
1
. . . . . n
n−r
so that the sections of 1 over
l are spanned by the vector ﬁelds
∂
∂r
1
.
∂
∂r
2
. . . . .
∂
∂r
r
.
Associated to this local theorem is the following global version:
• The Global Frobenius Theorem: Let ` be a smooth manifold and let 1 ⊂ T`
be a smooth, integrable subbundle of rank :. Then for any j ∈ `, there exists a connected
:dimensional submanifold 1 ⊂ ` which contains j, which satisﬁes T
q
1 = 1
q
for all c ∈ o,
and which is maximal in the sense that any connected :
dimensional submanifold 1
⊂ `
which contains j and satisﬁes T
q
1
⊂ 1
q
for all c ∈ 1
is a submanifold of 1.
The submanifolds 1 provided by this theorem are called the leaves of the subbundle
1. (Some books call a subbundle 1 ⊂ T` a distribution on `, but I avoid this since
“distribution” already has a wellestablished meaning in analysis.)
I.4 5
Contents
1. Introduction: Symmetry and Diﬀerential Equations 7
First notions of diﬀerential equations with symmetry, classical “integration methods.”
Examples: Motion in a central force ﬁeld, linear equations, the Riccati equation, and
equations for space curves.
2. Lie Groups 12
Lie groups. Examples: Matrix Lie groups. Leftinvariant vector ﬁelds. The exponen
tial mapping. The Lie bracket. Lie algebras. Subgroups and subalgebras. Classiﬁca
tion of the two and three dimensional Lie groups and algebras.
3. Group Actions on Manifolds 38
Actions of Lie groups on manifolds. Orbit and stabilizers. Examples. Lie algebras
of vector ﬁelds. Equations of Lie type. Solution by quadrature. Appendix: Lie’s
Transformation Groups, I. Appendix: Connections and Curvature.
4. Symmetries and Conservation Laws 61
Particle Lagrangians and EulerLagrange equations. Symmetries and conservation
laws: Noether’s Theorem. Hamiltonian formalism. Examples: Geodesics on Rie
mannian Manifolds, Leftinvariant metrics on Lie groups, Rigid Bodies. Poincar´e
Recurrence.
5. Symplectic Manifolds, I 80
Symplectic Algebra. The structure theorem of Darboux. Examples: Complex Mani
folds, Cotangent Bundles, Coadjoint orbits. Symplectic and Hamiltonian vector ﬁelds.
Involutivity and complete integrability.
6. Symplectic Manifolds, II 100
Obstructions to the existence of a symplectic structure. Rigidity of symplectic struc
tures. Symplectic and Lagrangian submanifolds. Fixed Points of Symplectomor
phisms. Appendix: Lie’s Transformation Groups, II
7. Classical Reduction 116
Symplectic manifolds with symmetries. Hamiltonian and Poisson actions. The mo
ment map. Reduction.
8. Recent Applications of Reduction 128
Riemannian holonomy. K¨ ahler Structures. K¨ ahler Reduction. Examples: Projective
Space, Moduli of Flat Connections on Riemann Surfaces. HyperK¨ ahler structures and
reduction. Examples: Calabi’s Examples.
9. The Gromov School of Symplectic Geometry 147
The Soft Theory: The /Principle. Gromov’s Immersion and Embedding Theorems.
Almostcomplex structures on symplectic manifolds. The Hard Theory: Area esti
mates, pseudoholomorphic curves, and Gromov’s compactness theorem. A sample of
the new results.
I.1 6
Lecture 1:
Introduction: Symmetry and Diﬀerential Equations
Consider the classical equations of motion for a particle in a conservative force ﬁeld
¨ r = −grad \ (r).
where \ : R
n
→ R is some function on R
n
. If \ is proper (i.e. the inverse image under \
of a compact set is compact, as when \ (r) = [r[
2
), then, to a ﬁrst approximation, \ is the
potential for the motion of a ball of unit mass rolling around in a cup, moving only under
the inﬂuence of gravity. For a general function \ we have only the grossest knowledge of
how the solutions to this equation ought to behave.
Nevertheless, we can say a few things. The total energy (= kinetic plus potential) is
given by the formula 1 =
1
2
[ ˙ r[
2
+\ (r) and is easily shown to be constant on any solution
(just diﬀerentiate 1
r(t)
and use the equation). Since, \ is proper, it follows that r
must stay inside a compact set \
−1
[0. 1(r(0))]
, and so the orbits are bounded. Without
knowing any more about \ , one can show (see Lecture 4 for a precise statement) that
the motion has a certain “recurrent” behaviour: The trajectory resulting from “most”
initial positions and velocities tends to return, inﬁnitely often, to a small neighborhood
of the initial position and velocity. Beyond this, very little is known is known about the
behaviour of the trajectories for generic \ .
Suppose now that the potential function \ is rotationally symmetric, i.e. that \
depends only on the distance from the origin and, for the sake of simplicity, let us take
n = 3 as well. This is classically called the case of a central force ﬁeld in space. If we let
\ (r) =
1
2
·([r[
2
), then the equations of motion become
¨ r = −·
[r[
2
r.
As conserved quantities, i.e., functions of the position and velocity which stay constant on
any solution of the equation, we still have the energy 1 =
1
2
[ ˙ r[
2
+ ·([r[
2
)
, but is it also
easy to see that the vectorvalued function r ˙ r is conserved, since
d
dt
(r ˙ r) = ˙ r ˙ r −r ·
([r[
2
) r.
Call this vectorvalued function j. We can think of 1 and j as functions on the phase
space R
6
. For generic values of 1
0
and j
0
, the simultaneous level set
Σ
E
0
,µ
0
= ¦ (r. ˙ r) [ 1(r. ˙ r) = 1
0
. j(r. ˙ r) = j
0
¦
of these functions cut out a surface Σ
E
0
,µ
0
⊂ R
6
and any integral of the equations of motion
must lie in one of these surfaces. Since we know a great deal about integrals of ODEs on
L.1.1 7
surfaces, This problem is very tractable. (see Lecture 4 and its exercises for more details
on this.)
The function j, known as the angular momentum, is called a ﬁrst integral of the
secondorder ODE for r(t), and somehow seems to correspond to the rotational symmetry
of the original ODE. This vague relationship will be considerably sharpened and made
precise in the upcoming lectures.
The relationship between symmetry and solvability in diﬀerential equations is pro
found and far reaching. The subjects which are now known as Lie groups and symplectic
geometry got their beginnings from the study of symmetries of systems of ordinary diﬀer
ential equations and of integration techniques for them.
By the middle of the nineteenth century, Galois theory had clariﬁed the relationship
between the solvability of polynomial equations by radicals and the group of “symmetries”
of the equations. Sophus Lie set out to do the same thing for diﬀerential equations and
their symmetries.
Here is a “dictionary” showing the (rough) correspondence which Lie developed be
tween these two achievements of nineteenth century mathematics.
Galois theory inﬁnitesimal symmetries
ﬁnite groups continuous groups
polynomial equations diﬀerential equations
solvable by radicals solvable by quadrature
Although the full explanation of these correspondances must await the later lectures, we
can at least begin the story in the simplest examples as motivation for developing the
general theory. This is what I shall do for the rest of today’s lecture.
Classical Integration Techniques. The very simplest ordinary diﬀerential equation
that we ever encounter is the equation
(1) ˙ r(t) = α(t)
where α is a known function of t. The solution of this diﬀerential equation is simply
r(t) = r
0
+
x
0
α(τ) dτ.
The process of computing an integral was known as “quadrature” in the classical literature
(a reference to the quadrangles appearing in what we now call Riemann sums), so it was
said that (1) was “solvable by quadrature”. Note that, once one ﬁnds a particular solution,
all of the others are got by simply translating the particular solution by a constant, in this
case, by r
0
. Alternatively, one could say that the equation (1) itself was invariant under
“translation in r”.
The next most trivial case is the homogeneous linear equation
(2) ˙ r = β(t) r.
L.1.2 8
This equation is invariant under scale transformations r → :r. Since the mapping
log: R
+
→R converts scaling to translation, it should not be surprising that the diﬀerential
equation (2) is also solvable by a quadrature:
r(t) = r
0
c
t
0
β(τ) dτ
.
Note that, again, the symmetries of the equation suﬃce to allow us to deduce the general
solution from the particular.
Next, consider an equation where the right hand side is an aﬃne function of r,
(3) ˙ r = α(t) + β(t) r.
This equation is still solvable in full generality, using two quadratures. For, if we set
r(t) = n(t)c
t
0
β(τ)dτ
.
then n satisﬁes ˙ n = α(t)c
−
t
0
β(τ)dτ
, which can be solved for n by another quadrature.
It is not at all clear why one can somehow “combine” equations (1) and (2) and get an
equation which is still solvable by quadrature, but this will become clear in Lecture 3.
Now consider an equation with a quadratic righthand side, the socalled Riccati
equation:
(4) ˙ r = α(t) +2β(t)r + γ(t)r
2
.
It can be shown that there is no method for solving this by quadratures and algebraic
manipulations alone. However, there is a way of obtaining the general solution from a
particular solution. If :(t) is a particular solution of (4), try the ansatz r(t) = :(t) +
1´n(t). The resulting diﬀerential equation for n has the form (3) and hence is solvable by
quadratures.
The equation (4), known as the Riccati equation, has an extensive history, and we
will return to it often. Its remarkable property, that given one solution we can obtain the
general solution, should be contrasted with the case of
(5) ˙ r = α(t) + β(t)r + γ(t)r
2
+ δ(t)r
3
.
For equation (5), one solution does not give you the rest of the solutions. There is in fact a
world of diﬀerence between this and the Riccati equation, although this is far from evident
looking at them.
Before leaving these simple ODE, we note the following curious progression: If r
1
and
r
2
are solutions of an equation of type (1), then clearly the diﬀerence r
1
−r
2
is constant.
Similarly, if r
1
and r
2
= 0 are solutions of an equation of type (2), then the ratio r
1
´r
2
is constant. Furthermore, if r
1
, r
2
, and r
3
= r
1
are solutions of an equation of type (3),
L.1.3 9
then the expression (r
1
−r
2
)´(r
1
−r
3
) is constant. Finally, if r
1
, r
2
, r
3
= r
1
, and r
4
= r
2
are solutions of an equation of type (4), then the crossratio
(r
1
−r
2
)(r
4
−r
3
)
(r
1
−r
3
)(r
4
−r
2
)
is constant. There is no such corresponding expression (for any number of particular
solutions) for equations of type (5). The reason for this will be made clear in Lecture 3.
For right now, we just want to remark on the fact that the linear fractional transformations
of the real line, a group isomorphic to SL(2. R), are exactly the transformations which
leave ﬁxed the crossratio of any four points. As we shall see, the group SL(2. R) is closely
connected with the Riccati equation and it is this connection which accounts for many of
the special features of this equation.
We will conclude this lecture by discussing the group of rigid motions in Euclidean
3space. These are transformations of the form
T(x) = Rx +t.
where R is a rotation in E
3
and t ∈ E
3
is any vector. It is easy to check that the set of
rigid motions form a group under composition which is, in fact, isomorphic to the group
of 4by4 matrices
1 t
0 1
t
RR = I
3
. t ∈ R
3
.
(Topologically, the group of rigid motions is just the product O(3) R
3
.)
Now, suppose that we are asked to solve for a curve x: R → R
3
with a prescribed
curvature κ(t) and torsion τ(t). If x were such a curve, then we could calculate the
curvature and torsion by deﬁning an oriented orthonormal basis (e
1
,e
2
,e
3
) along the curve,
satisfying ˙ r = e
1
, ˙ e
1
= κe
2
, ˙ e
2
= −κe
1
+ τe
3
. (Think of the torsion as measuring how e
2
falls away from the e
1
e
2
plane.) Form the 4by4 matrix
A =
e
1
e
2
e
3
x
0 0 0 1
.
(where we always think of vectors in R
3
as columns). Then we can express the ODE for
prescribed curvature and torsion as
˙
A = A
¸
¸
0 −κ 0 1
κ 0 −τ 0
0 τ 0 0
0 0 0 0
.
We can think of this as a linear system of equations for a curve A(t) in the group of rigid
motions.
L.1.4 10
It is going to turn out that, just as in the case of the Riccati equation, the prescribed
curvature and torsion equations cannot be solved by algebraic manipulations and quadra
ture alone. However, once we know one solution, all other solutions for that particular
(κ(t). τ(t)) can be obtained by rigid motions. In fact, though, we are going to see that one
does not have to know a solution to the full set of equations before ﬁnding the rest of the
solutions by quadrature, but only a solution to an equation connected to SO(3) just in the
same way that the Riccati equation is connected to SL(2. R), the group of transformations
of the line which ﬁx the crossratio of four points.
In fact, as we are going to see, j “comes from” the group of rotations in three dimen
sions, which are symmetries of the ODE because they preserve \ . That is, \ (1(r)) = \ (r)
whenever 1 is a linear transformation satisfying 1
t
1 = 1. The equation 1
t
1 = 1 describes
a locus in the space of 3 3 matrices. Later on we will see this locus is a smooth compact
3manifold, which is also a group, called O(3). The group of rotations, and generalizations
thereof, will play a central role in subsequent lectures.
L.1.5 11
Lecture 2:
Lie Groups and Lie Algebras
Lie Groups. In this lecture, I deﬁne and develop some of the basic properties of the
central objects of interest in these lectures: Lie groups and Lie algebras.
Deﬁnition 1: A Lie group is a pair (G. j) where G is a smooth manifold and j: GG →G
is a smooth mapping which gives G the structure of a group.
When the multiplication j is clear from context, we usually just say “G is a Lie group.”
Also, for the sake of notational sanity, I will follow the practice of writing j(o. /) simply as
o/ whenever this will not cause confusion. I will usually denote the multiplicative identity
by c ∈ G and the multiplicative inverse of o ∈ G by o
−1
∈ G.
Most of the algebraic constructions in the theory of abstract groups have straightfor
ward analogues for Lie groups:
Deﬁnition 2: A Lie subgroup of a Lie group G is a subgroup H ⊂ G which is also a
submanifold of G. A Lie group homomorphism is a group homomorphismφ: H →G which
is also a smooth mapping of the underlying manifolds.
Here is the prototypical example of a Lie group:
Example : The General Linear Group. The (real) general linear group in dimen
sion n, denoted GL(n. R), is the set of invertible nbyn real matrices regarded as an open
submanifold of the n
2
dimensional vector space of all nbyn real matrices with multipli
cation map j given by matrix multiplication: j(o. /) = o/. Since the matrix product o/ is
deﬁned by a formula which is polynomial in the matrix entries of o and /, it is clear that
GL(n. R) is a Lie group.
Actually, if \ is any ﬁnite dimensional real vector space, then GL(\ ), the set of
bijective linear maps φ: \ →\ , is an open subset of the vector space End(\ ) = \ ⊗\
∗
and
becomes a Lie group when endowed with the multiplication j: GL(\ ) GL(\ ) →GL(\ )
given by composition of maps: j(φ
1
. φ
2
) = φ
1
◦ φ
2
. If dim(\ ) = n, then GL(\ ) is
isomorphic (as a Lie group) to GL(n. R), though not canonically.
The advantage of considering abstract vector spaces \ rather than just R
n
is mainly
conceptual, but, as we shall see, this conceptual advantage is great. In fact, Lie groups of
linear transformations are so fundamental that a special terminology is reserved for them:
Deﬁnition 3: A (linear) representation of a Lie group G is a Lie group homomorphism
ρ: G →GL(\ ) for some vector space \ called the representation space. Such a representa
tion is said to be faithful (resp., almost faithful ) if ρ is onetoone (resp., has 0dimensional
kernel).
L.2.1 12
It is a consequence of a theorem of Ado and Iwasawa that every connected Lie group
has an almost faithful, ﬁnitedimensional representation. (In one of the later exercises, we
will construct a connected Lie group which has no faithful, ﬁnitedimensional representa
tion, so almost faithful is the best we can hope for.)
Example: Vector Spaces. Any vector space over R becomes a Lie group when the
group “multiplication” is taken to be addition.
Example: Matrix Lie Groups. The Lie subgroups of GL(n. R) are called matrix Lie
groups and play an important role in the theory. Not only are they the most frequently
encountered, but, because of the theorem of Ado and Iwasawa, practically anything which
is true for matrix Lie groups has an analog for a general Lie group. In fact, for the ﬁrst pass
through, the reader can simply imagine that all of the Lie groups mentioned are matrix
Lie groups. Here are a few simple examples:
1. Let ¹
n
be the set of diagonal nbyn matrices with positive entries on the diagonal.
2. Let ·
n
be the set of upper triangular nbyn matrices with all diagonal entries all
equal to 1.
3. (n = 2 only) Let C
•
=
a −b
b a
[ o
2
+ /
2
0
¸
. Then C
•
is a matrix Lie group diﬀeo
morphic to o
1
R. (You should check that this is actually a subgroup of GL(2. R)!)
4. Let GL
+
(n. R) = ¦o ∈ GL(n. R) [ det(o) 0¦
There are more interesting examples, of course. A few of these are
SL(n. R) = ¦o ∈ GL(n. R) [ det(o) = 1¦
O(n) = ¦o ∈ GL(n. R) [
t
oo = 1
n
¦
SO(n. R) = ¦o ∈ O(n) [ det(o) = 1¦
which are known respectively as the special linear group , the orthogonal group , and the
special orthogonal group in dimension n. In each case, one must check that the given
subset is actually a subgroup and submanifold of GL(n. R). These are exercises for the
reader. (See the problems at the end of this lecture for hints.)
A Lie group can have “wild” subgroups which cannot be given the structure of a Lie
group. For example, (R. +) is a Lie group which contains totally disconnected, uncountable
subgroups. Since all of our manifolds are second countable, such subgroups (by deﬁnition)
cannot be given the structure of a (0dimensional) Lie group.
However, it can be shown [Wa, pg. 110] that any closed subgroup of a Lie group G is
an embedded submanifold of G and hence is a Lie subgroup. However, for reasons which
will soon become apparent, it is disadvantageous to consider only closed subgroups.
L.2.2 13
Example: A nonclosed subgroup. For example, even GL(n. R) can have Lie
subgroups which are not closed. Here is a simple example: Let λ be any irrational real
number and deﬁne a homomorphism φ
λ
: R →GL(4. R) by the formula
φ
λ
(t) =
¸
¸
cos t −sin t 0 0
sin t cos t 0 0
0 0 cos λt −sinλt
0 0 sin λt cos λt
Then φ
λ
is easily seen to be a onetoone immersion so its image is a submanifold G
λ
⊂
GL(4. R) which is therefore a Lie subgroup. It is not hard to see that
G
λ
=
¸
¸
cos t −sint 0 0
sint cos t 0 0
0 0 cos : −sin:
0 0 sin : cos :
:. t ∈ R
.
Note that G
λ
is diﬀeomorphic to R while its closure in GL(4. R) is diﬀeomorphic to o
1
o
1
!
It is also useful to consider matrix Lie groups with complex coeﬃcients. However,
complex matrix Lie groups are really no more general than real matrix Lie groups (though
they may be more convenient to work with). To see why, note that we can write a complex
nbyn matrix ¹ + 1i (where ¹ and 1 are real nbyn matrices) as the 2nby2n matrix
A −B
B A
. In this way, we can embed GL(n. C), the space of nbyn invertible complex
matrices, as a closed submanifold of GL(2n. R). The reader should check that this mapping
is actually a group homomorphism.
Among the more commonly encountered complex matrix Lie groups are the complex
special linear group, denoted by SL(n. C), and the unitary and special unitary groups,
denoted, respectively, as
U(n) = ¦o ∈ GL(n. C) [
∗
oo = 1
n
¦
SU(n) = ¦o ∈ U(n) [ det
C
(o) = 1 ¦
where
∗
o =
t
¯ o is the Hermitian adjoint of o. These groups will play an important role in
what follows. The reader may want to familiarize himself with these groups by doing some
of the exercises for this section.
Basic General Properties. If G is a Lie group with o ∈ G, we let 1
a
. 1
a
: G → G
denote the smooth mappings deﬁned by
1
a
(/) = o/ and 1
a
(/) = /o.
Proposition 1: For any Lie group G, the maps 1
a
and 1
a
are diﬀeomorphisms, the map
j: G G → G is a submersion, and the inverse mapping ι: G → G deﬁned by ι(o) = o
−1
is smooth.
L.2.3 14
Proof: By the axioms of group multiplication, 1
a
−1 is both a left and right inverse to
1
a
. Since (1
a
)
−1
exists and is smooth, 1
a
is a diﬀeomorphism. The argument for 1
a
is
similar.
In particular, 1
a
: TG → TG induces an isomorphism of tangent spaces T
b
G ˜ →T
ab
G
for all / ∈ G and 1
a
: TG → TG induces an isomorphism of tangent spaces T
b
G ˜ →T
ba
G
for all / ∈ G. Using the natural identiﬁcation T
(a,b)
G G · T
a
G ⊕ T
b
G, the formula for
j
(o. /): T
(a,b)
G G →T
ab
G is readily seen to be
j
(o. /)(·. n) = 1
a
(n) +1
b
(·)
for all · ∈ T
a
G and n ∈ T
b
G. In particular j
(o. /) is surjective for all (o. /) ∈ G G, so
j: GG →G is a submersion.
Then, by the Implicit Function Theorem, j
−1
(c) is a closed, embedded submanifold
of GG whose tangent space at (o. /), by the above formula is
T
(a,b)
j
−1
(c) = ¦(·. n) ∈ T
a
G T
b
G 1
a
(n) +1
b
(·) = 0¦.
Meanwhile, the group axioms imply that
j
−1
(c) =
¸
(o. o
−1
) [ o ∈ G
¸
.
which is precisely the graph of ι: G → G. Since 1
a
and 1
a
are isomorphisms at every
point, it easily follows that the projection on the ﬁrst factor π
1
: G G → G restricts to
j
−1
(c) to be a diﬀeomorphism of j
−1
(c) with G. Its inverse is therefore also smooth and
is simply the graph of ι. It follows that ι is smooth, as desired.
For any Lie group G, we let G
◦
⊂ G denote the connected component of G which
contains c. This is usually called the identity component of G.
Proposition 2: For any Lie group G, the set G
◦
is an open, normal subgroup of G.
Moreover, if l is any open neighborhood of c in G
◦
, then G
◦
is the union of the “powers”
l
n
deﬁned inductively by l
1
= l and l
k+1
= j(l
k
. l) for / 0.
Proof: Since G is a manifold, its connected components are open and pathconnected,
so G
◦
is open and pathconnected. If α. β: [0. 1] → G are two continuous maps with
α(0) = β(0) = c, then γ: [0. 1] →G deﬁned by γ(t) = α(t)β(t)
−1
is a continuous path from
c to α(1)β(1)
−1
, so G
◦
is closed under multiplication and inverse, and hence is a subgroup.
It is a normal subgroup since, for any o ∈ G, the map
C
a
= 1
a
◦ (1
a
)
−1
: G →G
(conjugation by o) is a diﬀeomorphism which clearly ﬁxes c and hence ﬁxes its connected
component G
◦
also.
Finally, let l ⊂ G
◦
be any open neighborhood of c. For any o ∈ G
◦
, let γ: [0. 1] →G
be a path with γ(0) = c and γ(1) = o. The open sets ¦1
γ(t)
(l) [ t ∈ [0. 1]¦ cover γ
[0. 1]
,
L.2.4 15
so the compactness of [0. 1] implies (via the Lebesgue Covering Lemma) that there is a ﬁnite
subdivision 0 = t
0
< t
1
< t
n
= 1 so that γ
[t
k
. t
k+1
]
⊂ 1
γ(t
k
)
(l) for all 0 ≤ / < n.
But then each of the elements
o
k
=
γ(t
k
)
−1
γ(t
k+1
)
lies in l and o = γ(1) = o
0
o
1
o
n−1
∈ l
n
.
An immediate consequence of Proposition 2 is that, for a connected Lie group H, any
Lie group homomorphism φ: H →G is determined by its behavior on any open neighbor
hood of c ∈ H. We are soon going to show an even more striking fact, namely that, for
connected H, any homomorphism φ: H →G is determined by φ
(c): T
e
H →T
e
G.
The Adjoint Representation. It is conventional to denote the tangent space at
the identity of a Lie group by an appropriate lower case gothic letter. Thus, the vector
space T
e
G is denoted g, the vector space T
e
GL(n. R) is denoted gl(n. R), etc.
For example, one can easily compute the tangent spaces at c of the Lie groups deﬁned
so far. Here is a sample:
sl(n. R) = ¦o ∈ gl(n. R) [ tr(o) = 0¦
so(n. R) = ¦o ∈ gl(n. R) [ o +
t
o = 0¦
u(n. R) = ¦o ∈ gl(n. C) [ o +
t
¯ o = 0¦
Deﬁnition 4: For any Lie group G, the adjoint mapping is the mapping Ad: G →End(g)
deﬁned by
Ad(o) =
1
a
◦ (1
a
)
−1
(c): T
e
G →T
e
G.
As an example, for G = GL(n. R) it is easy to see that
Ad(o)(r) = oro
−1
for all o ∈ GL(n. R) and r ∈ gl(n. R). Of course, this formula is valid for any matrix Lie
group.
The following proposition explains why the adjoint mapping is also called the adjoint
representation.
Proposition 3: The adjoint mapping is a linear representation Ad: G →GL(g).
Proof: For any o ∈ G, let C
a
= 1
a
◦ 1
a
−1. Then C
a
: G →G is a diﬀeomorphism which
satisﬁes C
a
(c) = c. In particular, Ad(o) = C
a
(c): g → g is an isomorphism and hence
belongs to GL(g).
L.2.5 16
The associative property of group multiplication implies C
a
◦ C
b
= C
ab
, so the Chain
Rule implies that C
a
(c) ◦ C
b
(c) = C
ab
(c). Hence, Ad(o)Ad(/) = Ad(o/), so Ad is a
homomorphism.
It remains to show that Ad is smooth. However, if C: G G → G is deﬁned by
C(o. /) = o/o
−1
, then by Proposition 1, C is a composition of smooth maps and hence
is smooth. It follows easily that the map c: G g → g given by c(o. ·) = C
a
(c)(·) =
Ad(o)(·) is a composition of smooth maps. The smoothness of the map c clearly implies
the smoothness of Ad: G →g ⊗g
∗
.
Leftinvariant vector ﬁelds. Because 1
a
induces an isomorphism from g to T
a
G
for all o ∈ G, it is easy to show that the map Ψ: G g →TG given by
Ψ(o. ·) = 1
a
(·)
is actually an isomorphism of vector bundles which makes the following diagram commute.
Gg
Ψ
−→ TG
π
1
π
G
id
−→ G
Note that, in particular, G is a parallelizable manifold. This implies, for example, that the
only compact surface which can be given the structure of a Lie group is the torus o
1
o
1
.
For each · ∈ g, we may use Ψ to deﬁne a vector ﬁeld A
v
on G by the rule A
v
(o) =
1
a
(·). Note that, by the Chain Rule and the deﬁnition of A
v
, we have
1
a
(A
v
(/)) = 1
a
(1
b
(·)) = 1
ab
(·) = A
v
(o/).
Thus, the vector ﬁeld A
v
is invariant under left translation by any element of G. Such
vector ﬁelds turn out to be extremely useful in understanding the geometry of Lie groups,
and are accorded a special name:
Deﬁnition 5: If G is a Lie group, a leftinvariant vector ﬁeld on G is a vector ﬁeld A on
G which satisﬁes 1
a
(A(/)) = A(o/).
For example, consider GL(n. R) as an open subset of the vector space of nbyn ma
trices with real entries. Here, gl(n. R) is just the vector space of nbyn matrices with real
entries itself and one easily sees that
A
v
(o) = (o. o·).
(Since GL(n. R) is an open subset of a vector space, namely, gl(n. R), we are using the
standard identiﬁcation of the tangent bundle of GL(n. R) with GL(n. R) gl(n. R).)
The following proposition determines all of the leftinvariant vector ﬁelds on a Lie
group.
Proposition 4: Every leftinvariant vector ﬁeld A on G is of the form A = A
v
where
· = A(c) and hence is smooth. Moreover, such an A is complete, i.e., the ﬂow Φ associated
to A has domain R G.
L.2.6 17
Proof: That every leftinvariant vector ﬁeld on G has the stated form is an easy exercise
for the reader. It remains to show that the ﬂow of such an A is complete, i.e., that for each
o ∈ G, there exists a smooth curve γ
a
: R →G so that γ
a
(0) = o and γ
a
(t) = A (γ
a
(t)) for
all t ∈ R.
It suﬃces to show that such a curve exists for o = c, since we may then deﬁne
γ
a
(t) = oγ
e
(t)
and see that γ
a
satisﬁes the necessary conditions: γ
a
(0) = oγ
e
(0) = o and
γ
a
(t) = 1
a
(γ
e
(t)) = 1
a
(A (γ
e
(t))) = A (oγ
e
(t)) = A (γ
a
(t)) .
Now, by the ode existence theorem, there is an ε 0 so that such a γ
e
can be deﬁned
on the interval (−ε. ε) ⊂ R. If γ
e
could not be extended to all of R, then there would be a
maximum such ε. I will now show that there is no such maximum ε.
For each : ∈ (−ε. ε), the curve α
s
: (−ε +[:[. ε −[:[) →G deﬁned by
α
s
(t) = γ
e
(: + t)
clearly satisﬁes α
s
(0) = γ
e
(:) and
α
s
(t) = γ
e
(: + t) = A (γ
e
(: + t)) = A (α
s
(t)) .
so, by the ode uniqueness theorem, α
s
(t) = γ
e
(:)γ
e
(t). In particular, we have
γ
e
(: + t) = γ
e
(:)γ
e
(t)
for all : and t satisfying [:[ +[t[ < ε.
Thus, I can extend the domain of γ
e
to (−
3
2
ε.
3
2
ε) by the rule
γ
e
(t) =
γ
e
(−
1
2
ε)γ
e
(t +
1
2
ε) if t ∈ (−
3
2
ε.
1
2
ε);
γ
e
(+
1
2
ε)γ
e
(t −
1
2
ε) if t ∈ (−
1
2
ε.
3
2
ε).
By our previous arguments, this extended γ
e
is still an integral curve of A, contradicting
the assumption that (−ε. ε) was maximal.
As an example, consider the ﬂow of the leftinvariant vector ﬁelds on GL(n. R) (or any
matrix Lie group, for that matter): For any · ∈ gl(n. R), the diﬀerential equation which
γ
e
satisﬁes is simply
γ
e
(t) = γ
e
(t) ·.
This is a matrix diﬀerential equation and, in elementary ode courses, we learn that the
“fundamental solution” is
γ
e
(t) = c
tv
= 1
n
+
∞
¸
k=1
·
k
/!
t
k
L.2.7 18
and that this series converges uniformly on compact sets in R to a smooth matrixvalued
function of t.
Matrix Lie groups are by far the most commonly encountered and, for this reason,
we often use the notation exp(t·) or even c
tv
for the integral curve γ
e
(t) associated to A
v
in a general Lie group G. (Actually, in order for this notation to be unambiguous, it has
to be checked that if t· = nn for t. n ∈ R and ·. n ∈ g, then γ
e
(t) = δ
e
(n) where γ
e
is
the integral curve of A
v
with initial condition c and δ
e
is the integral curve of A
w
initial
condition c. However, this is an easy exercise in the use of the Chain Rule.)
It is worth remarking explicitly that for any · ∈ g the formula for the ﬂow of the left
invariant vector ﬁeld A
v
on G is simply
Φ(t. o) = o exp(t·) = oc
tv
.
(Warning: many beginners make the mistake of thinking that the formula for the ﬂow of
the left invariant vector ﬁeld A
v
should be Φ(t. o) = exp(t·) o, instead. It is worth pausing
for a moment to think why this is not so.)
It is now possible to describe all of the homomorphisms from the Lie group (R. +)
into any given Lie group:
Proposition 5: Every Lie group homomorphism φ: R → G is of the form φ(t) = c
tv
where · = φ
(0) ∈ g.
Proof: Let · = φ
(0) ∈ g, and let A
v
be the associated leftinvariant vector ﬁeld on G.
Since φ(0) = c, by ode uniqueness, it suﬃces to show that φ is an integral curve of A
v
.
However, φ(: + t) = φ(:)φ(t) implies φ
(:) = 1
φ(s)
φ
(0)
= A
v
φ(:)
, as desired.
The Exponential Map. We are now ready to introduce one of the principal tools
in the study of Lie groups.
Deﬁnition 6: For any Lie group, the exponential mapping of G is the mapping exp: g →G
deﬁned by exp(·) = γ
e
(1) where γ
e
is the integral curve of the vector ﬁeld A
v
with initial
condition c .
It is an exercise for the reader to show that exp: g →G is smooth and that
exp
(0): g →T
e
G = g
is just the identity mapping.
Example: As we have seen, for GL(n. R) (or GL(\ ) in general for that matter), the
formula for the exponential mapping is just the usual power series:
c
x
= 1 +r +
1
2
r
2
+
1
6
r
3
+ .
L.2.8 19
This formula works for all matrix Lie groups as well, and can simplify considerably in
certain special cases. For example, for the group ·
3
deﬁned earlier (usually called the
Heisenberg group), we have
n
3
=
¸
0 r .
0 0 n
0 0 0
r. n. . ∈ R
.
and ·
3
= 0 for all · ∈ n
3
. Thus
exp
¸
¸
0 r .
0 0 n
0 0 0
=
¸
1 r . +
1
2
rn
0 1 n
0 0 1
.
The Lie Bracket. Now, the mapping exp is not generally a homomorphism from
g (with its additive group structure) to G, although, in a certain sense, it comes as close
as possible, since, by construction, it is a homomorphism when restricted to any one
dimensional linear subspace R· ⊂ g. We now want to spend a few moments considering
what the multiplication map on G “looks like” when pulled back to g via exp.
Since exp
(0): g → T
e
G = g is the identity mapping, it follows from the Implicit
Function Theorem that there is a neighborhood l of 0 ∈ g so that exp: l → G is a
diﬀeomorphism onto its image. Moreover, there must be a smaller open neighborhood
\ ⊂ l of 0 so that j
exp(\ ) exp(\ )
⊂ exp(l). It follows that there is a unique
smooth mapping ν: \ \ →l such that
j(exp(r). exp(n)) = exp (ν(r. n)) .
Since exp is a homomorphism restricted to each line through 0 in g, it follows that ν
satisﬁes
ν(αr. βr) = (α + β)r
for all r ∈ \ and α. β ∈ R such that αr. βr ∈ \ .
Since ν(0. 0) = 0, the Taylor expansion to second order of ν about (0. 0) is of the form,
ν(r. n) = ν
1
(r. n) +
1
2
ν
2
(r. n) +1
3
(r. n)
where ν
i
is a gvalued polynomial of degree i on the vector space g⊕g and 1
3
is a gvalued
function on \ which vanishes to at least third order at (0. 0).
Since ν(r. 0) = ν(0. r) = r, it easily follows that ν
1
(r. n) = r + n and that ν
2
(r. 0) =
ν
2
(0. n) = 0. Thus, the quadratic polynomial ν
2
is linear in each gvariable separately.
Moreover, since ν(r. r) = 2r for all r ∈ \ , substituting this into the above expansion
and comparing terms of order 2 yields that ν
2
(r. r) ≡ 0. Of course, this implies that ν
2
is
actually skewsymmetric since
0 = ν
2
(r +n. r + n) −ν
2
(r. r) −ν
2
(n. n) = ν
2
(r. n) + ν
2
(n. r).
L.2.9 20
Deﬁnition 7: The skewsymmetric, bilinear multiplication [. ]: g g →g deﬁned by
[r. n] = ν
2
(r. n)
is called the Lie bracket in g. The pair (g. [. ]) is called the Lie algebra of G.
With this notation, we have a formula
exp(r) exp(n) = exp
r + n +
1
2
[r. n] + 1
3
(r. n)
valid for all r and n in some ﬁxed open neighborhood of 0 in g.
One might think of the term involving [. ] as the ﬁrst deviation of the Lie group
multiplication from being just vector addition. In fact, it is clear from the above formula
that, if the group G is abelian, then [r. n] = 0 for all r. n ∈ g. For this reason, a Lie algebra
in which all brackets vanish is called an abelian Lie algebra. (In fact, (see the Exercises)
g being abelian implies that G
◦
, the identity component of G, is abelian.)
Example : If G = GL(n. R), then it is easy to see that the induced bracket operation on
gl(n. R), the vector space of nbyn matrices, is just the matrix “commutator”
[r. n] = rn −nr.
In fact, the reader can verify this by examining the following second order expansion:
c
x
c
y
= (1
n
+r +
1
2
r
2
+ )(1
n
+ n +
1
2
n
2
+ )
= (1
n
+r + n +
1
2
(r
2
+ 2rn + n
2
) + )
= (1
n
+(r + n +
1
2
[r. n]) +
1
2
(r + n +
1
2
[r. n])
2
+ )
Moreover, this same formula is easily seen to hold for any r and n in gl(\ ) where \ is any
ﬁnite dimensional vector space.
Theorem 1: If φ: H →G is a Lie group homomorphism, then ϕ = φ
(c): h →g satisﬁes
exp
G
(ϕ(r)) = φ(exp
H
(r))
for all r ∈ h. In other words, the diagram
h
ϕ
−→ g
exp
H
exp
G
H
φ
−→ G
commutes. Moreover, for all r and n in h,
ϕ([r. n]
H
) = [ϕ(r). ϕ(n)]
G
.
L.2.10 21
Proof: The ﬁrst statement is an immediate consequence of Proposition 5 and the Chain
Rule since, for every r ∈ h, the map γ: R →G given by γ(t) = φ(c
tx
) is clearly a Lie group
homomorphism with initial velocity γ
(0) = ϕ(r) and hence must also satisfy γ(t) = c
tϕ(x)
.
To get the second statement, let r and n be elements of h which are suﬃciently close
to zero. Then we have, using selfexplanatory notation:
φ(exp
H
(r) exp
H
(n)) = φ(exp
H
(r))φ(exp
H
(n)).
so
φ(exp
H
(r + n +
1
2
[r. n]
H
+ 1
H
3
(r. n))) = exp
G
(ϕ(r)) exp
G
(ϕ(n)).
and thus
exp
G
(ϕ(r + n +
1
2
[r. n]
H
+ 1
H
3
(r. n))) = exp
G
(ϕ(r) + ϕ(n) +
1
2
[ϕ(r). ϕ(n)]
G
+1
G
3
(ϕ(r). ϕ(n))).
ﬁnally giving
ϕ(r + n +
1
2
[r. n]
H
+ 1
H
3
(r. n)) = ϕ(r) + ϕ(n) +
1
2
[ϕ(r). ϕ(n)]
G
+1
G
3
(ϕ(r). ϕ(n)).
Now using the fact that ϕ is linear and comparing second order terms gives the desired
result.
On account of this theorem, it is usually not necessary to distinguish the map exp
or the bracket [. ] according to the group in which it is being applied, so I will follow this
practice also. Henceforth, these symbols will be used without group decorations whenever
confusion seems unlikely.
Theorem 1 has many useful corollaries. Among them is
Proposition 6: If H is a connected Lie group and φ
1
. φ
2
: H → G are two Lie group
homomorphisms which satisfy φ
1
(c) = φ
2
(c), then φ
1
= φ
2
.
Proof: There is an open neighborhood l of c in H so that exp
H
is invertible on this
neighborhood with inverse satisfying exp
−1
H
(c) = 0. Then for o ∈ l we have, by Theorem
1,
φ
i
(o) = exp
G
(ϕ
i
(exp
−1
H
(o))).
Since ϕ
1
= ϕ
2
, we have φ
1
= φ
2
on l. By Proposition 2, every element of H can be
written as a ﬁnite product of elements of l, so we must have φ
1
= φ
2
everywhere.
We also have the following fundamental result:
Proposition 7: If Ad: G → GL(g) is the adjoint representation, then ad = Ad
(c): g →
gl(g) is given by the formula ad(r)(n) = [r. n]. In particular, we have the Jacobi identity
ad([r. n]) = [ad(r). ad(n)].
Proof: This is simply a matter of unwinding the deﬁnitions. By deﬁnition, Ad(o) = C
a
(c)
where C
a
: G → G is deﬁned by C
a
(/) = o/o
−1
. In order to compute C
a
(c)(n) for n ∈ g,
L.2.11 22
we may just compute γ
(0) where γ is the curve γ(t) = oexp(tn)o
−1
. Moreover, since
exp
(0): g → g is the identity, we may as well compute β
(0) where β = exp
−1
◦γ. Now,
assuming o = exp(r), we compute
β(t) = exp
−1
(exp(r) exp(tn) exp(−r))
= exp
−1
(exp(r + tn +
1
2
[r. tn] + ) exp(−r))
= exp
−1
(exp((r + tn +
1
2
[r. tn]) + (−r) +
1
2
[r +tn. −r] + )
= tn + t[r. n] + 1
3
(r. tn)
where the omitted terms and the function 1
3
vanish to order at least 3 at (r. n) = (0. 0).
(Note that I used the identity [n. r] = −[r. n].) It follows that
Ad(exp(r))(n) = β
(0) = n + [r. n] + 1
3
(r. 0)n
where 1
3
(r. 0) denotes the derivative of 1
3
with respect to n evaluated at (r. 0) and is
hence a function of r which vanishes to order at least 2 at r = 0. On the other hand,
since, by the ﬁrst part of Theorem 1, we have
Ad(exp(r)) = exp(ad(r)) = 1 +ad(r) +
1
2
(ad(r))
2
+ .
Comparing the rlinear terms in the last two equations clearly gives the desired result.
The validity of the Jacobi identity now follows by applying the second part of Theorem 1
to Proposition 3.
The Jacobi identity is often presented diﬀerently. The reader can verify that the
equation ad
[r. n]
=
ad(r). ad(n)
where ad(r)(n) = [r. n] is equivalent to the condition
that
[r. n]. .
+
[n. .]. r
+
[.. r]. n
= 0 for all . ∈ g.
This is a form in which the Jacobi identity is often stated. Unfortunately, although this is
a very symmetric form of the identity, it somewhat obscures its importance and meaning.
The Jacobi identity is so important that the class of algebras in which it holds is given
a name:
Deﬁnition 8: A Lie algebra is a pair (g. [ . ]) where g is a vector space and [ . ]: gg →g is a
skewsymmetric bilinear multiplication which satisﬁes the Jacobi identity, i.e., ad([r. n]) =
[ad(r). ad(n)], where ad: g → gl(g) is deﬁned by ad(r)(n) = [r. n] A Lie subalgebra of g is
a linear subspace h ⊂ g which is closed under bracket. A homomorphism of Lie algebras
is a linear mapping of vector spaces ϕ: h →g which satisﬁes
ϕ
[r. n]
=
ϕ(r). ϕ(n)
.
At the moment, our only examples of Lie algebras are the ones provided by Proposition
6, namely, the Lie algebras of Lie groups. This is not accidental, for, as we shall see, every
ﬁnite dimensional Lie algebra is the Lie algebra of some Lie group.
L.2.12 23
Lie Brackets of Vector Fields. There is another notion of Lie bracket, namely
the Lie bracket of smooth vector ﬁelds on a smooth manifold. This bracket is also skew
symmetric and satisﬁes the Jacobi identity, so it is reasonable to ask how it might be
related to the notion of Lie bracket that we have deﬁned. Since Lie bracket of vector ﬁelds
commutes with diﬀeomorphisms, it easily follows that the Lie bracket of two leftinvariant
vector ﬁelds on a Lie group G is also a leftinvariant vector ﬁeld on G. The following result
is, perhaps then, to be expected.
Proposition 8: For any r. n ∈ g, we have [A
x
. A
y
] = A
[x,y]
.
Proof: This is a direct calculation. For simplicity, we will use the following character
ization of the Lie bracket for vector ﬁelds: If Φ
x
and Φ
y
are the ﬂows associated to the
vector ﬁelds A
x
and A
y
, then for any function 1 on G we have the formula:
([A
x
. A
y
]1)(o) = lim
t→0
+
1(Φ
y
(−
√
t. Φ
x
(−
√
t. Φ
y
(
√
t. Φ
x
(
√
t. o))))) −1(o)
t
.
Now, as we have seen, the formulas for the ﬂows of A
x
and A
y
are given by Φ
x
(t. o) =
o exp(tr) and Φ
y
(t. o) = o exp(tn). This implies that the general formula above simpliﬁes
to
([A
x
. A
y
]1)(o) = lim
t→0
+
1
o exp(
√
tr) exp(
√
tn) exp(−
√
tr) exp(−
√
tn)
−1(o)
t
.
Now
exp(±
√
tr) exp(±
√
tn) = exp(±
√
t(r +n) +
t
2
[r. n] + )
so exp(
√
tr) exp(
√
tn) exp(−
√
tr) exp(−
√
tn) simpliﬁes to exp(t[r. n] + ) where the omit
ted terms vanish to higher torder than t itself. Thus, we have
([A
x
. A
y
]1)(o) = lim
t→0
+
1
o exp(t[r. n] + )
−1(o)
t
.
Since [A
x
. A
y
] must be a leftinvariant vector ﬁeld and since
(A
[x,y]
1)(o) = lim
t→0
+
1
o exp(t[r. n])
−1(o)
t
.
the desired result follows.
We can now prove the following fundamental result.
Theorem 2: For each Lie subgroup H of a Lie group G, the subspace h = T
e
H is a Lie
subalgebra of g. Moreover, every Lie subalgebra h ⊂ g is T
e
H for a unique connected Lie
subgroup H of G.
L.2.13 24
Proof: Suppose that H ⊂ G is a Lie subgroup. Then the inclusion map is a Lie group
homomorphism and Theorem 1 thus implies that the inclusion map h →g is a Lie algebra
homomorphism. In particular, h, when considered as a subspace of g, is closed under the
Lie bracket in G and hence is a subalgebra.
Suppose now that h ⊂ g is a subalgebra.
First, let us show that there is at most one connected Lie subgroup of G with Lie
algebra h. Suppose that there were two, say H
1
and H
2
. Then by Theorem 1, exp
G
(h) is
a subset of both H
1
and H
2
and contains an open neighborhood of the identity element
in each of them. However, since, by Proposition 2, each of H
1
and H
2
are generated by
ﬁnite products of the elements in any open neighborhood of the identity, it follows that
H
1
⊂ H
2
and H
2
⊂ H
1
, so H
1
= H
2
, as desired.
Second, to prove the existence of a subgroup H with T
e
H = h, we call on the Global
Frobenius Theorem. Let : = dim(h) and let 1 ⊂ TG be the rank : subbundle spanned
by the vector ﬁelds A
x
where r ∈ h. Note that 1
a
= 1
a
(1
e
) = 1
a
(h) for all o ∈ G, so 1
is leftinvariant. Since h is a subalgebra of g, Proposition 8 implies that 1 is an integrable
distribution on G. By the Global Frobenius Theorem, there is an :dimensional leaf of 1
through c. Call this submanifold H.
It remains is to show that H is closed under multiplication and inverse. Inverse is
easy: Let o ∈ H be ﬁxed. Then, since H is pathconnected, there exists a smooth curve
α: [0. 1] → H so that α(0) = c and α(1) = o. Now consider the curve ¯ α deﬁned on [0. 1]
by ¯ α(t) = o
−1
α(1 −t). Because 1 is leftinvariant, ¯ α is an integral curve of E and it joins
c to o
−1
. Thus o
−1
must also lie in H. Multiplication is only slightly more diﬃcult: Now
suppose in addition that / ∈ H and let β: [0. 1] → H be a smooth curve so that β(0) = c
and β(1) = /. Then the piecewise smooth curve γ: [0. 2] →G given by
γ(t) =
α(t) if 0 ≤ t ≤ 1;
oβ(t −1) if 1 ≤ t ≤ 2,
is an integral curve of 1 joining c to o/. Hence o/ belongs to H, as we wished to show.
Theorem 3: If H is a connected and simply connected Lie group, then, for any Lie group
G, each Lie algebra homorphism ϕ: h → g is of the form ϕ = φ
(c) for some unique Lie
group homorphism φ: H →G.
Proof: In light of Theorem 1 and Proposition 6, all that remains to be proved is that for
each Lie algebra homorphismϕ: h →g there exists a Lie group homomorphismφ satisfying
φ
(c) = ϕ.
We do this as follows: Suppose that ϕ: h → g is a Lie algebra homomorphism. Con
sider the product Lie group H G. Its Lie algebra is h ⊕ g with Lie bracket given by
[(/
1
. o
1
). (/
2
. o
2
)] = ([/
1
. /
2
]. [o
1
. o
2
]), as is easily veriﬁed. Now consider the subspace
´
h ⊂ h ⊕g spanned by elements of the form (r. ϕ(r)) where r ∈ h. Since ϕ is a Lie algebra
homomorphism,
´
h is a Lie subalgebra of h ⊕ g (and happens to be isomorphic to h). In
L.2.14 25
particular, by Theorem 2, it follows that there is a connected Lie subgroup
´
H ⊂ H G,
whose Lie algebra is
´
h. We are now going to show that
´
H is the graph of the desired Lie
group homomorphism φ: H →G.
Note that since
´
H is a Lie subgroup of H G, the projections π
1
:
´
H → H and
π
2
:
´
H → G are Lie group homomorphisms. The associated Lie algebra homomorphisms
c
1
:
´
h →h and c
2
:
´
h →g are clearly given by c
1
(r. ϕ(r)) = r and c
2
(r. ϕ(r)) = ϕ(r).
Now, I claim that π
1
is actually a surjective covering map: It is surjective since
c
1
:
´
h → h is an isomorphism so π
1
(
´
H) contains a neighborhood of the identity in H and
hence, by Proposition 2 and the connectedness of H, must contain all of H. It remains to
show that, under π
1
, points of H have evenly covered neighborhoods.
Let
´
7 = ker(π
1
). Then
´
7 is a closed discrete subgroup of
´
H. Let
´
l ⊂
´
H be a
neighborhood of the identity to which π
1
restricts to be a smooth diﬀeomorphism onto
a neighborhood l of c in H. Then the reader can easily verify that for each o ∈
´
H the
map σ
a
:
´
7
´
l →
´
H given by σ
a
(.. n) = o.n is a diﬀeomorphism onto (π
1
)
−1
(1
π
1
(a)
(l))
which commutes with the appropriate projections and hence establishes the even covering
property.
Finally, since
´
H is connected and, by hypothesis, H is simply connected, it follows
that π
1
must actually be a onetoone and onto diﬀeomorphism. The map φ = π
2
◦ π
−1
1
is
then the desired homomorphism.
As our last general Theorem, we state, without proof, the following existence result.
Theorem 4: For each ﬁnite dimensional Lie algebra g, there exists a Lie group G whose
Lie algebra is isomorphic to g.
Unfortunately, this theorem is surprisingly diﬃcult to prove. It would suﬃce, by
Theorem 2, to show that every Lie algebra g is isomorphic to a subalgebra of the Lie
algebra of a Lie group. In fact, an even stronger statement is true. A theorem of Ado
asserts that every ﬁnite dimensional Lie algebra is isomorphic to a subalgebra of gl(n. R)
for some n. Thus, to prove Theorem 4, it would be enough to prove Ado’s theorem.
Unfortunately, this theorem also turns out to be rather delicate (see [Po] for a proof).
However, there are many interesting examples of g for which a proof can be given by
elementary means (see the Exercises).
On the other hand, this abstract existence theorem is not used very often anyway.
It is rare that a (ﬁnite dimensional) Lie algebra arises in practice which is not readily
representable as the Lie algebra of some Lie group.
The reader may be wondering about uniqueness: How many Lie groups are there
whose Lie algebras are isomorphic to a given g? Since the Lie algebra of a Lie group
G only depends on the identity component G, it is reasonable to restrict to the case of
connected Lie groups. Now, as you are asked to show in the Exercises, the universal cover
˜
G of a connected Lie group G can be given a unique Lie group structure for which the
covering map
˜
G → G is a homomorphism. Thus, there always exists a connected and
simply connected Lie group, say G(g), whose Lie algebra is isomorphic to g. A simple
L.2.15 26
application of Theorem 3 shows that if G
is any other Lie group with Lie algebra g, then
there is a homomorphism φ: G(g) →G which induces an isomorphism on the Lie algebras.
It follows easily that, up to isomorphism, there is only one simply connected and connected
Lie group with Lie algebra g. Moreover, every other connected Lie group with Lie algebra
G is isomorphic to a quotient of G(g) by a discrete subgroup of G which lies in the center
of G(g) (see the Exercises).
The Structure Constants. Our work so far has shown that the problem of classify
ing the connected Lie groups up to isomorphism is very nearly the same thing as classifying
the (ﬁnite dimensional) Lie algebras. (See the Exercises for a clariﬁcation of this point.)
This is a remarkable state of aﬀairs, since, a priori , Lie groups involve the topology of
smooth manifolds and it is rather surprising that their classiﬁcation can be reduced to
what is essentially an algebra problem. It is worth taking a closer look at this algebra
problem itself.
Let g be a Lie algebra of dimension n, and let r
1
. r
2
. . . . . r
n
be a basis for g. Then
there exist constants c
k
ij
so that (using the summation convention)
[r
i
. r
j
] = c
k
ij
r
k
.
(These quantities c are called the structure constants of g relative to the given basis.) The
skewsymmetry of the Lie bracket is is equivalent to the skewsymmetry of c in its lower
indices:
c
k
ij
+ c
k
ji
= 0.
The Jacobi identity is equivalent to the quadratic equations:
c
ij
c
m
k
+ c
jk
c
m
i
+c
ki
c
m
j
= 0.
Conversely, any set of n
3
constants satisfying these relations deﬁnes an ndimensional Lie
algebra by the above bracket formula.
LeftInvariant Forms and the Structure Equations. Dual to the leftinvariant
vector ﬁelds on a Lie group G, there are the leftinvariant 1forms, which are indispensable
as calculational tools.
Deﬁnition 9: For any Lie group G, the gvalued 1form on G deﬁned by
ω
G
(·) = 1
a
−1(·) for · ∈ T
a
G
is called the canonical leftinvariant 1form on G.
It is easy to see that ω
G
is smooth. Moreover, ω
G
is the unique leftinvariant gvalued
1form on G which satisﬁes ω
G
(·) = · for all · ∈ g = T
e
G.
By a calculation which is left as an exercise for the reader,
φ
∗
(ω
G
) = ϕ(ω
H
)
for any Lie group homomorphism φ: H → G with ϕ = φ
(c). In particular, when H is a
subgroup of G, the pull back of ω
G
to H via the inclusion mapping is just ω
H
. For this
reason, it is common to simply write ω for ω
G
when there is no danger of confusion.
L.2.16 27
Example: If G ⊂ GL(n. R) is a matrix Lie group, then we may regard the inclusion
o: G → GL(n. R) as a matrixvalued function on G and compute that ω is given by the
simple formula
ω = o
−1
do.
From this formula, the leftinvariance of ω is obvious.
In the matrix Lie group case, it is also easy to compute the exterior derivative of ω:
Since o o
−1
= 1
n
, we get
do o
−1
+ o d
o
−1
= 0.
so
d
o
−1
= −o
−1
do o
−1
.
This implies the formula
dω = −ω ∧ ω.
(Warning: Matrix multiplication is implicit in this formula!)
For a general Lie group, the formula for dω is only slightly more complicated. To
state the result, let me ﬁrst deﬁne some notation. I will use [ω. ω] to denote the gvalued
2form on G whose value on a pair of vectors ·. n ∈ T
a
G is
[ω. ω](·. n) = [ω(·). ω(n)] −[ω(n). ω(·)] = 2[ω(·). ω(n)].
Proposition 9: For any Lie group G, dω = −
1
2
[ω. ω].
Proof: First, let A
v
and A
w
be the leftinvariant vector ﬁelds on G whose values at c
are · and n respectively. Then, by the usual formula for the exterior derivative
dω(A
v
. A
w
) = A
v
ω(A
w
)
−A
w
ω(A
v
)
−ω
[A
v
. A
w
]
.
However, the gvalued functions ω(A
v
) and ω(A
w
) are clearly leftinvariant and hence are
constants and equal to · and n respectively. Moreover, by Proposition 8, [A
v
. A
w
] =
A
[v,w]
, so the formula simpliﬁes to
dω(A
v
. A
w
) = −ω
A
[v,w]
.
The right hand side is, again, a leftinvariant function, so it must equal its value at the
identity, which is clearly −[·. n], which equals −[ω(A
v
). ω(A
w
)] Thus,
dω(A
v
. A
w
) = −
1
2
[ω(A
v
). ω(A
w
)]
for any pair of leftinvariant vector ﬁelds on G. Since any pair of vectors in T
a
G can be
written as A
v
(o) and A
w
(o) for some ·. n ∈ g, the result follows.
L.2.17 28
The formula proved in Proposition 9 is often called the structure equation of Maurer
and Cartan. It is also usually expressed slightly diﬀerently. If r
1
. r
2
. . . . . r
n
is a basis for
g with structure constants c
i
jk
, then ω can be written in the form
ω = r
1
ω
1
+ + r
n
ω
n
where the ω
i
are Rvalued leftinvariant 1forms and Proposition 9 can then be expanded
to give
dω
i
= −
1
2
c
i
jk
ω
j
∧ ω
k
.
which is the most common form in which the structure equations are given. Note that the
identity d(d(ω
i
)) = 0 is equivalent to the Jacobi identity.
An Extended Example: 2 and 3dimensional Lie Algebras. It is clear that
up to isomorphism, there is only one (real) Lie algebra of dimension 1, namely g = R with
the zero bracket. This is the Lie algebra of the connected Lie groups R and o
1
. (You are
asked to prove in an exercise that these are, in fact, the only connected onedimensional
Lie groups.)
The ﬁrst interesting case, therefore, is dimension 2. If g is a 2dimensional Lie alge
bra with basis r
1
. r
2
, then the entire Lie algebra structure is determined by the bracket
[r
1
. r
2
] = o
1
r
1
+o
2
r
2
. If o
1
= o
2
= 0, then all brackets are zero, and the algebra is abelian.
If one of o
1
or o
2
is nonzero, then, by switching r
1
and r
2
if necessary, we may assume
that o
1
= 0. Then, considering the new basis n
1
= o
1
r
1
+ o
2
r
2
and n
2
= (1´o
1
)r
2
, we
get [n
1
. n
2
] = n
1
. Since the Jacobi identity is easily veriﬁed for this Lie bracket, this does
deﬁne a Lie algebra. Thus, up to isomorphism, there are only two distinct 2dimensional
Lie algebras.
The abelian example is, of course, the Lie algebra of the vector space R
2
(as well as
the Lie algebra of o
1
R, and the Lie algebra of o
1
o
1
).
An example of a Lie group of dimension 2 with a nonabelian Lie algebra is the matrix
Lie group
G =
o /
0 1
o ∈ R
+
. / ∈ R
.
In fact, it is not hard to show that, up to isomorphism, this is the only connected non
abelian Lie group (see the Exercises).
Now, let us pass on to the classiﬁcation of the three dimensional Lie algebras. Here,
the story becomes much more interesting. Let g be a 3dimensional Lie algebra, and let
r
1
. r
2
. r
3
be a basis of g. Then, we may write the bracket relations in matrix form as
( [r
2
. r
3
] [r
3
. r
1
] [r
1
. r
2
] ) = ( r
1
r
2
r
3
) C
where C is the 3by3 matrix of structure constants. How is this matrix aﬀected by a
change of basis? Well, let
( n
1
n
2
n
3
) = ( r
1
r
2
r
3
) ¹
L.2.18 29
where ¹ ∈ GL(3. R). Then it is easy to compute that
( [n
2
. n
3
] [n
3
. n
1
] [n
1
. n
2
] ) = ( [r
2
. r
3
] [r
3
. r
1
] [r
1
. r
2
] ) Adj(¹)
where Adj(¹) is the classical adjoint matrix of ¹, i.e., the matrix of 2by2 minors. Thus,
¹
−1
= (det(¹))
−1 t
Adj(¹).
(Do not confuse this with the adjoint mapping deﬁned earlier!) It then follows that
( [n
2
. n
3
] [n
3
. n
1
] [n
1
. n
2
] ) = ( n
1
n
2
n
3
) C
.
where
C
= ¹
−1
C Adj(¹) = det(¹) ¹
−1
C
t
¹
−1
.
It follows without too much diﬃculty that, if we write C = o +ˆ o, where o is a symmetric
3by3 matrix and
ˆo =
¸
0 −o
3
o
2
o
3
0 −o
1
−o
2
o
1
0
where o =
¸
o
1
o
2
o
3
.
then C
= o
+
´
o
, where
o
= det(¹) ¹
−1
o
t
¹
−1
and o
=
t
¹o.
Now, I claim that the condition that the Jacobi identity hold for the bracket deﬁned
by the matrix C is equivalent to the condition oo = 0. To see this, note ﬁrst that
[[r
2
. r
3
]. r
1
] + [[r
3
. r
1
]. r
2
] + [[r
1
. r
2
]. r
3
]
= [C
1
1
r
1
+C
2
1
r
2
+C
3
1
r
3
. r
1
] +[C
1
2
r
1
+C
2
2
r
2
+C
3
2
r
3
. r
2
] +[C
1
3
r
1
+C
2
3
r
2
+C
3
3
r
3
. r
3
]
= (C
2
3
−C
3
2
)[r
2
. r
3
] + (C
3
1
−C
1
3
)[r
3
. r
1
] + (C
1
2
−C
2
1
)[r
1
. r
2
]
= 2o
1
[r
2
. r
3
] + 2o
2
[r
3
. r
1
] + 2o
3
[r
1
. r
2
]
= 2 ( [r
2
. r
3
] [r
3
. r
1
] [r
1
. r
2
] ) o
= 2 ( r
1
r
2
r
3
) Co.
and Co = (o + ˆ o)o = oo since ˆoo = 0. Thus, the Jacobi identity applied to the basis
r
1
. r
2
. r
3
implies that oo = 0. However, if n
1
. n
2
. n
3
is any other triple of elements of g,
then for some 3by3 matrix 1, we have
( n
1
n
2
n
3
) = ( r
1
r
2
r
3
) 1.
and I leave it to the reader to check that
[[n
2
. n
3
]. n
1
]+[[n
3
. n
1
]. n
2
]+[[n
1
. n
2
]. n
3
] = det(1) ([[r
2
. r
3
]. r
1
] + [[r
3
. r
1
]. r
2
] + [[r
1
. r
2
]. r
3
])
L.2.19 30
in this case. Thus, oo = 0 implies the full Jacobi identity.
There are now two essentially diﬀerent cases to treat. In the ﬁrst case, if o = 0,
then the Jacobi identity is automatically satisﬁed, and o can be any symmetric matrix.
However, two such choices o and o
will clearly give rise to isomorphic Lie algebras if and
only if there is an ¹ ∈ GL(3. R) for which o
= det(¹) ¹
−1
o
t
¹
−1
. I leave as an exercise
for the reader to show that every choice of o yields an algebra (with o = 0) which is
equivalent to exactly one of the algebras made by one of the following six choices:
¸
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
¸
0 1 0
1 0 0
0 0 0
¸
0 1 0
1 0 0
0 0 1
¸
1 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
¸
1 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
¸
1 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 1
.
On the other hand, if o = 0, then by a suitable change of basis ¹, we see that we can
assume that o
1
= o
2
= 0 and that o
3
= 1. Any change of basis ¹ which preserves this
normalization is seen to be of the form
¹ =
¸
¹
1
1
¹
1
2
¹
1
3
¹
2
1
¹
2
2
¹
2
3
0 0 1
.
Since oo = 0 and since o is symmetric, it follows that o must be of the form
o =
¸
:
11
:
12
0
:
12
:
22
0
0 0 0
.
Moreover, a simple calculation shows that the result of applying a change of basis of the
above form is to change the matrix o into the matrix
o
=
¸
:
11
:
12
0
:
12
:
22
0
0 0 0
where
:
11
:
12
:
12
:
22
=
1
¹
1
1
¹
2
2
−¹
1
2
¹
2
1
¹
2
2
−¹
1
2
−¹
2
1
¹
1
1
:
11
:
12
:
12
:
22
¹
2
2
−¹
2
1
−¹
1
2
¹
1
1
.
It follows that :
11
:
22
− (:
12
)
2
= :
11
:
22
− (:
12
)
2
, so there is an “invariant” to be dealt
with. We leave it to the reader to show that the upper lefthand 2by2 block of o can be
brought by a change of basis of the above form into exactly one of the four forms
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
σ 0
0 σ
σ 0
0 −σ
where σ 0 is a real positive number.
L.2.20 31
To summarize, every 3dimensional Lie algebra is isomorphic to exactly one of the
following Lie algebras: Either
so(3) :
[r
2
. r
3
] = r
1
[r
3
. r
1
] = r
2
[r
1
. r
2
] = r
3
or sl(2. R) :
[r
2
. r
3
] = r
2
[r
3
. r
1
] = r
1
[r
1
. r
2
] = r
3
or an algebra of the form
[r
2
. r
3
] = /
11
r
1
+/
12
r
2
[r
3
. r
1
] = /
21
r
1
+/
22
r
2
[r
1
. r
2
] = 0
where the 2by2 matrix 1 is one of the following
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
1 0
0 1
0 1
1 0
0 1
−1 0
1 1
−1 0
σ 1
−1 σ
σ 1
−1 −σ
and, in the latter two cases, σ is a positive real number. Each of these eight latter types
can be represented as a subalgebra of gl(3. R) in the form
g =
¸
(1 + /
21
). −/
11
. r
/
22
. (1 −/
12
). n
0 0 .
r. n. . ∈ R
I leave as an exercise for the reader to show that the corresponding subgroup of GL(3. R)
is a closed, embedded, simply connected matrix Lie group whose underlying manifold is
diﬀeomorphic to R
3
.
Actually, it is clear that, because of the skewsymmetry of the bracket, only n
n
2
of
these constants are independent. In fact, using the dual basis r
1
. . . . . r
n
of g
∗
, we can
write the expression for the Lie bracket as an element β ∈ g ⊗Λ
2
(g
∗
), in the form
β =
1
2
c
i
jk
r
i
⊗r
j
∧ r
k
.
The Jacobi identity is then equivalent to the condition J(β) = 0, where
J: g ⊗Λ
2
(g
∗
) →g ⊗Λ
3
(g
∗
)
is the quadratic polynomial map given in coordinates by
J(β) =
1
6
c
ij
c
m
k
+ c
jk
c
m
i
+ c
ki
c
m
j
r
m
⊗r
i
∧ r
j
∧ r
k
.
L.2.21 32
Exercise Set 2:
Lie Groups
1. Show that for any real vector space of dimension n, the Lie group GL(\ ) is isomorphic
to GL(n. R). (Hint: Choose a basis b of \ , use b to construct a mapping φ
b
: GL(\ ) →
GL(n. R), and then show that φ
b
is a smooth isomorphism.)
2. Let G be a Lie group and let H be an abstract subgroup. Show that if there is an open
neighborhood l of c in G so that H ∩l is a smooth embedded submanifold of G, then H
is a Lie subgroup of G.
3. Show that SL(n. R) is an embedded Lie subgroup of GL(n. R). (Hint: SL(n. R) =
det
−1
(1).)
4. Show that O(n) is an compact Lie subgroup of GL(n. R). (Hint: O(n) = 1
−1
(1
n
),
where 1 is the map from GL(n. R) to the vector space of nbyn symmetric matrices given
by 1(¹) =
t
¹¹. Taking note of Exercise 2, show that the Implicit Function Theorem
applies. To show compactness, apply the HeineBorel theorem.) Show also that SO(n) is
an openandclosed, index 2 subgroup of O(n).
5. Carry out the analysis in Exercise 3 for the complex matrix Lie group SL(n. C) and the
analysis in Exercise 4 for the complex matrix Lie groups U(n) and SU(n). What are the
(real) dimensions of all of these groups?
6. Show that the map j: O(n) ¹
n
·
n
→ GL(n. R) deﬁned by matrix multiplication
is a diﬀeomorphism although it is not a group homomorphism. (Hint: The map is clearly
smooth, you must only compute an inverse. To get the ﬁrst factor ν
1
: GL(n. R) →O(n) of
the inverse map, think of an element b ∈ GL(n. R) as a row of column vectors in R
n
and
let ν
1
(b) be the row of column vectors which results from b by apply the GramSchmidt
orthogonalization process. Why does this work and why is the resulting map ν
1
smooth?)
Show, similarly that the map
j: SO(n)
¹
n
∩ SL(n. R)
·
n
→SL(n. R)
is a diﬀeomorphism. Are there similar factorizations for the groups GL(n. C) and SL(n. C)?
(Hint: Consider unitary bases rather than orthogonal ones.)
7. Show that
SU(2) =
o −/
/ o
oo + // = 1
.
Conclude that SU(2) is diﬀeomorphic to the 3sphere and, using the previous exercise,
that, in particular, SL(2. C) is simply connected, while π
1
SL(2. R)
· Z.
E.2.1 33
8. Show that, for any Lie group G, the mappings 1
a
satisfy
1
a
(/) = 1
ab
(c) ◦ (1
b
(c))
−1
.
where 1
a
(/): T
b
G → T
ab
G. (This shows that the eﬀect of left translation is completely
determined by what it does at c.) State and prove a similar formula for the mappings 1
a
.
9. Let (G. j) be a Lie group. Using the canonical identiﬁcation T
(a,b)
(GG) = T
a
G⊕T
b
G,
prove the formula
j
(o. /)(·. n) = 1
b
(o)(·) + 1
a
(/)(n)
for all · ∈ T
a
G and n ∈ T
b
G.
10. Complete the proof of Proposition 3 by explicitly exhibiting the map c as a composition
of known smooth maps. (Hint: if 1: A →Y is smooth, then 1
: TA →TY is also smooth.)
11. Showthat, for any · ∈ g, the leftinvariant vector ﬁeld A
v
is indeed smooth. Also prove
the ﬁrst statement in Proposition 4. (Hint: Use Ψ to write the mapping A
v
: G → TG as
a composition of smooth maps. Show that the assignment · →A
v
is linear. Finally, show
that if a leftinvariant vector ﬁeld on G vanishes anywhere, then it vanishes identically.)
12. Show that exp: g →G is indeed smooth and that exp
: g →g is the identity mapping.
(Hint: Write down a smooth vector ﬁeld Y on gG such that the integral curves of Y are
of the form γ(t) = (·
0
. o
0
c
tv
0
). Now use the ﬂow of Y ,
Ψ: R g G →g G.
to write exp as the composition of smooth maps.)
13. Show that, for the homomorphism det: GL(n. R) → R
•
, we have det
(1
n
)(r) = tr(r),
where tr denotes the trace function. Conclude, using Theorem 1 that, for any matrix o,
det(c
a
) = c
tr(a)
.
14. Prove that, for any o ∈ G and any r ∈ g, we have the identity
o exp(r) o
−1
= exp
Ad(o)(r)
.
(Hint: Replace r by tr in the above formula and consider Proposition 5.) Use this to show
that tr
exp(r)
≥ −2 for all r ∈ sl(2. R). Conclude that exp: sl(2. R) → SL(2. R) is not
surjective. (Hint: show that every r ∈ sl(2. R) is of the form ono
−1
for some o ∈ SL(2. R)
and some n which is one of the matrices
0 ±1
0 0
.
λ 0
0 −λ
. or
0 −λ
λ 0
. (λ 0).
Also, remember that tr
o/o
−1
= tr(/).)
E.2.2 34
15. Using Theorem 1, show that if H
1
and H
2
are Lie subgroups of G, then H
1
∩ H
2
is
also a Lie subgroup of G. (Hint: What should the Lie algebra of this intersection be? Be
careful: H
1
∩ H
2
might have countably many distinct components even if H
1
and H
2
are
connected!)
16. For any skewcommutative algebra (g. [. ]), we deﬁne the map ad: g → End(g) by
ad(r)(n) = [r. n]. Verify that the validity of the Jacobi identity [ad(r). ad(n)] = ad([r. n])
(where, as usual, the bracket on End(g) is the commutator) is equivalent to the validity of
the identity
[[r. n]. .] + [[n. .]. r] + [[.. r]. n] = 0
for all r. n. . ∈ g.
17. Show that, as λ ∈ R varies, all of the groups
G
λ
=
o /
0 o
λ
o ∈ R
+
. / ∈ R
with λ = 1 are isomorphic, but are not conjugate in GL(2. R). What happens when λ = 1?
18. Show that a connected Lie group G is abelian if and only if its Lie algebra satisﬁes
[r. n] = 0 for all r. n ∈ g. Conclude that a connected abelian Lie group of dimension n is
isomorphic to R
n
´Z
d
where Z
d
is some discrete subgroup of rank d ≤ n. (Hint: To show
“G abelian” implies “g abelian”, look at how [. ] was deﬁned. To prove the converse, use
Theorem 3 to construct a surjective homomorphism φ: R
n
→G with discrete kernel.)
19. (Covering Spaces of Lie groups.) Let G be a connected Lie group and let π:
˜
G →G be
the universal covering space of G. (Recall that the points of
˜
G can be regarded as the space
of ﬁxedendpoint homotopy classes of continuous maps γ: [0. 1] →G with γ(0) = c.) Show
that there is a unique Lie group structure ˜ j:
˜
G
˜
G →
˜
G for which the homotopy class of
the constant map ˜ c ∈
˜
G is the identity and so that π is a homomorphism. (Hints: Give
˜
G
the (unique) smooth structure for which π is a local diﬀeomorphism. The multiplication
˜ j can then be deﬁned as follows: The map ¯ j = j ◦ (π π):
˜
G
˜
G → G is a smooth map
and satisﬁes ¯ j(˜ c. ˜ c) = c. Since
˜
G
˜
G is simply connected, the universal lifting property
of the covering map π implies that there is a unique map ˜ j:
˜
G
˜
G →
˜
G which satisﬁes
π ◦ ˜ j = ¯ j and ˜ j(˜ c. ˜ c) = ˜ c. Show that ˜ j is smooth, that it satisﬁes the axioms for a group
multiplication (associativity, existence of an identity, and existence of inverses), and that π
is a homomorphism. You will want to use the universal lifting property of covering spaces
a few times.)
The kernel of π is a discrete normal subgroup of
˜
G. Show that this kernel lies in the
center of G. (Hint: For any . ∈ ker(π), the connected set ¦o.o
−1
[ o ∈ G¦ must also lie
in ker(π).)
Show that the center of the simply connected Lie group
G =
o /
0 1
o ∈ R
+
. / ∈ R
E.2.3 35
is trivial, so any connected Lie group with the same Lie algebra is actually isomorphic
to G.
(In the next Lecture, we will show that whenever 1 is a closed normal subgroup of
a Lie group G, the quotient group G´1 can be given the structure of a Lie group. Thus,
in many cases, one can eﬀectively list all of the connected Lie groups with a given Lie
algebra.)
20. Show that
¯
SL(2. R) is not a matrix group! In fact, show that any homomorphism
φ:
¯
SL(2. R) → GL(n. R) factors through the projections
¯
SL(2. R) → SL(2. R). (Hint: Re
call, from earlier exercises, that the inclusion map SL(2. R) → SL(2. C) induces the zero
map on π
1
since SL(2. C) is simply connected. Now, any homomorphism φ:
¯
SL(2. R) →
GL(n. R) induces a Lie algebra homomorphism φ
(c): sl(2. R) → gl(n. R) and this may
clearly be complexiﬁed to yield a Lie algebra homomorphism φ
(c)
C
: sl(2. C) → gl(n. C).
Since SL(2. C) is simply connected, there must be a corresponding Lie group homorphism
φ
C
: SL(2. C) → GL(n. C). Now suppose that φ does not factor through SL(2. R), i.e.,
that φ is nontrivial on the kernel of
¯
SL(2. R) → SL(2. R), and show that this leads to a
contradiction.)
21. An ideal in a Lie algebra g is a linear subspace h which satisﬁes [h. g] ⊂ h. Show that
the kernel k of a Lie algebra homomorphism ϕ: h → g is an ideal in h and that the image
ϕ(h) is a subalgebra of g. Conversely, show that if k ⊂ h is an ideal, then the quotient
vector space h´k carries a unique Lie algebra structure for which the quotient mapping
h →h´k is a homomorphism.
Show that the subspace [g. g] of g which is generated by all brackets of the form [r. n]
is an ideal in g. What can you say about the quotient g´[g. g]?
22. Show that, for a connected Lie group G, a connected Lie subgroup H is normal if and
only if h is an ideal of g. (Hint: Use Proposition 7 and the fact that H ⊂ G is normal if
and only if c
x
Hc
−x
= H for all r ∈ g.)
23. For any Lie algebra g, let z(g) ⊂ g denote the kernel of the homomorphism ad: g →
gl(g). Use Theorem 2 and Exercise 16 to prove Theorem 4 for any Lie algebra g for which
z(g) = 0. (Hint: Look at the discussion after the statement of Theorem 4.)
Show also that if g is the Lie algebra of the connected Lie group G, then the connected
Lie subgroup 7(g) ⊂ G which corresponds to z(g) lies in the center of G. (In the next
lecture, we will be able to prove that the center of G is a closed Lie subgroup of G and
that 7(g) is actually the identity component of the center of G.)
24. For any Lie algebra g, there is a canonical bilinear pairing κ: g g → R, called the
Killing form, deﬁned by the rule:
κ(r. n) = tr
ad(r)ad(n)
.
E.2.4 36
(i) Show that κ is symmetric and, if g is the Lie algebra of a Lie group G, then κ is
Adinvariant:
κ
Ad(o)r. Ad(o)n
= κ(r. n) = κ(n. r).
Show also that
κ
[.. r]. n
= −κ
r. [.. n]
.
A Lie algebra g is said to be semisimple if κ is a nondegenerate bilinear form on g.
(ii) Show that, of all the 2 and 3dimensional Lie algebras, only so(3) and sl(2. R) are
semisimple.
(iii) Show that if h ⊂ g is an ideal in a semisimple Lie algebra g, then the Killing form
of h as an algebra is equal to the restriction of the Killing form of g to h. Show also
that the subspace h
⊥
= ¦r ∈ g [ κ(r. n) = 0 for all n ∈ h¦ is also an ideal in g and that
g = h ⊕h
⊥
as Lie algebras. (Hint: For the ﬁrst part, examine the eﬀect of ad(r) on a
basis of g chosen so that the ﬁrst dimh basis elements are a basis of h.)
(iv) Finally, show that a semisimple Lie algebra can be written as a direct sum of ideals
h
i
, each of which has no proper ideals. (Hint: Apply (iii) as many times as you can
ﬁnd proper ideals of the summands found so far.)
A more general class of Lie algebras are the reductive ones. We say that a Lie algebra
is reductive if there is a nondegenerate symmetric bilinear form ( . ): g g → R which
satisifes the identity
[.. r]. n
+
r. [.. n]
= 0. Using the above arguments, it is easy to
see that a reductive algebra can be written as the direct sum of an abelian algebra and
some number of simple algebras in a unique way.
25. Show that, if ω is the canonical leftinvariant 1form on G and Y
v
is the rightinvariant
vector ﬁeld on G satisfying Y
v
(c) = ·, then
ω
Y
v
(o)
= Ad
o
−1
(·).
(Remark: For any skewcommutative algebra (a. [. ]), the function [[. ]]: a a a → a
deﬁned by
[[r. n. .]] = [[r. n]. .] + [[n. .]. r] +[[.. r]. n]
is trilinear and skewsymmetric, and hence represents an element of a ⊗Λ
3
(a
∗
).)
E.2.5 37
Lecture 3:
Group Actions on Manifolds
In this lecture, I turn from the abstract study of Lie groups to their realizations as
“transformation groups.”
Lie group actions.
Deﬁnition 1: If (G. j) is a Lie group and ` is a smooth manifold, then a left action of
G on ` is a smooth mapping λ: G ` → ` which satisﬁes λ(c. :) = : for all : ∈ `
and
λ(j(o. /). :) = λ(o. λ(/. :)).
Similarly, a right action of G on ` is a smooth mapping ρ: ` G → `, which satisﬁes
ρ(:. c) = : for all : ∈ ` and
ρ(:. j(o. /)) = ρ(ρ(:. o). /).
For notational sanity, whenever the action (left or right) can be easily inferred from
context, we will usually write o : instead of λ(o. :) or : o instead of ρ(:. o). Thus,
for example, the axioms for a left action in this abbreviated notation are simply c : = :
and o (/ :) = o/ :.
For a given a left action λ: G ` → `, it is easy to see that for each ﬁxed o ∈ G
the map λ
a
: ` → ` deﬁned by λ
a
(:) = λ(o. :) is a smooth diﬀeomorphism of ` onto
itself. Thus, G gets represented as a group of diﬀeomorphisms, or “transformations” of a
manifold `. This notion of “transformation group” was what motivated Lie to develop his
theory in the ﬁrst place. See the Appendix to this Lecture for a more complete discussion
of this point.
Equivalence of Left and Right Actions. Note that every right action ρ: `G →
` can be rewritten as a left action and vice versa. One merely deﬁnes
˜ ρ(o. :) = ρ(:. o
−1
).
(The reader should check that this ˜ ρ is, in fact, a left action.) Thus, all theorems about
left actions have analogues for right actions. The distinction between the two is mainly
for notational and conceptual convenience. I will concentrate on left actions and only
occasionally point out the places where right actions behave slightly diﬀerently (mainly
changes of sign, etc.).
Stabilizers and Orbits. A left action is said to be eﬀective if o : = : for all
: ∈ ` implies that o = c. (Sometimes, the word faithful is used instead.) A left action
is said to be free if o = c implies that o : = : for all : ∈ `.
A left action is said to be transitive if, for any r. n ∈ `, there exists a o ∈ G so that
o r = n. In this case, ` is usually said to be homogeneous under the given action.
L.3.1 38
For any : ∈ `, the Gorbit of : is deﬁned to be the set
G : = ¦o :[ o ∈ G¦
and the stabilizer (or isotropy group) of : is deﬁned to be the subset
G
m
= ¦o ∈ G[ o : = :¦.
Note that
G
g·m
= o G
m
o
−1
.
Thus, whenever H ⊂ G is the stabilizer of a point of `, then all of the conjugate subgroups
of H are also stabilizers. These results imply that
G
M
=
¸
m∈M
G
m
is a closed normal subgroup of G and consists of those o ∈ G for which o : = : for all
: ∈ `. Often in practice, G
M
is a discrete (in fact, usually ﬁnite) subgroup of G. When
this is so, we say that the action is almost eﬀective.
The following theorem says that orbits and stabilizers are particularly nice objects.
Though the proof is relatively straightforward, it is a little long, so we will consider a few
examples before attempting it.
Theorem 1: Let λ: G` →` be a left action of G on `. Then, for all : ∈ `, the
stabilizer G
m
is a closed Lie subgroup of G. Moreover, the orbit G : can be given the
structure of a smooth submanifold of ` in such a way that the map φ: G →G : deﬁned
by φ(o) = λ(o. :) is a smooth submersion.
Example 1. Any Lie group leftacts on itself by left multiplication. I.e., we set
` = G and deﬁne λ: G` →` to simply be j. This action is both free and transitive.
Example 2. Given a homomorphism of Lie groups φ: H → G, deﬁne a smooth left
action λ: HG →G by the rule λ(/. o) = φ(/)o. Then H
e
= ker(φ) and Hc = φ(H) ⊂ G.
In particular, Theorem 1 implies that the kernel of a Lie group homomorphism
is a (closed, normal) Lie subgroup of the domain group and the image of a Lie group
homomorphism is a Lie subgroup of the range group.
Example 3. Any Lie group acts on itself by conjugation: o o
0
= oo
0
o
−1
. This action
is neither free nor transitive (unless G = ¦c¦). Note that G
e
= G and, in general, G
g
is
the centralizer of o ∈ G. This action is eﬀective (respectively, almost eﬀective) if and only
if the center of G is trivial (respectively, discrete). The orbits are the conjugacy classes
of G.
Example 4. GL(n. R) acts on R
n
as usual by ¹ · = ¹·. This action is eﬀective but
is neither free nor transitive since GL(n. R) ﬁxes 0 ∈ R
n
and acts transitively on R
n
`¦0¦.
Thus, there are exactly two orbits of this action, one closed and the other not.
L.3.2 39
Example 5. SO(n + 1) acts on o
n
= ¦r ∈ R
n+1
[ r r = 1¦ by the usual action
¹ r = ¹r. This action is transitive and eﬀective, but not free (unless n = 1) since, for
example, the stabilizer of c
n+1
is clearly isomorphic to SO(n).
Example 6. Let S
n
be the n(n + 1)´2dimensional vector space of nbyn real sym
metric matrices. Then GL(n. R) acts on S
n
by ¹ o = ¹o
t
¹. The orbit of the identity
matrix 1
n
is S
+
(n), the set of all positivedeﬁnite nbyn real symmetric matrices (Why?).
In fact, it is known that, if we deﬁne 1
p,q
∈ S
n
to be the matrix
1
p,q
=
¸
1
p
0 0
0 −1
q
0
0 0 0
.
(where the “0” entries have the appropriate dimensions) then S
n
is the (disjoint) union of
the orbits of the matrices 1
p,q
where 0 ≤ j. c and j +c ≤ n (see the Exercises).
The orbit of 1
p,q
is open in S
n
iﬀ j+c = n. The stabilizer of 1
p,q
in this case is deﬁned
to be O(j. c) ⊂ GL(n. R).
Note that the action is merely almost eﬀective since ¦±1
n
¦ ⊂ GL(n. R) ﬁxes every
o ∈ S
n
.
Example 7. Let J =
¸
J ∈ GL(2n. R) [ J
2
= −1
2n
¸
. Then GL(2n. R) acts on J on
the left by the formula ¹ J = ¹J¹
−1
. I leave as exercises for the reader to prove that J
is a smooth manifold and that this action of GL(2n. R) is transitive and almost eﬀective.
The stabilizer of J
0
= multiplication by i in C
n
( = R
2n
) is simply GL(n. C) ⊂ GL(2n. R).
Example 8. Let ` = RP
1
, denote the projective line, whose elements are the lines
through the origin in R
2
. We will use the notation
x
y
to denote the line in R
2
spanned
by the nonzero vector
x
y
.
Let G = SL(2. R) act on RP
1
on the left by the formula
o /
c d
¸
r
n
=
¸
or + /n
cr +dn
.
This action is easily seen to be almost eﬀective, with only ±1
2
∈ SL(2. R) acting trivially.
Actually, it is more common to write this action more informally by using the iden
tiﬁcation RP
1
= R∪¦∞¦ which identiﬁes
x
y
when n = 0 with r´n ∈ R and
1
0
with ∞.
With this convention, the action takes on the more familiar “linear fractional” form
o /
c d
r =
or + /
cr +d
.
Note that this form of the action makes it clear that the socalled “linear fractional”
action or “M¨ obius” action on the real line is just the projectivization of the usual linear
representation of SL(2. R) on R
2
.
L.3.3 40
We now turn to the proof of Theorem 1.
Proof of Theorem 1: Fix : ∈ ` and deﬁne φ: G → ` by φ(o) = λ(o. :) as in the
theorem. Since G
m
= φ
−1
(:), it follows that G
m
is a closed subset of G. The axioms for
a left action clearly imply that G
m
is closed under multiplication and inverse, so it is a
subgroup.
I claim that G
m
is a submanifold of G. To see this, let g
m
⊂ g = T
e
G be the kernel
of the mapping φ
(c): T
e
G → T
m
`. Since φ ◦ 1
g
= λ
g
◦ φ for all o ∈ G, the Chain Rule
yields a commutative diagram:
g
L
g
(e)
−→ T
g
G
φ
(e)
φ
(g)
T
m
`
λ
g
(m)
−→ T
g·m
`
Since both 1
g
(c) and λ
g
(:) are isomorphisms, it follows that ker(φ
(o)) = 1
g
(c)(g
m
) for
all o ∈ G. In particular, the rank of φ
(o) is independent of o ∈ G. By the Implicit
Function Theorem (see Exercise 2), it follows that φ
−1
(:) = G
m
is a smooth submanifold
of G.
It remains to show that the orbit G : can be given the structure of a smooth
submanifold of ` with the stated properties. That is, that G : can be given a second
countable, Hausdorﬀ, locally Euclidean topology and a smooth structure for which the
inclusion map G : →` is a smooth immersion and for which the map φ: G →G : is
a submersion.
Before embarking on this task, it is useful to remark on the nature of the ﬁbers of
the map φ. By the axioms for left actions, φ(/) = / : = o : = φ(o) if and only if
o
−1
/ : = :, i.e., if and only if o
−1
/ lies in G
m
. This is equivalent to the condition that
/ lie in the left G
m
coset oG
m
. Thus, the ﬁbers of the map φ are the left G
m
cosets in G.
In particular, the map φ establishes a bijection
¯
φ: G´G
m
→G :.
First, I specify the topology on G : to be quotient topology induced by the surjective
map φ: G →G :. Thus, a set l in G : is open if and only if φ
−1
(l) is open in G. Since
φ: G → ` is continuous, the quotient topology on the image G : is at least as ﬁne as
the subspace topology G : inherits via inclusion into `. Since the subspace topology is
Hausdorﬀ, the quotient topology must be also. Moreover, the quotient topology on G :
is also second countable since the topology of G is. For the rest of the proof, “the topology
on G :” means the quotient topology.
I will both establish the locally Euclidean nature of this topology and construct a
smooth structure on G : at the same time by ﬁnding the required neighborhood charts
and proving that they are smooth on overlaps. First, however, I need a lemma establishing
the existence of a “tubular neighborhood” of the submanifold G
m
⊂ G. Let d = dim(G) −
dim(G
m
). Then there exists a smooth mapping ψ: 1
d
→ G (where 1
d
is an open ball
about 0 in R
d
) so that ψ(0) = c and so that g is the direct sum of the subspaces g
m
and
\ = ψ
(0)(R
d
). By the Chain Rule and the deﬁnition of g
m
, it follows that (φ◦ψ)
(0): R
d
→
L.3.4 41
T
m
` is injective. Thus, by restricting to a smaller ball in R
d
if necessary, I may assume
henceforth that φ ◦ ψ: 1
d
→` is a smooth embedding.
Consider the mapping Ψ: 1
d
G
m
→ G deﬁned by Ψ(r. o) = ψ(r)o. I claim that Ψ
is a diﬀeomorphism onto its image (which is an open set), say l = Ψ(1
d
G
m
) ⊂ G.
(Thus, l forms a sort of “tubular neighborhood” of the submanifold G
m
in G.)
To see this, ﬁrst I show that Ψ is onetoone: If Ψ(r
1
. o
1
) = Ψ(r
2
. o
2
), then
(φ ◦ ψ)(r
1
) = ψ(r
1
) : = (ψ(r
1
)o
1
) : = (ψ(r
2
)o
2
) : = ψ(r
2
) : = (φ ◦ ψ)(r
2
).
so the injectivity of φ ◦ ψ implies r
1
= r
2
. Since ψ(r
1
)o
1
= ψ(r
2
)o
2
, this in turn implies
that o
1
= o
2
.
Second, I must show that the derivative
Ψ
(r. o): T
x
R
d
⊕T
g
G
m
→T
ψ(x)g
G
is an isomorphism for all (r. o) ∈ 1
d
G
m
. However, from the beginning of the proof,
ker(φ
(ψ(r)o)) = 1
ψ(x)g
(c)(g
m
) and this latter space is clearly Ψ
(r. o)(0 ⊕ T
g
G
m
). On
the other hand, since φ(Ψ(r. o)) = φ ◦ ψ(r), it follows that
φ
(Ψ(r. o))
Ψ
(r. o)(T
x
R
d
⊕0)
= (φ ◦ ψ)
(r)(T
x
R
d
)
and this latter space has dimension d by construction. Hence, Ψ
(r. o)(T
x
R
d
⊕ 0) is
a ddimensional subspace of T
ψ(x)g
G which is transverse to Ψ
(r. o)(0 ⊕ T
g
G
m
). Thus,
Ψ
(r. o): T
x
R
d
⊕T
g
G
m
→T
ψ(x)g
G is surjective and hence an isomorphism, as desired.
This completes the proof that Ψ is a diﬀeomorphism onto U. It follows that the inverse
of Ψ is smooth and can be written in the form Ψ
−1
= π
1
π
2
where π
1
: l → 1
d
and
π
2
: l →G
m
are smooth submersions.
Now, for each o ∈ G, deﬁne ρ
g
: 1
d
→ ` by the formula ρ
g
(r) = φ
oψ(r)
. Then
ρ
g
= λ
g
◦ φ ◦ ψ, so ρ
g
is a smooth embedding of 1
d
into `. By construction, l =
φ
−1
(φ ◦ ψ(1
d
)) = φ
−1
(ρ
e
(1
d
)) is an open set in G, so it follows that ρ
e
(1
d
) is an open
neighborhood of c : = : in G :. By the axioms for left actions, it follows that
φ
−1
ρ
g
(1
d
)
= 1
g
(l) (which is open in G) for all o ∈ G. Thus, ρ
g
(1
d
) is an open
neighborhood of o : in G : (in the quotient topology). Moreover, contemplating the
commutative square
l
L
g
−→ 1
g
(l)
π
1
φ
1
d
ρ
g
−→ ρ
g
(1
d
)
whose upper horizontal arrow is a diﬀeomorphism which identiﬁes the ﬁbers of the vertical
arrows (each of which is a topological identiﬁcation map) implies that ρ
g
is, in fact, a
homeomorphism onto its image. Thus, the quotient topology is locally Euclidean.
Finally, I show that the “patches” ρ
g
overlap smoothly. Suppose that
ρ
g
(1
d
) ∩ ρ
h
(1
d
) = ∅.
L.3.5 42
Then, because the maps ρ
g
and ρ
h
are homeomorphisms,
ρ
g
(1
d
) ∩ ρ
h
(1
d
) = ρ
g
(\
1
) = ρ
h
(\
2
)
where \
i
= ∅ are open subsets of 1
d
. It follows that
1
g
Ψ(\
1
G
m
)
= 1
h
Ψ(\
2
G
m
)
.
Thus, if τ: \
1
→\
2
is deﬁned by the rule τ = π
1
◦ 1
h
−1 ◦ 1
g
◦ ψ, then τ is a smooth map
with smooth inverse τ
−1
= π
1
◦1
g
−1 ◦1
h
◦ψ and hence is a diﬀeomorphism. Moreover, we
have ρ
g
= ρ
h
◦ τ, thus establishing that the patches ρ
g
overlap smoothly and hence that
the patches deﬁne the structure of a smooth manifold on G :.
That the map φ: G →G : is a smooth submersion and that the inclusion G : →`
is a smooth onetoone immersion are now clear.
It is worth remarking that the proof of Theorem 1 shows that the Lie algebra of G
m
is the subspace g
m
. In particular, if G
m
= ¦c¦, then the map φ: G → ` is a onetoone
immersion.
The proof also brings out the fact that the orbit G : can be identiﬁed with the left
coset space G´G
m
, which thereby inherits the structure of a smooth manifold. It is natural
to wonder which subgroups H of G have the property that the coset space G´H can be
given the structure of a smooth manifold for which the coset projection π: G →G´H is a
smooth map. This question is answered by the following result. The proof is quite similar
to that of Theorem 1, so I will only provide an outline, leaving the details as exercises for
the reader.
Theorem 2: If H is a closed subgroup of a Lie group G, then the left coset space G´H
can be given the structure of a smooth manifold in a unique way so that the coset mapping
π: G →G´H is a smooth submersion. Moreover, with this smooth structure, the left action
λ: GG´H →G´H deﬁned by λ(o. /H) = o/H is a transitive smooth left action.
Proof: (Outline.) If the coset mapping π: G → G´H is to be a smooth submersion,
elementary linear algebra tells us that the dimension of G´H will have to be d = dim(G)−
dim(H). Moreover, for every o ∈ G, there will have to exist a smooth mapping ψ
g
: 1
d
→G
with ψ
g
(0) = o which is transverse to the submanifold oH at o and so that the composition
π ◦ ψ: 1
d
→ G´H is a diﬀeomorphism onto a neighborhood of oH ∈ G´H. It is not
diﬃcult to see that this is only possible if G´H is endowed with the quotient topology. The
hypothesis that H be closed implies that the quotient topology is Hausdorﬀ. It is automatic
that the quotient topology is second countable. The proof that the quotient topology is
locally Euclidean depends on being able to construct the “tubular neighborhood” l of H
as constructed for the case of a stabilizer subgroup in the proof of Theorem 1. Once this
is done, the rest of the construction of charts with smooth overlaps follows the end of the
proof of Theorem 1 almost verbatim.
L.3.6 43
Group Actions and Vector Fields. A left action λ: R ` → ` (where R has
its usual additive Lie group structure) is, of course, the same thing as a ﬂow. Associated
to each ﬂow on ` is a vector ﬁeld which generates this ﬂow. The generalization of this
association to more general Lie group actions is the subject of this section.
Let λ: G ` → ` be a left action. Then, for each · ∈ g, there is a ﬂow Ψ
λ
v
on `
deﬁned by the formula
Ψ
λ
v
(t. :) = c
tv
:.
This ﬂow is associated to a vector ﬁeld on ` which we shall denote by Y
λ
v
, or simply
Y
v
if the action λ is clear from context. This deﬁnes a mapping λ
∗
: g → X(`), where
λ
∗
(·) = Y
λ
v
.
Proposition 1: For each left action λ: G ` → `, the mapping λ
∗
is a linear anti
homomorphism from g to X(`). In other words, λ
∗
is linear and
λ
∗
([r. n]) = −[λ
∗
(r). λ
∗
(n)].
Proof: For each · ∈ g, let Y
v
denote the right invariant vector ﬁeld on G whose value
at c is ·. Then, according to Lecture 2, the ﬂow of Y
v
on G is given by the formula
Ψ
v
(t. o) = exp(t·)o. As usual, let Φ
v
denote the ﬂow of the left invariant vector ﬁeld A
v
.
Then the formula
Ψ
v
(t. o) =
Φ
−v
(t. o
−1
)
−1
is immediate. If ι
∗
: X(G) → X(G) is the map induced by the diﬀeomorphism ι(o) = o
−1
,
then the above formula implies
ι
∗
(A
−v
) = Y
v
.
In particular, since ι
∗
commutes with Lie bracket, it follows that
[Y
x
. Y
y
] = −Y
[x,y]
for all r. n ∈ g.
Now, regard Y
v
and Ψ
v
as being deﬁned on G` in the obvious way, i.e., Ψ
v
(o. :) =
(c
tv
o. :). Then λ intertwines this ﬂow with that of Ψ
λ
v
:
λ ◦ Ψ
v
= Ψ
λ
v
◦ λ.
It follows that the vector ﬁelds Y
v
and Y
λ
v
are λrelated. Thus, [Y
λ
x
. Y
λ
y
] is λrelated to
[Y
x
. Y
y
] = −Y
[x,y]
and hence must be equal to −Y
λ
[x,y]
. Finally, since the map · → Y
v
is
clearly linear, it follows that λ
∗
is also linear.
The appearance of the minus sign in the above formula is something of an annoyance
and has led some authors (cf. [A]) to introduce a nonclassical minus sign into either the
deﬁnition of the Lie bracket of vector ﬁelds or the deﬁnition of the Lie bracket on g in order
to get rid of the minus sign in this theorem. Unfortunately, as logical as this revisionism
is, it has not been particularly popular. However, let the reader of other sources beware
when comparing formulas.
L.3.7 44
Even with a minus sign, however, Proposition 1 implies that the subspace λ
∗
(g) ⊂
X(`) is a (ﬁnite dimensional) Lie subalgebra of the Lie algebra of all vector ﬁelds on `.
Example: Linear Fractional Transformations. Consider the M¨ obius action in
troduced earlier of SL(2. R) on RP
1
:
o /
c d
: =
o: + /
c: + d
.
A basis for the Lie algebra sl(2. R) is
r =
0 1
0 0
. / =
1 0
0 −1
. n =
0 0
1 0
Thus, for example, the ﬂow Ψ
λ
y
is given by
Ψ
λ
y
(t. :) = exp
0 0
t 0
: =
1 0
t 1
: =
:
t: + 1
= : −:
2
t + .
so Y
λ
y
= −:
2
∂´∂:. In fact, it is easy to see that, in general,
λ
∗
(o
0
r + o
1
/ + o
2
n) = (o
0
+ 2o
1
: −o
2
:
2
)
∂
∂:
.
The basic ODE existence theorem can be thought of as saying that every vector ﬁeld
A ∈ X(`) arises as the “ﬂow” of a “local” Raction on `. There is a generalization of
this to ﬁnite dimensional subalgebras of X(`). To state it, we ﬁrst deﬁne a local left action
of a Lie group G on a manifold ` to be an open neighborhood l ⊂ G ` of ¦c¦ `
together with a smooth map λ: l →` so that λ(c. :) = : for all : ∈ ` and so that
λ
o. λ(/. :)
= λ(o/. :)
whenever this makes sense, i.e., whenever (/. :), (o/. :), and
o. λ(/. :)
all lie in l.
It is easy to see that even a mere local Lie group action induces a map λ
∗
: g →X(`)
as before. We can now state the following result, whose proof is left to the Exercises:
Proposition 2: Let G be a Lie group and let ϕ: g → X(`) be a Lie algebra homomor
phism. Then there exists a local left action (l. λ) of G on ` so that λ
∗
= −ϕ.
For example, the linear fractional transformations of the last example could just as
easily been regarded as a local action of SL(2. R) on R, where the open set l ⊂ SL(2. R)R
is just the set of pairs where c: + d = 0.
L.3.8 45
Equations of Lie type. Early in the theory of Lie groups, a special family of
ordinary diﬀerential equations was singled out for study which generalized the theory of
linear equations and the Riccati equation. These have come to be known as equations of
Lie type. We are now going to describe this class.
Given a Lie algebra homomorphism λ
∗
: g →X(`) where g is the Lie algebra of a Lie
group G, and a curve ¹: R →g, the ordinary diﬀerential equation for a curve γ: R →`
γ
(t) = λ
∗
¹(t)
γ(t)
is known as an equation of Lie type.
Example: The Riccati equation. By our previous example, the classical Riccati
equation
:
(t) = o
0
(t) + 2o
1
(t):(t) + o
2
(t)
:(t)
2
is an equation of Lie type for the (local) linear fractional action of SL(2. R) on R. The
curve ¹ is
¹(t) =
o
1
(t) o
0
(t)
−o
2
(t) −o
1
(t)
Example: Linear Equations. Every linear equation is an equation of Lie type. Let G
be the matrix Lie subgroup of GL(n + 1. R),
G =
¹ 1
0 1
¹ ∈ GL(n. R) and 1 ∈ R
n
¸
.
Then G acts on R
n
by the standard aﬃne action:
¹ 1
0 1
r = ¹r +1.
It is easy to verify that the inhomogeneous linear diﬀerential equation
r
(t) = o(t)r(t) +/(t)
is then a Lie equation, with
¹(t) =
o(t) /(t)
0 0
.
The following proposition follows from the fact that a left action λ: G` →` relates
the right invariant vector ﬁeld Y
v
to the vector ﬁeld λ
∗
(·) on `. Despite its simplicity, it
has important consequences.
L.3.9 46
Proposition 3: If ¹: R →g is a curve in the Lie algebra of a Lie group G and o: R →G
is the solution to the equation o
(t) = Y
A(t)
(o(t)) with initial condition o(0) = c, then on
any manifold ` endowed with a left Gaction λ, the equation of Lie type
γ
(t) = λ
∗
¹(t)
γ(t)
.
with initial condition γ(0) = : has, as its solution, γ(t) = o(t) :.
The solution o of Proposition 3 is often called the fundamental solution of the Lie
equation associated to ¹(t). The most classical example of this is the fundamental solution
of a linear system of equations:
r
(t) = o(t)r(t)
where o is an nbyn matrix of functions of t and r is to be a column of height n. In
ODE classes, we learn that every solution of this equation is of the form r(t) = A(t)r
0
where A is the nbyn matrix of functions of t which solves the equation A
(t) = o(t)A(t)
with initial condition A(0) = 1
n
. Of course, this is a special case of Proposition 3 where
GL(n. R) acts on R
n
via the standard left action described in Example 4.
Lie’s Reduction Method. I now want to explain Lie’s method of analysing equa
tions of Lie type. Suppose that λ: G ` → ` is a left action and that ¹: R → g is
a smooth curve. Suppose that we have found (by some method) a particular solution
γ: R → ` of the equation of Lie type associated to ¹ with γ(0) = :. Select a curve
o: R →G so that γ(t) = o(t) :. Of course, this o will not, in general be unique, but any
other choice ˜ o will be of the form ˜ o(t) = o(t)/(t) where /: R →G
m
.
I would like to choose / so that ˜ o is the fundamental solution of the Lie equation
associated to ¹, i.e., so that
˜ o
(t) = Y
A(t)
˜ o(t)
= 1
˜ g(t)
¹(t)
Unwinding the deﬁnitions, it follows that / must satisfy
1
g(t)h(t)
¹(t)
= 1
g(t)
/
(t)
+ 1
h(t)
o
(t)
so
1
h(t)
1
g(t)
¹(t)
= 1
g(t)
/
(t)
+ 1
h(t)
o
(t)
Solving for /
(t), we ﬁnd that / must satisfy the diﬀerential equation
/
(t) = 1
h(t)
1
g(t)
−1
1
g(t)
¹(t)
−o
(t)
.
If we set
1(t) = 1
g(t)
−1
1
g(t)
¹(t)
−o
(t)
.
L.3.10 47
then 1 is clearly computable from o and ¹ and hence may be regarded as known. Since
1 =
1
h(t)
−1
(/
(t)) and since / is a curve in G
m
, it follows that 1 must actually be a
curve in g
m
.
It follows that the equation
/
(t) = 1
h(t)
1(t)
is a Lie equation for /. In other words in order to ﬁnd the fundamental solution of a Lie
equation for G when the particular solution with initial condition o(0) = : ∈ ` is known,
it suﬃces to solve a Lie equation in G
m
!
This observation is known as Lie’s method of reduction. It shows how knowledge of a
particular solution to a Lie equation simpliﬁes the search for the general solution. (Note
that this is deﬁnitely not true of general diﬀerential equations.) Of course, Lie’s method
can be generalized. If one knows / particular solutions with initial values :
1
. . . . . :
k
∈ `,
then it is easy to see that one can reduce ﬁnding the fundamental solution to ﬁnding the
fundamental solution of a Lie equation in
G
m
1
,...,m
k
= G
m
1
∩ G
m
2
∩ ∩ G
m
k
.
If one can arrange that this intersection is discrete, then one can explicitly compute a
fundamental solution which will then yield the general solution.
Example: The Riccati equation again. Consider the Riccati equation
:
(t) = o
0
(t) + 2o
1
(t):(t) + o
2
(t)
:(t)
2
and suppose that we know a particular solution :
0
(t). Then let
o(t) =
1 :
0
(t)
0 1
.
so that :
0
(t) = o(t) 0 (we are using the linear fractional action of SL(2. R) on R). The
stabilizer of 0 is the subgroup G
0
of matrices of the form:
n 0
· n
−1
.
Thus, if we set, as usual,
¹(t) =
o
1
(t) o
0
(t)
−o
2
(t) −o
1
(t)
.
then the fundamental solution of o
(t) = ¹(t)o(t) can be written in the form
o(t) = o(t)/(t) =
1 :
0
(t)
0 1
n(t) 0
·(t)
n(t)
−1
L.3.11 48
Solving for the matrix 1(t) (which we know will have values in the Lie algebra of G
0
), we
ﬁnd
1(t) =
/
1
(t) 0
/
2
(t) −/
1
(t)
=
o
1
(t) +o
2
(t):
0
(t) 0
−o
2
(t) −o
1
(t) −o
2
(t):
0
(t)
.
and the remaining equation to be solved is
/
(t) = 1(t)/(t).
which is solvable by quadratures in the usual way:
n(t) = exp
t
0
/
1
(τ)dτ
.
and, once n(t) has been found,
·(t) =
n(t)
−1
t
0
/
2
(τ)
n(τ)
2
dτ.
Example: Linear Equations Again. Consider the general inhomogeneous nbyn
system
r
(t) = o(t)r(t) +/(t).
Let G be the matrix Lie subgroup of GL(n + 1. R),
G =
¹ 1
0 1
¹ ∈ GL(n. R) and 1 ∈ R
n
¸
.
acting on R
n
by the standard aﬃne action as before. If we embed R
n
into R
n+1
by the
rule
r →
r
1
.
then the standard aﬃne action of G on R
n
extends to the standard linear action of G
on R
n+1
. Note that G leaves invariant the subspace r
n+1
= 0, and solutions of the Lie
equation corresponding to
¹(t) =
o(t) /(t)
0 0
which lie in this subspace are simply solutions to the homogeneous equation r
(t) =
o(t)r(t). Suppose that we knew a basis for the homogeneous solutions, i.e., the fun
damental solution to A
(t) = o(r)A(t) with A(0) = 1
n
. This corresponds to knowing
the n particular solutions to the Lie equation on R
n+1
which have the initial conditions
c
1
. . . . . c
n
. The simultaneous stabilizer of all of these points in R
n+1
is the subgroup H ⊂ G
of matrices of the form
1
n
n
0 1
L.3.12 49
Thus, we choose
o(t) =
A(t) 0
0 1
as our initial guess and look for the fundamental solution in the form:
o(t) = o(t)/(t) =
A(t) 0
0 1
1
n
n(t)
0 1
.
Expanding the condition o
(t) = ¹(t)o(t) and using the equation A
(t) = o(t)A(t) then
reduces us to solving the equation
n
(t) =
A(t)
−1
/(t).
which is easily solved by integration. The reader will probably recognize that this is
precisely the classical method of “variation of parameters”.
Solution by quadrature. This brings us to an interesting point: Just how hard is
it to compute the fundamental solution to a Lie equation of the form
γ
(t) = 1
γ(t)
¹(t)
?
One case where it is easy is if the Lie group is abelian. We have already seen that if T
is a connected abelian Lie group with Lie algebra t, then the exponential map exp: t →T
is a surjective homomorphism. It follows that the fundamental solution of the Lie equation
associated to ¹: R →t is given in the form
o(t) = exp
t
0
¹(τ) dτ
(Exercise: Why is this true?) Thus, the Lie equation for an abelian group is “solvable by
quadrature” in the classical sense.
Another instance where one can at least reduce the problem somewhat is when one has
a homomorphismφ: G →H and knows the fundamental solution o
H
to the Lie equation for
ϕ◦ ¹: R →h. In this case, o
H
is the particular solution (with initial condition o
H
(0) = c)
of the Lie equation on H associated to ¹ by regarding φ as deﬁning a left action on H.
By Lie’s method of reduction, therefore, we are reduced to solving a Lie equation for the
group ker(φ) ⊂ G.
Example. Suppose that G is connected and simply connected. Let g be its Lie algebra
and let [g. g] ⊂ g be the linear subspace generated by all brackets of the form [r. n] where
r and n lie in g. Then, by the Exercises of Lecture 2, we know that [g. g] is an ideal in g
(called the commutator ideal of g). Moreover, the quotient algebra t = g´[g. g] is abelian.
Since G is connected and simply connected, Theorem 3 from Lecture 2 implies that
there is a Lie group homomorphism φ
0
: G → T
0
= t whose induced Lie algebra homo
morphism ϕ
0
: g → t = g´[g. g] is just the canonical quotient mapping. From our previous
remarks, it follows that any Lie equation for G can be reduced, by one quadrature, to a
Lie equation for G
1
= ker φ
0
. It is not diﬃcult to check that the group G
1
constructed in
this argument is also connected and simply connected.
L.3.13 50
The desire to iterate this process leads to the following construction: Deﬁne the
sequence ¦g
k
¦ of commutator ideals of g by the rules g
0
= g and and g
k+1
= [g
k
. g
k
] for
/ ≥ 0. Then we have the following result:
Proposition 4: Let G be a connected and simply connected Lie group for which the
sequence ¦g
k
¦ of commutator ideals satisﬁes g
N
= (0) for some · 0. Then any Lie
equation for G can be solved by a sequence of quadratures.
A Lie algebra with the property described in Proposition 4 is called “solvable”. For
example, the subalgebra of upper triangular matrices in gl(n. R) is solvable, as the reader
is invited to check.
While it may seem that solvability is a lot to ask of a Lie algebra, it turns out that
this property is surprisingly common. The reader can also check that, of all of the two
and three dimensional Lie algebras found in Lecture 2, only sl(2. R) and so(3) fail to be
solvable.
This (partly) explains why the Riccati equation holds such an important place in
the theory of ODE. In some sense, it is the ﬁrst Lie equation which cannot be solved by
quadratures. (See the exercises for an interpretation and “proof” of this statement.)
In any case, the sequence of subalgebras ¦g
k
¦ eventually stabilizes at a subalgebra
g
N
whose Lie algebra satisﬁes [g
N
. g
N
] = g
N
. A Lie algebra g for which [g. g] = g is
called “perfect”. Our analysis of Lie equations shows that, by Lie’s reduction method,
we can, by quadrature alone, reduce the problem of solving Lie equations to the problem
of solving Lie equations associated to Lie groups with perfect algebras. Further analysis
of the relation between the structure of a Lie algebra and the solvability by quadratures
of any associated Lie equation leads to the development of the socalled JordanH¨ older
decomposition theorems, see [?].
L.3.14 51
Appendix: Lie’s Transformation Groups, I
When Lie began his study of symmetry groups in the nineteenth century, the modern
concepts of manifold theory were not available. Thus, the examples that he had to guide
him were deﬁned as “transformations in n variables” which were often, like the M¨ obius
transformations on the line or like conformal transformations in space, only deﬁned “almost
everywhere”. Thus, at ﬁrst glance, it might appear that Lie’s concept of a “continuous
transformation group” should correspond to what we have deﬁned as a local Lie group
action.
However, it turns out that Lie had in mind a much more general concept. For Lie, a
set Γ of local diﬀeomorphisms in R
n
formed a “continuous transformation group” if it was
closed under composition and inverse and moreover, the elements of Γ were characterized
as the solutions of some system of diﬀerential equations.
For example, the M¨ obius group on the line could be characterized as the set Γ of
(nonconstant) solutions 1(r) of the diﬀerential equation
21
(r)1
(r) −3
1
(r)
2
= 0.
As another example, the “group” of area preserving transformations of the plane could be
characterized as the set of solutions
1(r. n). o(r. n)
to the equation
1
x
o
y
−o
x
1
y
≡ 1.
while the “group” of holomorphic transformations of the plane
R
2
(regarded as C) was the set of solutions
1(r. n). o(r. n)
to the equations
1
x
−o
y
= 1
y
+ o
x
= 0.
Notice a big diﬀerence between the ﬁrst example and the other two. In the ﬁrst
example, there is only a 3parameter family of local solutions and each of these solutions
patches together on RP
1
= R ∪ ¦∞¦ to become an element of the global Lie group action
of SL(2. R) on RP
1
. In the other two examples, there are many local solutions that cannot
be extended to the entire plane, much less any “completion”. Moreover in the volume
preserving example, it is clear that no ﬁnite dimensional Lie group could ever contain all
of the globally deﬁned volume preserving transformations of the plane.
Lie regarded these latter two examples as “inﬁnite continuous groups”. Nowadays, we
would call them “inﬁnite dimensional pseudogroups”. I will say more about this point of
view in an appendix to Lecture 6.
Since Lie did not have a group manifold to work with, he did not regard his “inﬁnite
groups” as pathological. Instead of trying to ﬁnd a global description of the groups, he
worked with what he called the “inﬁnitesimal transformations” of Γ. We would say that,
L.3.15 52
for each of his groups Γ, he considered the space of vector ﬁelds γ ⊂ X(R
n
) whose (local)
ﬂows were 1parameter “subgroups” of Γ. For example, the inﬁnitesimal transformations
associated to the area preserving transformations are the vector ﬁelds
A = 1(r. n)
∂
∂r
+o(r. n)
∂
∂n
which are divergence free, i.e., satisfy 1
x
+ o
y
= 0.
Lie “showed” that for any “continuous transformation group” Γ, the associated set
of vector ﬁelds γ was actually closed under addition, scalar multiplication (by constants),
and, most signiﬁcantly, the Lie bracket. (The reason for the quotes around “showed” is
that Lie was not careful to specify the nature of the diﬀerential equations which he was
using to deﬁne his groups. Without adding some sort of constant rank or nondegeneracy
hypotheses, many of his proofs are incorrect.)
For Lie, every subalgebra 1 of the algebra X(R
n
) which could be characterized by
some system of pde was to be regarded the Lie algebra of some Lie group. Thus, rather
than classify actual groups (which might not really be groups because of domain problems),
Lie classiﬁed subalgebras of the algebra of vector ﬁelds.
In the case that 1 was ﬁnite dimensional, Lie actually proved that there was a “germ”
of a Lie group (in our sense) and a local Lie group action which generated this algebra of
vector ﬁelds. This is Lie’s socalled Third Fundamental Theorem.
The case where 1 was inﬁnite dimensional remained rather intractable. I will have
more to say about this in Lecture 6. For now, though, I want to stress that there is a sort
of analogue of actions for these “inﬁnite dimensional Lie groups”.
For example, if ` is a manifold and Diff(`) is the group of (global) diﬀeomorphisms,
then we can regard the natural (evaluation) map λ: Diff(`)` →` given by λ(φ. :) =
φ(:) as a faithful Lie group action. If ` is compact, then every vector ﬁeld is complete, so,
at least formally, the induced map λ
∗
: T
id
Diff(`) → X(`) ought to be an isomorphism
of vector spaces. If our analogy with the ﬁnite dimensional case is to hold up, λ
∗
must
reverse the Lie bracket.
Of course, since we have not deﬁned a smooth structure on Diff(`), it is not im
mediately clear how to make sense of T
id
Diff(`). I will prefer to proceed formally and
simply deﬁne the Lie algebra diff(`) of Diff(`) to be the vector space X(`) with the
Lie algebra bracket given by the negative of the vector ﬁeld Lie bracket.
With this deﬁnition, it follows that a left action λ: G ` → ` where G is ﬁnite
dimensional can simply be regarded as a homomorphism Λ: G → Diff(`) inducing a
homomorphism of Lie algebras.
A modern treatment of this subject can be found in [SS].
L.3.16 53
Appendix: Connections and Curvature
In this appendix, I want brieﬂy to describe the notions of connections and curvature
on principal bundles in the language that I will be using them in the examples in this
Lecture.
Let G be a Lie group with Lie algebra g and let ω
G
be the canonical gvalued, left
invariant 1form on G.
Principal Bundles. Let ` be an nmanifold and let 1 be a principal right Gbundle
over `. Thus, 1 comes equipped with a submersion π: 1 → ` and a free right action
ρ: 1 G →1 so that the ﬁbers of π are the Gorbits of ρ.
The Gauge Group. The group Aut(1) of automorphisms of 1 is, by deﬁnition, the
set of diﬀeomorphisms φ: 1 →1 which are compatible with the two structure maps, i.e.,
π ◦ φ = π and ρ
g
◦ φ = φ ◦ ρ
g
for all o ∈ G.
For reasons having to do with Physics, this group is nowadays referred to as the gauge
group of 1. Of course, Aut(1) is not a ﬁnite dimensional Lie group, but it would have
been considered by Lie himself as a perfectly reasonable “continuous transformation group”
(although not a very interesting one for his purposes).
For any φ ∈ Aut(1), there is a unique smooth map ϕ: 1 → G which satisﬁes φ(j) =
j ϕ(j). The identity ρ
g
◦ φ = φ ◦ ρ
g
implies that ϕ satisﬁes ϕ(j o) = o
−1
ϕ(j)o for all
o ∈ G. Conversely, any smooth map ϕ: 1 → G satisfying this identity deﬁnes an element
of Aut(1). It follows that Aut(1) is the space of sections of the bundle C(1) = 1
C
G
where C: GG →G is the conjugation action C(o. /) = o/o
−1
.
Moreover, it easily follows that the set of vector ﬁelds on 1 whose ﬂows generate
1parameter subgroups of Aut(1) is identiﬁable with the space of sections of the vector
bundle Ad(1) = 1
Ad
g.
Connections. Let A(1) denote the space of connections on 1. Thus, an element
¹ ∈ A(1) is, by deﬁnition, a gvalued 1form ¹ on 1 with the following two properties:
(1) For any j ∈ 1, we have ι
∗
p
(¹) = ω
G
where ι
p
: G →1 is given by ι
p
(o) = j o.
(2) For all o in G, we have ρ
∗
g
(¹) = Ad(o
−1
)(¹) where ρ
g
: 1 →1 is right action by o.
It follows from Property 1 that, for any connection ¹ on 1, we have ¹
ρ
∗
(r)
= r
for all r ∈ g. It follows from Property 2 that L
ρ
∗
(x)
¹ = −[r. ¹] for all r ∈ g.
If ¹
0
and ¹
1
are connections on 1, then it follows from Property 1 that the diﬀerence
α = ¹
1
− ¹
0
is a gvalued 1form which is “semibasic” in the sense that α(·) = 0 for all
· ∈ ker π
. Moreover, Property 2 implies that α satisﬁes ρ
∗
g
(α) = Ad(o
−1
)(α). Conversely,
if α is any gvalued 1form on 1 satisfying these latter two properties and ¹ ∈ A(1) is a
connection, then ¹ + α is also a connection. It is easy to see that a 1form α with these
two properties can be regarded as a 1form on ` with values in Ad(1).
Thus, A(1) is an aﬃne space modeled on the vector space /
1
Ad(1)
. In particular,
if we regard A(1) as an “inﬁnite dimensional manifold”, the tangent space T
A
A(1) at any
point ¹ is naturally isomorphic to /
1
Ad(1)
.
L.3.17 54
Curvature. The curvature of a connection ¹ is the 2form 1
A
= d¹+
1
2
[¹. ¹]. From
our formulas above, it follows that
ρ
∗
(r) 1
A
= ρ
∗
(r) d¹ +[r. ¹] = L
ρ
∗
(x)
¹ + [r. ¹] = 0.
Since the vector ﬁelds ρ
∗
(r) span the vertical tangent spaces of 1, it follows that 1
A
is a
“semibasic” 2form (with values in g). Moreover, the Adequivariance of ¹ implies that
ρ
∗
g
(1
A
) = Ad(o
−1
)(1
A
). Thus, 1
A
may be regarded as a section of the bundle of 2forms
on ` with values in the bundle Ad(1).
The group Aut(1) acts naturally on the right on A(1) via pullback: ¹ φ = φ
∗
(¹).
In terms of the corresponding map ϕ: 1 →G, we have
¹ φ = ϕ
∗
(ω
G
) + Ad
ϕ
−1
(¹).
It follows by direct computation that 1
A·φ
= φ
∗
(1
A
) = Ad
ϕ
−1
(1
A
).
We say that ¹ is ﬂat if 1
A
= 0. It is an elementary ode result that ¹ is ﬂat if and
only if, for every : ∈ `, there exists an open neighborhood l of : and a smooth map
τ: π
−1
(l) → G which satisﬁes τ(j o) = τ(j)o and τ
∗
(ω
G
) = ¹
U
. In other words ¹ is
ﬂat if and only if the bundlewithconnection (1. ¹) is locally diﬀeomorphic to the trivial
bundlewithconnection (` G. ω
G
).
Covariant Diﬀerentiation. The space /
p
Ad(1)
of jforms on ` with values
in Ad(1) can be identiﬁed with the space of gvalued, jforms β on 1 which are both
semibasic and Adequivariant (i.e., ρ
∗
g
(β) = Ad(o
−1
)(β) for all o ∈ G). Given such a
form β, the expression dβ + [¹. β] is easily seen to be a gvalued (j+1)form on 1 which
is also semibasic and Adequivariant. It follows that this deﬁnes a ﬁrstorder diﬀerential
operator
d
A
: /
p
Ad(1)
→/
p+1
Ad(1)
called covariant diﬀerentiation with respect to ¹. It is elementary to check that
d
A
d
A
β
= [1
A
. β] = ad(1
A
)(β).
Thus, for a ﬂat connection,
/
∗
(Ad(1)). d
A
forms a complex over `.
We also have the Bianchi identity d
A
1
A
= 0.
For some, “covariant diﬀerentiation” means only d
A
: /
0
(Ad(1)) →/
1
(Ad(1)).
Horizontal Lifts and Holonomy. Let ¹ be a connection on 1. If γ: [0. 1] → ` is
a C
1
curve and j ∈ π
−1
γ(0)
is chosen, then there exists a unique C
1
curve ˜ γ: [0. 1] →1
which both “lifts” γ in the sense that γ = π ◦ ˜ γ and also satisﬁes the diﬀerential equation
˜ γ
∗
(¹) = 0.
(To see this, ﬁrst choose any lift ¯ γ: [0. 1] → 1 which satisﬁes ¯ γ(0) = j. Then the
desired lifting will then be given by ˜ γ(t) = ¯ γ(t) o(t) where o: [0. 1] →G is the solution of
the Lie equation o
(t) = −1
g(t)
¹(¯ γ
(t))
satisfying the initial condition o(0) = c.)
L.3.18 55
The resulting curve ˜ γ is called a horizontal lift of γ. If γ is merely piecewise C
1
, the
horizontal lift can still be deﬁned by piecing together horizontal lifts of the C
1
segments
in the obvious way. Also, if j
= j o
0
, then the horizontal lift of γ with initial condition
j
is easily seen to be ρ
g
0
◦ ˜ γ.
Let j ∈ 1 be chosen and set : = π(j). For every piecewise C
1
loop γ: [0. 1] → `
based at :, the horizontal lift ˜ γ has the property that ˜ γ(1) = j /(γ) for some unique
/(γ) ∈ G. The holonomy of ¹ at j, denoted by H
A
(j) is, by deﬁnition, the set of all such
elements /(γ) of G where γ ranges over all of the piecewise C
1
closed loops based at :.
I leave it to the reader to show that H
A
(j o) = o
−1
H
A
(j)o and that, if j and j
can
be joined by a horizontal curve in 1, then H
A
(j) = H
A
(j
). Thus, the conjugacy class of
H
A
(j) in G is independent of j if ` is connected.
A basic theorem due to Borel and Lichnerowitz (see [KN]) asserts that H
A
(j) is always
a Lie subgroup of G.
L.3.19 56
Exercise Set 3:
Actions of Lie Groups
1. Verify the claim made in the lecture that every right (respectively, left) action of a
Lie group on a manifold can be rewritten as a left (respectively, right) action. Is the
assumption that a left action λ: G ` → ` satisfy λ(c. :) = : for all : ∈ ` really
necessary?
2. Show that if 1: A →Y is a map of smooth manifolds for which the rank of 1
(r): T
x
A →
T
f(x)
Y is independent of r, then 1
−1
(n) is a (possibly empty) closed, smooth submanifold
of A for all n ∈ Y . Note that this properly generalizes the usual Implicit Function Theorem,
which requires 1
(r) to be a surjection everywhere in order to conclude that 1
−1
(n) is a
smooth submanifold.
(Hint: Suppose that the rank of 1
(r) is identically /. You want to show that 1
−1
(n)
(if nonempty) is a submanifold of A of codimension /. To do this, let r ∈ 1
−1
(n) be given
and construct a map ψ: \ → R
k
on a neighborhood \ of n so that ψ ◦ 1 is a submersion
near r. Then show that (ψ ◦ 1)
−1
ψ(n)
(which, by the Implicit Function Theorem, is a
closed codimension / submanifold of the open set 1
−1
(\ ) ⊂ A) is actually equal to 1
−1
(n)
on some neighborhood of r. Where do you need the constant rank hypothesis?)
3. This exercise concerns the automorphism groups of Lie algebras and Lie groups.
(i) Show that, for any Lie algebra g, the group of automorphisms Aut(g) deﬁned by
Aut(g) = ¦o ∈ End(g) [
o(r). o(n)
= o
[r. n]
for all r. n ∈ g¦
is a closed Lie subgroup of GL(g). Show that its Lie algebra is
der(g) = ¦o ∈ End(g) [ o
[r. n]
=
o(r). n
+
r. o(n)
for all r. n ∈ g¦.
(Hint: Show that Aut(g) is the stabilizer of some point in some representation of the
Lie group GL(g).)
(ii) Show that if G is a connected and simply connected Lie group with Lie algebra g,
then the group of (Lie) automorphisms of G is isomorphic to Aut(g).
(iii) Show that ad: g →End(g) actually has its image in der(g), and that this image is an
ideal in der(g). What is the interpretation of this fact in terms of “inner” and “outer”
automorphisms of G? (Hint: Use the Jacobi identity.)
(iv) Show that if the Killing form of g is nondegenerate, then [g. g] = g. (Hint: Suppose
that [g. g] lies in a proper subspace of g. Then there exists an element n ∈ g so that
κ
[r. .]. n
= 0 for all r. . ∈ g. Show that this implies that [r. n] = 0 for all r ∈ g,
and hence that ad(n) = 0.)
(v) Show that if the Killing form of g is nondegenerate, then der(g) = ad(g). This shows
that all of the automorphisms of a simple Lie algebra are “inner”. (Hint: Show that
E.3.1 57
the set p =
¸
o ∈ der(g) [ tr
oad(r)
= 0 for all r ∈ g
¸
is also an ideal in der(g) and
hence that der(g) = p ⊕ad(g) as algebras. Show that this forces p = 0 by considering
what it means for elements of p (which, after all, are derivations of g) to commute
with elements in ad(g).)
4. Consider the 1parameter group which is generated by the ﬂow of the vector ﬁeld A in
the plane
A = cos n
∂
∂r
+ sin
2
n
∂
∂n
.
Show that this vector ﬁeld is complete and hence yields a free Raction on the plane. Let
Z also act on the plane by the action
: (r. n) = ((−1)
m
r. n + :π) .
Show that these two actions commute, and hence together deﬁne a free action of G = RZ
on the plane. Sketch the orbits and show that, even though the Gorbits of this action are
closed, and the quotient space is Hausdorﬀ, the quotient space is not a manifold. (The
point of this problem is to warn the student not to make the common mistake of thinking
that the quotient of a manifold by a free Lie group action is a manifold if it is Hausdorﬀ.)
5. Show that if ρ: ` G → ` is a right action, then the induced map ρ
∗
: g → X(`)
satisﬁes ρ
∗
[r. n]
=
ρ
∗
(r). ρ
∗
(n)
.
6. Prove Proposition 2. (Hint: you are trying to ﬁnd an open neighborhood l of ¦c¦ `
in G` and a smooth map λ: l →` with the requisite properties. To do this, look for
the graph of λ as a submanifold Γ ⊂ G ` ` which contains all the points (c. :. :)
and is tangent to a certain family of vector ﬁelds on G ` ` constructed using the
left invariant vector ﬁelds on G and the corresponding vector ﬁelds on ` determined by
the Lie algebra homomorphism φ: g →X(`).)
7. Show that, if ¹: R →g is a curve in the Lie algebra of a Lie group G, then there exists
a unique solution to the ordinary diﬀerential equation o
(t) = 1
S(t)
¹(t)
with initial
condition o(0) = c. (It is clear that a solution exists on some interval (−ε. ε) in R. The
problem is to show that the solution exists on all of R.)
8. Show that, under the action of GL(n. R) on the space of symmetric nbyn matrices
deﬁned in the Lecture, every symmetric nbyn matrix is in the orbit of an 1
p,q
.
9. This problem examines the geometry of the classical second order equation for one
unknown.
(i) Rewrite the secondorder ODE
d
2
r
dt
2
= 1(t)r
as a system of ﬁrstorder ODEs of Lie type for an action of SL(2. R) on R
2
.
E.3.2 58
(ii) Suppose in particular that 1(t) is of the form
1(t)
2
+ 1
(t), where 1(0) = 0. Use
the solution
r(t) = exp
t
0
1(τ) dτ
to write down the fundamental solution for this Lie equation up in SL(2. R).
(iii) Explain why the (more general) second order linear ODE
r
= o(t)r
+ /(t)r
is solvable by quadratures once we know a single solution with either r(0) = 0 or
r
(0) = 0. (Hint: all twodimensional Lie groups are solvable.)
10*. Show that the general equation of the form n
(r) = 1(r) n(r) is not integrable by
quadratures. Speciﬁcally, show that there do not exist “universal” functions 1
0
and 1
1
of two and three variables respectively so that the function n deﬁned by taking the most
general solution of
n
(r) = 1
0
r. 1(r)
n
(r) = 1
1
r. 1(r). n(r)
is the general solution of n
(r) = 1(r) n(r). Note that this shows that the general solution
cannot be got by two quadratures, which one might expect to need since the general
solution must involve two constants of integration. However, it can be shown that no
matter how many quadratures one uses, one cannot get even a particular solution of
n
(r) = 1(r) n(r) (other than the trivial solution n ≡ 0) by quadrature. (If one could get
a (nontrivial) particular solution this way, then, by two more quadratures, one could get
the general solution.)
11. The point of this exercise is to prove Lie’s theorem (stated below) on (local) group
actions on R. This theorem “explains” the importance of the Riccati equation, and why
there are so few actions of Lie groups on R. Let g ⊂ X(R) be a ﬁnite dimensional Lie
algebra of vector ﬁelds on R with the property that, at every r ∈ R, there is at least one
A ∈ g so that A(r) = 0. (Thus, the (local) ﬂows of the vector ﬁelds in g do not have any
common ﬁxed point.)
(i) For each r ∈ R, let g
k
x
⊂ g denote the subspace of vector ﬁelds which vanish to order
at least / + 1 at r. (Thus, g
−1
x
= g for all r.) Let g
∞
x
⊂ g denote the intersection
of all the g
k
x
. Show that g
∞
x
= 0 for all r. (Hint: Fix o ∈ R and choose an A ∈ g
so that A(o) = 0. Make a local change of coordinates near o so that A = ∂´∂r on
a neighborhood of o. Note that [A. g
∞
a
] ⊂ g
∞
a
. Now choose a basis Y
1
. . . . . Y
N
of g
∞
a
and note that, near o, we have Y
i
= 1
i
∂´∂r for some functions 1
i
. Show that the 1
i
must satisfy some diﬀerential equations and then apply ODE uniqueness. Now go on
from there.)
* This exercise is somewhat diﬃcult, but you should enjoy seeing what is involved in
trying to prove that an equation is not solvable by quadratures.
E.3.3 59
(ii) Show that the dimension of g is at most 3. (Hint: First, show that [g
j
x
. g
k
x
] =⊂ g
j+k
x
.
Now, by part (i), you know that there is a smallest integer · (which may depend on
r) so that g
N+1
x
= 0. Show that if A ∈ g does not vanish at r and Y
N
∈ g vanishes to
exactly order · at r, then Y
N−1
= [A. Y
N
] vanishes to order exactly · −1. Conclude
that the vectors A. Y
0
. . . . . Y
N
(where Y
i−1
= [A. Y
i
] for i 0) form a basis of g. Now,
what do you know about [Y
N−1
. Y
N
]?).
(iii) (Lie’s Theorem) Show that, if dim(g) = 2, then g is isomorphic to the (unique) non
abelian Lie algebra of that dimension and that there is a local change of coordinates
so that
g = ¦(o + /r)∂´∂r [ o. / ∈ R¦.
Show also that, if dim(g) = 3, then g is isomorphic to sl(2. R) and that there exist
local changes of coordinates so that
g = ¦(o +/r + cr
2
)∂´∂r [ o. /. c ∈ R¦.
(In the second case, after you have shown that the algebra is isomorphic to sl(2. R),
show that, at each point of R, there exists a element A ∈ g which does not vanish at
the point and which satisﬁes
ad(A)
2
= 0. Now put it in the form A = ∂´∂r for
some local coordinate r and ask what happens to the other elements of g.)
(iv) (This is somewhat harder.) Show that if dim(g) = 3, then there is a diﬀeomorphism
of R with an open interval 1 ⊂ R so that g gets mapped to the algebra
g =
(o + / cos r + c sin r)
∂
∂r
o. /. c ∈ R
.
In particular, this shows that every local action of SL(2. R) on R is the restriction
of the M¨ obius action on RP
1
after “lifting” to its universal cover. Show that two
intervals 1
1
= (0. o) and 1
2
= (0. /) are diﬀeomorphic in such a way as to preserve
the Lie algebra g if and only if either o = / = 2nπ for some positive integer n or else
2nπ < o. / < (2n + 2)π for some positive integer n. (Hint: Show, by a local analysis,
that any vector ﬁeld A ∈ g which vanishes at any point of R must have κ(A. A) ≥ 0.
Now choose an A so that κ(A. A) = −2 and choose a global coodinate r: R → R
so that A = ∂´∂r. You must still examine the eﬀect of your choices on the image
interval r(R) ⊂ R.)
Lie and his coworkers attempted to classify all of the ﬁnite dimensional Lie subalgebras
of the vector ﬁelds on R
k
, for / ≤ 5, since (they thought) this would give a classiﬁcation
of all of the equations of Lie type for at most 5 unknowns. The classiﬁcation became
extremely complex and lengthy by dimension 5 and it was abandoned. On the other hand,
the project of classifying the abstract ﬁnite dimensional Lie algebras has enjoyed a great
deal of success. In fact, one of the triumphs of nineteenth century mathematics was the
classiﬁcation, by Killing and Cartan, of all of the ﬁnite dimensional simple Lie algebras
over C and R.
E.3.4 60
Lecture 4:
Symmetries and Conservation Laws
Variational Problems. In this Lecture, I will introduce a particular set of variational
problems, the socalled “ﬁrstorder particle Lagrangian problems”, which will serve as a
link to the “symplectic” geometry to be developed in the next Lecture.
Deﬁnition 1: A Lagrangian on a manifold ` is a smooth function 1: T` →R. For any
smooth curve γ: [o. /] →`, deﬁne
F
L
(γ) =
b
a
1
˙ γ(t)
dt.
F
L
is called the functional associated to 1.
(The use of the word “functional” here is classical. The reader is supposed to think
of the set of all smooth curves γ: [o. /] →` as a sort of inﬁnite dimensional manifold and
of F
L
as a function on it.)
I have deliberately chosen to avoid the (mild) complications caused by allowing less
smoothness for 1 and γ, though for some purposes, it is essential to do so. The geometric
points that I want to make, however will be clearest if we do not have to worry about
determining the optimum regularity assumptions.
Also, some sources only require 1 to be deﬁned on some open set in T`. Others
allow 1 to “depend on t”, i.e., take 1 to be a function on R T`. Though I will not
go into any of these (slight) extensions, the reader should be aware that they exist. For
example, see [A].
Example: Suppose that 1: T` → R restricts to each T
x
` to be a positive deﬁnite
quadratic form. Then 1 deﬁnes what is usually called a Riemannian metric on `. For a
curve γ in `, the functional F
L
(γ) is then twice what is usually called the “action” of γ.
This example is, by far, the most commonly occurring Lagrangian in diﬀerential geometry.
We will have more to say about this below.
For a Lagrangian 1, one is usually interested in ﬁnding the curves γ: [o. /] →` with
given “endpoint conditions” γ(o) = j and γ(/) = c for which the functional F
L
(γ) is a
minimum. For example, in the case where 1 deﬁnes a Riemannian metric on `, the curves
with ﬁxed endpoints of minimum “action” turn out also to be the shortest curves joining
those endpoints. From calculus, we know that the way to ﬁnd minima of a function on a
manifold is to ﬁrst ﬁnd the “critical points” of the function and then look among those
for the minima. As mentioned before, the set of curves in ` can be thought of as a sort
of “inﬁnite dimensional” manifold, but I won’t go into details on this point. What I will
do instead is describe what ought to be the set of “curves” in this space (classically called
“variations”) if it were a manifold.
L.4.1 61
Given a curve γ: [o. /] → `, a (smooth) variation of γ with ﬁxed endpoints is, by
deﬁnition, a smooth map
Γ : [o. /] (−ε. ε) →`
for some ε 0 with the property that Γ(t. 0) = γ(t) for all t ∈ [o. /] and that Γ(o. :) = γ(o)
and Γ(/. :) = γ(/) for all : ∈ (−ε. ε).
In this lecture, “variation” will always mean “smooth variation with ﬁxed endpoints”.
If 1 is a Lagrangian on ` and Γ is a variation of γ: [o. /] →`, then we can deﬁne a
function F
L,Γ
: (−ε. ε) →R by setting
F
L,Γ
(:) = F
L
(γ
s
)
where γ
s
(t) = Γ(t. :).
Deﬁnition 2: A curve γ: [o. /] →` is 1critical if F
L,Γ
(0) = 0 for all variations of γ.
It is clear from calculus that a curve which minimizes F
L
among all curves with the
same endpoints will have to be 1critical, so the search for minimizers usually begins with
the search for the critical curves.
Canonical Coordinates. I want to examine what the problem of ﬁnding 1critical
curves “looks like” in local coordinates. If l ⊂ ` is an open set on which there exists a
coordinate chart r: l →R
n
, then there is a canonical extension of these coordinates to a
coordinate chart (r. j): Tl →R
n
R
n
with the property that, for any curve γ: [o. /] →l,
with coordinates n = r ◦ γ, the jcoordinates of the curve ˙ γ: [o. /] → Tl are given by
j ◦ ˙ γ = ˙ n. We shall call the coordinates (r. j) on Tl, the canonical coordinates associated
to the coordinate system r on l.
The EulerLagrange Equations. In a canonical coordinate system (r. j) on Tl
where l is an open set in `, the function 1 can be expressed as a function 1(r. j) of r
and j. For a curve γ: [o. /] → ` which happens to lie in l, the functional F
L
becomes
simply
F
L
(γ) =
b
a
1
n(t). ˙ n(t)
dt.
I will now derive the classical conditions for such a γ to be 1critical: Let /: [o. /] →R
n
be any smooth map which satisﬁes /(o) = /(/) = 0. Then, for suﬃciently small ε, there is
a variation Γ of γ which is expressed in (r. j)coordinates as
(r. j) ◦ Γ = (n +:/. ˙ n + :
˙
/).
L.4.2 62
Then, by the classic integrationbyparts method,
F
L,Γ
(0) =
d
d:
s=0
b
a
1
n(t) + :/(t). ˙ n(t) + :
˙
/(t)
dt
=
b
a
∂1
∂r
k
n(t). ˙ n(t)
/
k
(t) +
∂1
∂j
k
n(t). ˙ n(t)
˙
/
k
(t)
dt
=
b
a
∂1
∂r
k
n(t). ˙ n(t)
−
d
dt
∂1
∂j
k
n(t). ˙ n(t)
/
k
(t) dt.
This formula is valid for any /: [o. /] → R
n
which vanishes at the endpoints. It follows
without diﬃculty that the curve γ is 1critical if and only if n = r ◦ γ satisﬁes the n
diﬀerential equations
∂1
∂r
k
n(t). ˙ n(t)
−
d
dt
∂1
∂j
k
n(t). ˙ n(t)
= 0. for 1 ≤ / ≤ n.
These are the famous EulerLagrange equations.
The main drawback of the EulerLagrange equations in this form is that they only
give necessary and suﬃcient conditions for a curve to be 1critical if it lies in a coordinate
neighborhood l. It is not hard to show that if γ: [o. /] →` is 1critical, then its restriction
to any subinterval [o
. /
] ⊂ [o. /] is also 1critical. In particular, a necessary condition for
γ to be 1critical is that it satisfy the EulerLagrange equations on any subcurve which lies
in a coordinate system. However, it is not clear that these “local conditions” are suﬃcient.
Another drawback is that, as derived, the equations depend on the choice of coordi
nates and it is not clear that one’s success in solving them might not depend on a clever
choice of coordinates.
In what follows, we want to remedy these defects. First, though, here are a couple of
examples.
Example: Riemannian Metrics. Consider a Riemannian metric 1: T` → R. Then,
in local canonical coordinates,
1(r. j) = o
ij
(r)j
i
j
j
.
where o(r) is a positive deﬁnite symmetric matrix of functions. (Remember, the summa
tion convention is in force.) In this case, the EulerLagrange equations are
∂o
ij
∂r
k
n(t)
˙ n
i
(t) ˙ n
j
(t) =
d
dt
2o
kj
n(t)
˙ n
j
(t)
= 2
∂o
kj
∂r
i
n(t)
˙ n
i
(t) ˙ n
j
(t) +2o
kj
n(t)
¨ n
j
(t).
Since the matrix o(r) is invertible for all r, these equations can be put in more familiar
form by solving for the second derivatives to get
¨ n
i
= −Γ
i
jk
(n) ˙ n
j
˙ n
k
L.4.3 63
where the functions Γ
i
jk
= Γ
i
kj
are given by the formula so familiar to geometers:
Γ
i
jk
=
1
2
o
i
∂o
j
∂r
k
+
∂o
k
∂r
j
−
∂o
jk
∂r
where the matrix
o
ij
is the inverse of the matrix
o
ij
.
Example: OneForms. Another interesting case is when 1 is linear on each tangent
space, i.e., 1 = ω where ω is a smooth 1form on `. In local canonical coordinates,
1 = o
i
(r) j
i
for some functions o
i
and the EulerLagrange equations become:
∂o
i
∂r
k
n(t)
˙ n
i
(t) =
d
dt
o
k
n(t)
=
∂o
k
∂r
i
n(t)
˙ n
i
(t)
or, simply,
∂o
i
∂r
k
(n) −
∂o
k
∂r
i
(n)
˙ n
i
= 0.
This last equation should look familiar. Recall that the exterior derivative of ω has the
coordinate expression
dω =
1
2
∂o
j
∂r
i
−
∂o
i
∂r
j
dr
i
∧ dr
j
.
If γ: [o. /] → l is F
ω
critical, then for every vector ﬁeld · along γ the EulerLagrange
equations imply that
dω
˙ γ(t). ·(t)
=
1
2
∂o
j
∂r
i
n(t)
−
∂o
i
∂r
j
n(t)
˙ n
i
(t)·
j
(t) = 0.
In other words, ˙ γ(t) dω = 0. Conversely, if this identity holds, then γ is clearly ωcritical.
This leads to the following global result:
Proposition 1: A curve γ: [o. /] → ` is ωcritical for a 1form ω on ` if and only if it
satisﬁes the ﬁrst order diﬀerential equation
˙ γ(t) dω = 0.
Proof: A straightforward integrationbyparts on ` yields the coordinatefree formula
F
ω,Γ
(0) =
b
a
dω
˙ γ(t).
∂Γ
∂s
(t. 0)
dt
where Γ is any variation of γ and
∂Γ
∂s
is the “variation vector ﬁeld” along γ. Since this
vector ﬁeld is arbitrary except for being required to vanish at the endpoints, we see that
“dω
˙ γ. ·
= 0 for all vector ﬁelds · along γ” is the desired condition for ωcriticality.
L.4.4 64
The way is now paved for what will seem like a trivial observation, but, in fact, turns
out to be of fundamental importance: It is the “seed” of Noether’s Theorem.
Proposition 2: Suppose that ω is a 1form on ` and that A is a vector ﬁeld on `
whose (local) ﬂow leaves ω invariant. Then the function ω(A) is constant on all ωcritical
curves.
Proof: The condition that the ﬂow of A leave ω invariant is just that L
X
(ω) = 0.
However, by the Cartan formula,
0 = L
X
(ω) = d(A ω) + A dω.
so for any curve γ in `, we have
dω
˙ γ(t). A(γ(t))
= −dω
A(γ(t)). ˙ γ(t)
= −(A dω)
˙ γ(t)
= d(A ω)
˙ γ(t)
and this last expression is clearly the derivative of the function A ω = ω(A) along γ.
Now apply Proposition 1.
It is worth pausing a moment to think about what Proposition 2 means. The condition
that the ﬂow of A leave ω invariant is essentially saying that the ﬂow of A is a “symmetry”
of ω and hence of the functional F
ω
. What Proposition 2 says is that a certain kind of
symmetry of the functional gives rise to a “ﬁrst integral” (sometimes called “conservation
law”) of the equation for ωcritical curves. If the function ω(A) is not a constant function
on `, then saying that the ωcritical curves lie in its level sets is useful information about
these critical curves.
Now, this idea can be applied to the general Lagrangian with symmetries. The only
trick is to ﬁnd the appropriate 1form on which to evaluate “symmetry” vector ﬁelds.
Proposition 3: For any Lagrangian 1: T` →R, there exist a unique function 1
L
on T`
and a unique 1form ω
L
on T` which, relative to any local coordinate system r: l →R,
have the expressions
1
L
= j
i
∂1
∂j
i
−1 and ω
L
=
∂1
∂j
i
dr
i
.
Moreover, if γ: [o. /] → ` is any curve, then γ satisﬁes the EulerLagrange equations for
1 in every local coordinate system if and only if its canonical lift ˙ γ: [o. /] →T` satisﬁes
¨ γ(t) dω
L
= −d1
L
( ˙ γ(t)).
Proof: This will mainly be a sequence of applications of the Chain Rule.
There is an invariantly deﬁned vector ﬁeld 1 on T` which is simply the radial vector
ﬁeld on each subspace T
m
`. It is expressed in canonical coordinates as 1 = j
i
∂´∂j
i
.
Now, using this vector ﬁeld, the quantity 1
L
takes the form
1
L
= −1 + d1(1).
L.4.5 65
Thus, it is clear that 1
L
is welldeﬁned on T`.
Now we check the welldeﬁnition of ω
L
. If .: l → R is any other local coordinate
system, then . = 1(r) for some 1: R
n
→R
n
. The corresponding canonical coordinates on
Tl are (.. c) where c = 1
(r)j. In particular,
d.
dc
=
1
(r) 0
G(r. j) 1
(r)
dr
dj
.
where G is some matrix function whose exact form is not relevant. Then writing 1
z
for
∂L
∂z
1
. . . . .
∂L
∂z
n
, etc., yields
d1 = 1
z
d. +1
q
dc
=
1
z
1
(r) + 1
q
G(r. j)
dr + 1
q
1
(r) dj
= 1
x
dr + 1
p
dj.
Comparing djcoeﬃcients yields 1
p
= 1
q
1
(r), so 1
p
dr = 1
q
1
(r) dr = 1
q
d.. In partic
ular, as we wished to show, there exists a welldeﬁned 1form ω
L
on T` whose coordinate
expression in local canonical coordinates (r. j) is 1
p
dr.
The remainder of the proof is a coordinate calculation. The reader will want to note
that I am using the expression ¨ γ to denote the velocity of the curve ˙ γ in T`. The curve
˙ γ is described in l as (r. j) = (n. ˙ n) and its velocity vector ¨ γ is simply ( ˙ r. ˙ j) = ( ˙ n. ¨ n).
Now, the EulerLagrange equations are just
∂1
∂r
i
(n. ˙ n) =
d
dt
∂1
∂j
i
(n. ˙ n)
=
∂
2
1
∂j
i
∂j
j
(n. ˙ n)¨ n
j
+
∂
2
1
∂j
i
∂r
j
(n. ˙ n) ˙ n
j
.
Meanwhile,
dω
L
=
∂
2
1
∂j
i
∂j
j
dj
j
∧ dr
i
+
∂
2
1
∂j
i
∂r
j
dr
j
∧ dr
i
.
so
¨ γ dω
L
=
∂
2
1
∂j
i
∂j
j
(n. ˙ n)
¨ n
j
dr
i
− ˙ n
i
dj
j
+
∂
2
1
∂j
i
∂r
j
(n. ˙ n)
˙ n
j
dr
i
− ˙ n
i
dr
j
.
On the other hand, an easy computation yields
−d1
L
( ˙ γ) =
∂1
∂r
i
(n. ˙ n) −
∂
2
1
∂j
j
∂r
i
(n. ˙ n) ˙ n
j
dr
i
−
∂
2
1
∂j
i
∂j
j
(n. ˙ n) ˙ n
i
dj
j
.
Comparing these last two equations, the condition ¨ γ dω
L
= −d1
L
( ˙ γ) is seen to be the
EulerLagrange equations, as desired.
Conservation of Energy. One important consequence of Proposition 3 is that the
function 1
L
is constant along the curve ˙ γ for any 1critical curve γ: [o. /] → `. This
follows since, for such a curve,
d1
L
¨ γ(t)
= −dω
L
¨ γ(t). ¨ γ(t)
= 0.
1
L
is generally interpreted as the “energy” of the Lagrangian 1, and this constancy of 1
L
on 1critical curves is often called the principle of Conservation of Energy.
Some sources deﬁne 1
L
as 1 − d1(1). My choice was to have 1
L
agree with the
classical energy in the classical problems.
L.4.6 66
Deﬁnition 3: If 1: T` →R is a Lagrangian on `, a diﬀeomorphism 1: ` →` is said
to be a symmetry of 1 if 1 is invariant under the induced diﬀeomorphism 1
: T` →T`,
i.e., if 1 ◦ 1
= 1. A vector ﬁeld A on ` is said to be an inﬁnitesimal symmetry of 1 if
the (local) ﬂow Φ
t
of A is a symmetry of 1 for all t.
It is perhaps necessary to make a remark about the last part of this deﬁnition. For a
vector ﬁeld A which is not necessarily complete, and for any t ∈ R, the “time t” local ﬂow
of A is welldeﬁned on an open set l
t
⊂ `. The local ﬂow of A then gives a welldeﬁned
diﬀeomorphism Φ
t
: l
t
→l
−t
. The requirement for A is that, for each t for which l
t
= ∅,
the induced map Φ
t
: Tl
t
→Tl
−t
should satisfy 1◦ Φ
t
= 1. (Of course, if A is complete,
then l
t
= ` for all t, so symmetry has its usual meaning.)
Let A be any vector ﬁeld on ` with local ﬂow Φ. This induces a local ﬂow on T`
which is associated to a vector ﬁeld A
on T`. If, in a local coordinate chart, r: l →R
n
,
the vector ﬁeld A has the expression
A = o
i
(r)
∂
∂r
i
.
then the reader may check that, in the associated canonical coordinates on Tl,
A
= o
i
∂
∂r
i
+ j
j
∂o
i
∂r
j
∂
∂j
i
.
The condition that A be an inﬁnitesimal symmetry of 1 is then that 1 be invariant
under the ﬂow of A
, i.e., that
d1(A
) = o
i
∂1
∂r
i
+ j
j
∂o
i
∂r
j
∂1
∂j
i
= 0.
The following theorem is now a simple calculation. Nevertheless, it is the foundation
of a vast theory. It usually goes by the name “Noether’s Theorem”, though, in fact,
Noether’s Theorem is more general.
Theorem 1: If A is an inﬁnitesimal symmetry of the Lagrangian 1, then the function
ω
L
(A
) is constant on ˙ γ: [o. /] →T` for every 1critical path γ: [o. /] →`.
Proof: Since the ﬂow of A
ﬁxes 1 it should not be too surprising that it also ﬁxes 1
L
and ω
L
. These facts are easily checked by the reader in local coordinates, so they are left
as exercises. In particular,
L
X
ω
L
= d(A
ω
L
) + A
dω
L
= 0 and L
X
1
L
= d1
L
(A
) = 0.
Thus, for any 1critical curve γ in `,
d
ω
L
(A
)
¨ γ(t)
= d(A
ω
L
)
¨ γ(t)
= −(A
dω
L
)
¨ γ(t)
= dω
L
¨ γ(t). A
( ˙ γ(t))
=
¨ γ(t) dω
L
A
( ˙ γ(t))
= −d1
L
A
( ˙ γ(t))
= 0.
L.4.7 67
Hence, the function ω
L
(A
) is constant on ˙ γ, as desired.
Of course, the formula for ω
L
(A
) in local canonical coordinates is simply
ω
L
(A
) = o
i
∂1
∂j
i
.
and the constancy of this function on the solution curves of the EulerLagrange equations
is not diﬃcult to check directly.
The principle
Symmetry =⇒ Conservation Law
is so fundamental that whenever a new system of equations is encountered an enormous
eﬀort is expended to determine its symmetries. Moreover, the intuition is often expressed
that “every conservation law ought to come from some symmetry”, so whenever conserved
quantities are observed in Nature (or, more accurately, our models of Nature) people
nowadays look for a symmetry to explain it. Even when no symmetry is readily apparent,
in many cases a sort of “hidden symmetry” can be found.
Example: Motion in a Central Force Field. Consider the Lagrangian of “kinetic
minus potential energy” for an particle (of mass : = 0) moving in a “central force ﬁeld”.
Here, we take R
n
with its usual inner product and a function \ ([r[
2
) (called the potential
energy) which depends only on distance from the origin. The Lagrangian is
1(r. j) =
m
2
[j[
2
−\ ([r[
2
).
The function 1
L
is given by
1
L
(r. j) =
m
2
[j[
2
+ \ ([r[
2
).
and ω
L
= :j
i
dr
i
= :j dr.
The Lagrangian 1 is clearly symmetric with respect to rotations about the origin. For
example, the rotation in the i,plane is generated by the vector ﬁeld
A
ij
= r
j
∂
∂r
i
−r
i
∂
∂r
j
.
According to Noether’s Theorem, then, the functions
j
ij
= ω
L
(A
ij
) = :
r
j
j
i
−r
i
j
j
are constant on all solutions. These are usually called the “angular momenta”. It follows
from their constancy that the bivector ξ = n(t)∧ ˙ n(t) is constant on any solution r = n(t) of
the EulerLagrange equations and hence that n(t) moves in a ﬁxed 2plane. Thus, we are
essentially reduced to the case n = 2. In this case, for constants 1
0
and j
0
, the equations
m
2
[j[
2
+ \ ([r[
2
) = 1
0
and :(r
1
j
2
−r
2
j
1
) = j
0
L.4.8 68
will generically deﬁne a surface in TR
2
. The solution curves to the EulerLagrange equa
tions
˙ r = j and ˙ j = −
2
:
\
([r[
2
)r
which lie on this surface can then be analysed by phase portrait methods. (In fact, they
can be integrated by quadrature.)
Example: Riemannian metrics with Symmetries. As another example, consider
the case of a Riemannian manifold with inﬁnitesimal symmetries. If the ﬂow of A on `
preserves a Riemannian metric 1, then, in local coordinates,
1 = o
ij
(r)j
i
j
j
and
A = o
i
(r)
∂
∂r
i
.
According to Conservation of Energy and Noether’s Theorem, the functions
1
L
= o
ij
(r)j
i
j
j
and ω
L
(A
) = 2o
ij
(r)o
i
(r)j
j
are ﬁrst integrals of the geodesic equations.
For example, if a surface o ⊂ R
3
is a surface of revolution, then the induced metric
can locally be written in the form
1 = 1(:) d:
2
+ 2 1(:)d: dθ + G(:) dθ
2
where the rotational symmetry is generated by the vector ﬁeld A = ∂´∂θ. The following
functions are then constant on solutions of the geodesic equations:
1(:) ˙ :
2
+ 2 1(:) ˙ :
˙
θ + G(:)
˙
θ
2
and 1(:) ˙ : + G(:)
˙
θ.
This makes it possible to integrate by quadratures the geodesic equations on a surface of
revolution, a classical accomplishment. (See the Exercises for details.)
Subexample: Left Invariant Metrics on Lie Groups. Let G be a Lie group and let
ω
1
. ω
2
. . . . . ω
n
be any basis for the leftinvariant 1forms on G. Consider the Lagrangian
1 =
ω
1
2
+ + (ω
n
)
2
.
which deﬁnes a leftinvariant metric on G. Since left translations are symmetries of this
metric and since the ﬂows of the rightinvariant vector ﬁelds Y
i
leave the leftinvariant
1forms ﬁxed, we see that these generate symmetries of the Lagrangian 1. In particular,
the functions 1
L
= 1 and
j
i
= ω
1
(Y
i
)ω
1
+ + ω
n
(Y
i
)ω
n
L.4.9 69
are functions on TG which are constant on all of the geodesics of G with the metric 1. I
will return to this example several times in future lectures.
Subsubexample: The Motion of Rigid Bodies. A special case of the Lie group example
is particularly noteworthy, namely the theory of the rigid body.
A rigid body (in R
n
) is a (ﬁnite) set of points x
1
. . . . . x
N
with masses :
1
. . . . . :
N
such that the distances d
ij
= [x
i
−x
j
[ are ﬁxed (hence the name “rigid”). The free motion
of such a body is governed by the “kinetic energy” Lagrangian
1 =
:
1
2
[p
1
[
2
+ +
:
N
2
[p
N
[
2
.
where p
i
represents the velocity of the i’th point mass. Here is how this can be converted
into a leftinvariant Lagrangian variational problem on a Lie group:
Let G be the matrix Lie group
G =
¹ /
0 1
¹ ∈ O(n). / ∈ R
n
¸
.
Then G acts as the space of isometries of R
n
with its usual metric and thus also acts on
the ·fold product
Y
N
= R
n
R
n
R
n
by the “diagonal” action. It is not diﬃcult to show that G acts transitively on the simul
taneous level sets of the functions 1
ij
(x) = [x
i
− x
j
[. Thus, for each symmetric matrix
∆ = (d
ij
), the set
`
∆
= ¦x ∈ Y
N
[ [x
i
−x
j
[ = d
ij
¦
is an orbit of G (and hence a smooth manifold) when it is not empty. The set `
∆
is said to
be the “conﬁguration space” of the rigid body. (Question: Can you determine a necessary
and suﬃcient condition on the matrix ∆ so that `
∆
is not empty? In other words, which
rigid bodies are possible?)
Let us suppose that `
∆
is not empty and let ¯ x ∈ `
∆
be a “reference conﬁguration”
which, for convenience, we shall suppose has its center of mass at the origin:
:
k
¯ x
k
= 0.
(This can always be arranged by a simultaneous translation of all of the point masses.)
Now let γ: [o. /] →`
∆
be a curve in the conﬁguration space. (Such curves are often called
“trajectories”.) Since `
∆
is a Gorbit, there is a curve o: [o. /] →G so that γ(t) = o(t) ¯ x.
Let us write
γ(t) = (x
1
(t). . . . . x
N
(t))
and let
o(t) =
¹(t) /(t)
0 1
.
L.4.10 70
The value of the canonical left invariant form on o is
o
−1
˙ o =
α β
0 0
=
¹
−1
˙
¹ ¹
−1
˙
/
0 0
.
The kinetic energy along the trajectory γ is then
1
2
¸
k
:
k
[ ˙ x
k
[
2
=
1
2
¸
k
:
k
( ˙ x
k
˙ x
k
) =
1
2
¸
k
:
k
˙
¹¯ x
k
+
˙
/
˙
¹¯ x
k
+
˙
/
.
Since ¹ is a curve in O(n), this becomes
=
1
2
¸
k
:
k
(¹
−1
˙
¹¯ x
k
+
˙
/
(¹
−1
˙
¹¯ x
k
+
˙
/
=
1
2
¸
k
:
k
(α¯ x
k
+ β) (α¯ x
k
+ β) .
Using the centerofmass normalization, this simpliﬁes to
=
1
2
¸
k
:
k
−
t
¯ x
k
α
2
¯ x
k
+[β[
2
.
With a slight rearrangement, this takes the simple form
1
˙ γ(t)
= −tr
α(t)
2
j
+
1
2
:[β(t)[
2
where : = :
1
+ +:
N
is the total mass of the body and j is the positive semideﬁnite
symmetric nbyn matrix
j =
1
2
¸
k
:
k
¯ x
k
t
¯ x
k
.
It is clear that we can interpret 1 as a leftinvariant Lagrangian on G. Actually, even the
formula we have found so far can be simpliﬁed: If we write j = 1δ
t
1 where δ is diagonal
and 1 is an orthogonal matrix (which we can always do), then right acting on G by the
element
1 0
0 1
will reduce the Lagrangian to the form
1
˙ o(t)
= −tr
α(t)
2
δ
+
1
2
:[β(t)[
2
.
Thus, only the eigenvalues of the matrix j really matter in trying to solve the equations
of motion of a rigid body. This observation is usually given an interpretation like “the
motion of any rigid body is equivalent to the motion of its ‘ellipsoid of inertia’ ”.
Hamiltonian Form. Let us return to the consideration of the EulerLagrange equa
tions. As we have seen, in expanded form, the equations in local coordinates are
∂
2
1
∂j
i
∂j
j
(n. ˙ n)¨ n
j
+
∂
2
1
∂j
i
∂r
j
(n. ˙ n) ˙ n
j
−
∂1
∂r
i
(n. ˙ n) = 0.
L.4.11 71
In order for these equations to be solvable for the highest derivatives at every possible set
of initial conditions, the symmetric matrix
H
L
(r. j) =
∂
2
1
∂j
i
∂j
j
(r. j)
.
must be invertible at every point (r. j).
Deﬁnition 4: A Lagrangian 1 is said to be nondegenerate if, relative to every local
coordinate system r: l →R
n
, the matrix H
L
is invertible at every point of Tl.
For example, if 1: T` → R restricts to each tangent space T
m
` to be a non
degenerate quadratic form, then 1 is a nondegenerate Lagrangian. In particular, when 1
is a Riemannian metric, 1 is nondegenerate.
Although Deﬁnition 4 is fairly explicit, it is certainly not coordinate free. Here is a
result which may clarify the meaning of nondegenerate.
Proposition 4: The following are equivalent for a Lagrangian 1: T` →R:
(1) 1 is a nondegenerate Lagrangian.
(2) In local coordinates (r. j), the functions r
1
. . . . . r
n
. ∂1´∂j
1
. . . . . ∂1´∂j
n
have every
where independent diﬀerentials.
(3) The 2form dω
L
is nondegenerate at every point of T`, i.e., for any tangent vector
· ∈ T(T`), · dω
L
= 0 implies that · = 0.
Proof: The equivalence of (1) and (2) follows directly from the Chain Rule and is left
as an exercise. The equivalence of (2) and (3) can be seen as follows: Let · ∈ T
a
(T`)
be a tangent vector based at o ∈ T
m
`. Choose any local any canonical local coordinate
system (r. j) with : ∈ l and write c
i
= ∂1´∂j
i
for 1 ≤ i ≤ n. Then ω
L
takes the form
dω
L
= dc
i
∧ dr
i
.
Thus,
· dω
L
= dc
i
(·) dr
i
−dr
i
(·) dc
i
.
Now, suppose that the diﬀerentials dr
1
. . . . . dr
n
. dc
i
. . . . . dc
n
are linearly independent
at o and hence span T
∗
a
(T`). Then, if · dω
L
= 0, we must have dc
i
(·) = dr
i
(·) = 0,
which, because the given 2n diﬀerentials form a spanning set, implies that · = 0 Thus,
dω
L
is nondegenerate at o.
On the other hand, suppose that that the diﬀerentials dr
1
. . . . . dr
n
. dc
1
. . . . . dc
n
are
linearly dependent at o. Then, by linear algebra, there exists a nonzero vector · ∈ T
∗
a
(T`)
so that dc
i
(·) = dr
i
(·) = 0. However, it is then clear that · dω
L
= 0 for such a ·, so
that dω
L
will be degenerate at o.
For physical reasons, the function c
i
is usually called the conjugate momentum to the
coordinate r
i
.
L.4.12 72
Before exploring the geometric meaning of the coordinate system (r. c), we want to
give the following description of the 1critical curves of a nondegenerate Lagrangian.
Proposition 5: If 1: T` →R is a nondegenerate Lagrangian, then there exists a unique
vector ﬁeld Y on T` so that, for every 1critical curve γ: [o. /] →`, the associated curve
˙ γ: [o. /] →T` is an integral curve of Y . Conversely, for any integral curve ϕ: [o. /] →T`
of Y , the composition φ = π ◦ ϕ: [o. /] →` is an 1critical curve in `.
Proof: It is clear that we should take Y to be the unique vector ﬁeld on T` which satisﬁes
Y dω
L
= −d1
L
. (There is only one since, by Proposition 4, dω
L
is nondegenerate.)
Proposition 3 then says that for every 1critical curve, its lift ˙ γ satisﬁes ¨ γ(t) = Y ( ˙ γ(t)) for
all t, i.e., that ˙ γ is indeed an integral curve of Y .
The details of the converse will be left to the reader. First, one must check that, with φ
deﬁned as above, we have
˙
φ = ϕ. This is best done in local coordinates. Second, one must
check that φ is indeed 1critical, even though it may not lie entirely within a coordinate
neighborhood. This may be done by computing the variation of φ restricted to appropriate
subintervals and taking account of the boundary terms introduced by integration by parts
when the endpoints are not ﬁxed. Details are in the Exercises.
The canonical vector ﬁeld Y on T` is just the coordinate free way of expressing the
fact that, for nondegenerate Lagrangians, the EulerLagrangian equations are simply a
nonsingular system of second order ODE for maps γ: [o. /] →`
Unfortunately, the expression for Y in canonical (r. j)coordinates on T` is not very
nice; it involves the inverse of the matrix H
L
. However, in the (r. c)coordinates, it is
a completely diﬀerent story. In these coordinates, everything takes a remarkably simple
form, a fact which is the cornerstone on symplectic geometry and the calculus of variations.
Before taking up the geometric interpretation of these new coordinates, let us do a
few calculations. We have already seen that , in these coordinates, the canonical 1form
ω
L
takes the simple form ω
L
= c
i
dr
i
.
We can also express 1
L
as a function of (r. c). It is traditional to denote this expression
by H(r. c) and call it the Hamiltonian of the variational problem (even though, in a certain
sense, it is the same function as 1
L
). The equation determining the vector ﬁeld Y is
expressed in these coordinates as
Y dω
L
= Y (dc
i
∧ dr
i
) = dc
i
(Y ) dr
i
−dr
i
(Y ) dc
i
= −dH = −
∂H
∂r
i
dr
i
−
∂H
∂c
i
dc
i
.
so the expression for Y in these coordinates is
Y =
∂H
∂c
i
∂
∂r
i
−
∂H
∂r
i
∂
∂c
i
.
In particular, the ﬂow of Y takes the form
˙ r
i
=
∂H
∂c
i
and ˙ c
i
= −
∂H
∂r
i
.
L.4.13 73
These equations are known as Hamilton’s Equations or, sometimes, as the Hamiltonian
form of the EulerLagrange equations.
Part of the reason for the importance of the (r. c) coordinates is the symmetric way
they treat the positions and momenta. Another reason comes from the form the inﬁnites
imal symmetries take in these coordinates: If A is an inﬁnitesimal symmetry of 1 and
A
is the induced vector ﬁeld on T` with conserved quantity G = ω
L
(A
), then, since
L
X
ω
L
= 0,
A
dω
L
= −d(ω
L
(A
)) = −dG.
Thus, by the same analysis as above, the ODE represented by A
in the (r. c) coordinates
becomes
˙ r
i
=
∂G
∂c
i
and ˙ c
i
= −
∂G
∂r
i
.
In other words, in the (r. c) coordinates, the ﬂow of a symmetry A
has the same Hamilto
nian form as the ﬂow of the vector ﬁeld Y which gives the solutions of the EulerLagrange
equations! This method of putting the symmetries of a Lagrangian and the solutions of
the Lagrangian on a sort of equal footing will be seen to have powerful consequences.
The Cotangent Bundle. Early on in this lecture, we introduced, for each coordinate
chart r: l → R
n
, a canonical extension (r. j): Tl → R
n
R
n
and characterized it by a
geometric property. There is also a canonical extension (r. ξ): T
∗
l → R
n
R
n
where
ξ = (ξ
i
): T
∗
l → R
n
is characterized by the condition that, if 1: l → R is any smooth
function on l, then, regarding its exterior derivative d1 as a section d1: l →T
∗
l, we have
ξ
i
◦ d1 =
∂1
∂r
i
.
I will leave to the reader the task of showing that (r. ξ) is indeed a coordinate system
on T
∗
l.
It is a remarkable fact that the cotangent bundle π: T
∗
` →` of any smooth manifold
carries a canonical 1form ω deﬁned by the following property: For each α ∈ T
∗
x
`, we
deﬁne the linear function ω
α
: T
α
T
∗
`
→ R by the rule ω
α
(·) = α
π
(α)(·)
. I leave to
the reader the task of showing that, in canonical coordinates (r. ξ
: T
∗
l →R
n
R
n
, this
canonical 1form has the expression
ω = ξ
i
dr
i
.
The Legendre transformation. Now consider a smooth Lagrangian 1: T` → R
as before. We can use 1 to construct a smooth mapping τ
L
: T` → T
∗
` as follows: At
each · ∈ T`, the 1form ω
L
(·) is semibasic, i.e., there exists a (necessarily unique) 1
form τ
L
(·) ∈ T
∗
π(v)
` so that ω
L
(·) = π
∗
τ
L
(·)
. This mapping is known as the Legendre
transformation associated to the Lagrangian 1.
L.4.14 74
This deﬁnition is rather abstract, but, in local coordinates, it takes a simple form.
The reader can easily check that in canonical coordinates associated to a coordinate chart
r: l →R
n
, we have
(r. ξ) ◦ τ
L
= (r. c) =
r
i
.
∂1
∂j
i
.
In other words, the (r. c) coordinates are just the canonical coordinates on the cotangent
bundle composed with the Legendre transformation! It is now immediate that τ
L
is a local
diﬀeomorphism if and only if 1 is a nondegenerate Lagrangian. Moreover, we clearly have
ω
L
= τ
∗
L
(ω), so the 1form ω
L
is also expressible in terms of the canonical 1form ω and
the Legendre transform.
What about the function 1
L
on T`? Let us put the following condition on the
Lagrangian 1: Let us assume that τ
L
: T` →T
∗
` is a (onetoone) diﬀeomorphism onto
its image τ
L
(T`) ⊂ T
∗
`. (Note that this implies that 1 is nondegenerate, but is stronger
than this.) Then there clearly exists a function on τ
L
(T`) which pulls back to T` to
be 1
L
. In fact, as the reader can easily verify, this is none other than the Hamiltonian
function H constructed above.
The fact that the Hamiltonian H naturally “lives” on T
∗
` (or at least an open subset
thereof) rather than on T` justiﬁes it being regarded as distinct from the function 1
L
.
There is another reason for moving over to the cotangent bundle when one can: The
vector ﬁeld Y on T` corresponds, under the Legendre transformation, to a vector ﬁeld 7
on τ
L
(T`) which is characterized by the simple rule 7 dω = −dH. Thus, just knowing
the Hamiltonian H on an open set in T
∗
` determines the vector ﬁeld which sweeps out
the solution curves! We will see that this is a very useful observation in what follows.
Poincar´e Recurrence. To conclude this lecture, I want to give an application of
the geometry of the form ω
L
to understanding the global behavior of the 1critical curves
when 1 is a nondegenerate Lagrangian. First, I make the following observation:
Proposition 6: Let 1: T` → R be a nondegenerate Lagrangian. Then 2nform j
L
=
(dω
L
)
n
is a volume form on T` (i.e., it is nowhere vanishing). Moreover the (local) ﬂow
of the vector ﬁeld Y preserves this volume form.
Proof: To see that j
L
is a volume form, just look in local (r. c)coordinates:
j
L
= (dω
L
)
n
= (dc
i
∧ dr
i
)
n
= n! dc
1
∧ dr
2
∧ dc
2
∧ dr
2
∧ ∧ dc
n
∧ dr
n
.
By Proposition 4, this latter form is not zero.
Finally, since
L
Y
(dω
L
) = d(Y dω
L
) = −d
d1
L
= 0.
it follows that the (local) ﬂow of Y preserves dω
L
and hence preserves j
L
.
Now we shall give an application of Proposition 6. This is the famous Poincar´e
Recurrence Theorem.
L.4.15 75
Theorem 2: Let 1: T` →R be a nondegenerate Lagrangian and suppose that 1
L
is a
proper function on T`. Then the vector ﬁeld Y is complete, with ﬂow Φ: RT` →T`.
Moreover, this ﬂow is recurrent in the following sense: For any point · ∈ T`, any open
neighborhood l of ·, and any positive time interval T 0, there exists an integer · 0
so that Φ(T·. l) ∩ l = ∅.
Proof: The completeness of the ﬂow of Y follows immediately from the fact that the in
tegral curve of Y which passes through · ∈ T` must stay in the compact set 1
−1
L
1
L
(·)
.
(Recall that 1
L
is constant on all of the integral curves of Y .) Details are left to the reader.
I now turn to the proof of the recurrence property. Let 1
0
= 1
L
(·). By hypothesis,
the set C = 1
−1
L
[1
0
− 1. 1
0
+ 1]
is compact, so the j
L
volume of the open set \ =
1
−1
L
(1
0
−1. 1
0
+1)
(which lies inside C) is ﬁnite. It clearly suﬃces to prove the recurrence
property for any open neighborhood l of · which lies inside \, so let us assume that
l ⊂ \.
Let φ: \ → \ be the diﬀeomorphism φ(n) = Φ(T. n). This diﬀeomorphism is
clearly invertible and preserves the j
L
volume of open sets in \. Consider the open sets
l
k
= φ
k
(l) for / 0 (integers). These open sets all have the same j
L
volume and
hence cannot be all disjoint since then their union (which lies in \) would have inﬁnite
j
L
volume. Let 0 < , < / be two integers so that l
j
∩ l
k
= ∅. Then, since
l
j
∩ l
k
= φ
j
(l) ∩ φ
k
(l) = φ
j
l ∩ φ
k−j
(l)
.
it follows that l ∩ φ
k−j
(l) = ∅, as we wished to show.
This theorem has the amazing consequence that, whenever one has a nondegenerate
Lagrangian with a proper energy function, the corresponding mechanical system “recurs”
in the sense that “arbitrarily near any given initial condition, there is another initial
condition so that the evolution brings this initial condition back arbitrarily close to the
ﬁrst initial condition”. I realize that this statement is somewhat vague and subject to
misinterpretation, but the precise statement has already been given, so there seems not to
be much harm in giving the paraphrase.
L.4.16 76
Exercise Set 4:
Symmetries and Conservation Laws
1. Show that two Lagrangians 1
1
. 1
2
: T` →R satisfy
1
L
1
= 1
L
2
and dω
L
1
= dω
L
2
if and only if there is a closed 1form φ on ` so that 1
1
= 1
2
+ φ. (Note that, in this
equation, we interpret φ as a function on T`.) Such Lagrangians are said to diﬀer by a
“divergence term.” Show that such Lagrangians share the same critical curves and that
one is nondegenerate if and only if the other is.
2. What does Conservation of Energy mean for the case where 1 deﬁnes a Riemannian
metric on `?
3. Show that the equations for geodesics of a rotationally invariant metric of the form
1 = 1(:) d:
2
+ 2 1(:)d: dθ + G(:) dθ
2
can be integrated by separation of variables and quadratures. (Hint: Start with the con
servation laws we already know:
1(:) ˙ :
2
+ 2 1(:) ˙ :
˙
θ + G(:)
˙
θ
2
= ·
2
0
1(:) ˙ : + G(:)
˙
θ = n
0
where ·
0
and n
0
are constants. Then eliminate
˙
θ and go on from there.)
4. The deﬁnition of ω
L
given in the text might be regarded as somewhat unsatisfactory
since it is given in coordinates and not “invariantly”. Show that the following invariant
description of ω
L
is valid: The manifold T` inherits some extra structure by virtue of
being the tangent bundle of another manifold `. Let π: T` → ` be the basepoint
projection. Then π is a submersion: For every o ∈ T`,
π
(o): T
a
T` →T
π(a)
`
is a surjection and the ﬁber at π(o) is equal to
π
−1
π(o)
= T
π(a)
`.
It follows that the kernel of π
(o) (i.e., the “vertical space” of the bundle π: T` → `
at o) is naturally isomorphic to T
π(a)
`. Call this isomorphism α: T
π(a)
` ˜ → ker
π
(o)
.
Then the 1form ω
L
is deﬁned by
ω
L
(·) = d1
α ◦ π
(·)
for · ∈ T(T`).
Hint: Show that, in local canonical coordinates, the map α ◦ π
satisﬁes
α ◦ π
o
i
∂
∂r
i
+/
i
∂
∂j
i
= o
i
∂
∂j
i
.
E.4.1 77
5. For any vector ﬁeld A on `, let the associated vector ﬁeld on T` be denoted A
.
Show that if A has the form
A = o
i
∂
∂r
i
in some local coordinate system, then, in the associated canonical (r. j) coordinates, A
has the form
A
= o
i
∂
∂r
i
+ j
j
∂o
i
∂r
j
∂
∂j
i
.
6. Show that conservation of angular momenta in the motion of a point mass in a central
force ﬁeld implies Kepler’s Law that “equal areas are swept out over equal time intervals.”
Show also that, in the n = 2 case, employing the conservation of energy and angular
momentum allows one to integrate the equations of motion by quadratures. (Hint: For
the second part of the problem, introduce polar coordinates: (r
1
. r
2
) = (: cos θ. : sinθ).)
7. In the example of the motion of a rigid body, show that the Lagrangian on G is always
nonnegative and is nondegenerate (so that 1 deﬁnes a leftinvariant metric on G) if and
only if the matrix j has at most one zero eigenvalue. Show that 1 is degenerate if and
only if the rigid body lies in a subspace of dimension at most n−2.
8. Supply the details in the proof of Proposition 5. You will want to go back to the
integrationbyparts derivation of the EulerLagrange equations and show that, even if the
variation Γ induced by / does not have ﬁxed endpoints, we still get a local coordinate
formula of the form
F
L,Γ
(0) =
∂1
∂j
k
n(/). ˙ n(/)
/
k
(/) −
∂1
∂j
k
n(o). ˙ n(o)
/
k
(o)
for any variation of a solution of the EulerLagrange equations. Give these “boundary
terms” an invariant geometric meaning and show that they cancel out when we sum over
a partition of a (ﬁxedendpoint) variation of an 1critical curve γ into subcurves which lie
in coordinate neighborhoods.)
9. (Alternate to Exercise 8.) Here is another approach to proving Proposition 5. Instead of
dividing the curve up into subcurves, show that for any variation Γ of a curve γ: [o. /] →`
(not necessarily with ﬁxed endpoints), we have the formula
F
L,Γ
(0) = ω
L
\ (/)
−ω
L
\ (o)
−
b
a
dω
L
¨ γ(t). \ (t)
+ d1
L
\ (t)
dt
where \ (t) =
˙
Γ
(t. 0)(∂´∂:) is the “variation vector ﬁeld” at : = 0 of the lifted variation
˙
Γ in T`. Conclude that, whether 1 is nondegenerate or not, the condition ¨ γ dω
L
+
d1
L
˙ γ(t)
= 0 is the necessary and suﬃcient condition that γ be 1critical.
E.4.2 78
10. The Two Body Problem. Consider a pair of point masses (with masses :
1
and
:
2
) which move freely subject to a force between them which depends only on the distance
between the two bodies and is directed along the line joining the two bodies. This is what
is classically known as the Two Body Problem. It is represented by a Lagrangian on the
manifold ` = R
n
R
n
with position coordinates r
1
. r
2
: ` →R
n
of the form
1(r
1
. r
2
. j
1
. j
2
) =
:
1
2
[j
1
[
2
+
:
2
2
[j
2
[
2
−\ ([r
1
−r
2
[
2
).
(Here, (j
1
. j
2
) are the canonical ﬁber (velocity) coordinates on TM associated to the
coordinate system (r
1
. r
2
).) Notice that 1 has the form “kinetic minus potential”. Show
that rotations and translations in R
n
generate a group of symmetries of this Lagrangian
and compute the conserved quantities. What is the interpretation of the conservation law
associated to the translations?
11. The Sliding Particle. Suppose that a particle of unit weight and mass (remember:
“geometric units” means never having to state your constants) slides without friction on
a smooth hypersurface r
n+1
= 1(r
1
. . . . . r
n
) subject only to the force of gravity (which
is directed downward along the r
n+1
axis). Show that the “kineticminuspotential” La
grangian for this motion in the rcoordinates is
1 =
1
2
(j
1
)
2
+ + (j
n
)
2
+
∂1
∂r
i
j
i
2
−1(r
1
. . . . . r
n
).
Show that this is a nondegenerate Lagrangian and that its energy 1
L
is proper if and
only if 1
−1
(−∞. o]
is compact for all o ∈ R.
Suppose that 1 is invariant under rotation, i.e., that
1(r
1
. . . . . r
n
) = 1
(r
1
)
2
+ + (r
n
)
2
for some smooth function 1. Show that the “shadow” of the particle in R
n
stays in a ﬁxed
2plane. Show that the equations of motion can be integrated by quadrature.
Remark: This Lagrangian is also used to model a small ball of unit mass and weight
“rolling without friction in a cup”. Of course, in this formulation, the kinetic energy
stored in the ball by its spinning is ignored. If you want to take this “spinning” energy
into account, then you must study quite a diﬀerent Lagrangian, especially if you assume
that the ball rolls without slipping. This goes into the very interesting theory of “non
holonomic systems”, which we (unfortunately) do not have time to go into.
12. Let 1 be a Lagrangian which restricts to each ﬁber T
x
` to be a nondegenerate
(though not necessarily positive deﬁnite) quadratic form. Show that 1 is nondegnerate
as a Lagrangian and that the Legendre mapping τ
L
: T` → T
∗
` is an isomorphism of
vector bundles. Show that, if 1 is, in addition a positive deﬁnite quadratic form on each
ﬁber, then the new Lagrangian deﬁned by
˜
1 =
1 +1
1
2
is also a nondegenerate Lagrangian, but that the map τ
˜
L
: T` →T
∗
`, though onetoone,
is not onto.
E.4.3 79
Lecture 5:
Symplectic Manifolds, I
In Lecture 4, I associated a nondegenerate 2formdω
L
on T` to every nondegenerate
Lagrangian 1: T` → R. In this section, I want to begin a more systematic study of the
geometry of manifolds on which there is speciﬁed a closed, nondegenerate 2form.
Symplectic Algebra.
First, I will develop the algebraic precursors of the manifold concepts which are to
follow. For simplicity, all of these constructions will be carried out on vector spaces over
the reals, but they could equally well have been carried out over any ﬁeld of characteristic
not equal to 2.
Symplectic Vector Spaces. A bilinear pairing 1: \ \ → R is said to be skew
symmetric (or alternating) if 1(r. n) = −1(n. r) for all r. n in \ . The space of skew
symmetric bilinear pairings on \ will be denoted by ¹
2
(\ ). The set ¹
2
(\ ) is a vec
tor space under the obvious addition and scalar multiplication and is naturally identiﬁed
with Λ
2
(\
∗
), the space of exterior 2forms on \ . The elements of ¹
2
(\ ) are often called
skewsymmetric bilinear forms on V. A pairing 1 ∈ ¹
2
(\ ) is said to be nondegenerate if,
for every nonzero · ∈ \ , there is a n ∈ \ for which 1(·. n) = 0.
Deﬁnition 1: A symplectic space is a pair (\. 1) where \ is a vector space and 1 is a
nondegenerate, skewsymmetric, bilinear pairing on \ .
Example. Let \ = R
2n
and let J
n
be the 2nby2n matrix
J
n
=
0
n
1
n
−1
n
0
n
.
For vectors ·. n ∈ R
2n
, deﬁne
1
0
(r. n) =
t
rJ
n
n.
Then it is clear that 1
0
is bilinear and skewsymmetric. Moreover, in components
1
0
(r. n) = r
1
n
n+1
+ + r
n
n
2n
−r
n+1
n
1
− −r
2n
n
n
so it is clear that if 1
0
(r. n) = 0 for all n ∈ R
2n
then r = 0. Hence, 1
0
is nondegenerate.
Generally, in order for 1(r. n) =
t
r¹n to deﬁne a skewsymmetric bilinear form on
R
n
, it is only necessary that ¹ be a skewsymmetric nbyn matrix. Conversely, every
skewsymmetric bilinear form 1 on R
n
can be written in this form for some unique skew
symmetric nbyn matrix ¹. In order that this 1 be nondegenerate, it is necessary and
suﬃcient that ¹ be invertible. (See the Exercises.)
L.5.1 80
The Symplectic Group. Now, a linear transformation 1: R
2n
→R
2n
preserves 1
0
,
i.e., satisﬁes 1
0
(1r. 1n) = 1
0
(r. n) for all r. n ∈ R
2n
, if and only if
t
1J
n
1 = J
n
. This
motivates the following deﬁnition:
Deﬁnition 2: The subgroup of GL(2n. R) deﬁned by
Sp(n. R) =
¸
1 ∈ GL(2n. R) [
t
1J
n
1 = J
n
¸
is called the symplectic group of rank n.
It is clear that Sp(n. R) is a (closed) subgroup of GL(2n. R). In the Exercises, you are
asked to prove that Sp(n. R) is a Lie group of dimension 2n
2
+n and to derive other of its
properties.
Symplectic Normal Form. The following proposition shows that there is a normal
form for ﬁnite dimensional symplectic spaces.
Proposition 1: If (\. 1) is a ﬁnite dimensional symplectic space, then there exists a
basis c
1
. . . . . c
n
. 1
1
. . . . 1
n
of \ so that, for all 1 ≤ i. , ≤ n,
1(c
i
. c
j
) = 0. 1(c
i
. 1
j
) = δ
j
i
. and 1(1
i
. 1
j
) = 0
Proof: The desired basis will be constructed in two steps. Let : = dim(\ ).
Suppose that for some n ≥ 0, we have found a sequence of linearly independent vectors
c
1
. . . . . c
n
so that 1(c
i
. c
j
) = 0 for all 1 ≤ i. , ≤ n. Consider the vector space \
n
⊂ \
which consists of all vectors n ∈ \ so that 1(c
i
. n) = 0 for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n. Since the c
i
are linearly independent and since 1 is nondegenerate, it follows that \
n
has dimension
:−n. We must have n ≤ :−n since all of the vectors c
1
. . . . . c
n
clearly lie in \
n
.
If n < : − n, then there exists a vector c
n+1
∈ \
n
which is linearly independent
from c
1
. . . . . c
n
. It follows that the sequence c
1
. . . . . c
n+1
satisﬁes 1(c
i
. c
j
) = 0 for all
1 ≤ i. , ≤ n +1. (Since 1 is skewsymmetric, 1(c
n+1
. c
n+1
) = 0 is automatic.) This
extension process can be repeated until we reach a stage where n = :−n, i.e., : = 2n.
At that point, we will have a sequence c
1
. . . . . c
n
for which 1(c
i
. c
j
) = 0 for all 1 ≤ i. , ≤ n.
Next, we construct the sequence 1
1
. . . . . 1
n
. For each , in the range 1 ≤ , ≤ n,
consider the set of n linear equations
1(c
i
. n) = δ
j
i
. 1 ≤ i ≤ n.
We know that these n equations are linearly independent, so there exists a solution 1
j
0
. Of
course, once one particular solution is found, any other solution is of the form1
j
= 1
j
0
+o
ji
c
i
for some n
2
numbers o
ji
. Thus, we have found the general solutions 1
j
to the equations
1(c
i
. 1
j
) = δ
j
i
.
L.5.2 81
We now show that we can choose the o
ij
so as to satisfy the last remaining set of
conditions, 1(1
i
. 1
j
) = 0. If we set /
ij
= 1(1
i
0
. 1
j
0
) = −/
ji
, then we can compute
1(1
i
. 1
j
) = 1(1
i
0
. 1
j
0
) +1(o
ik
c
k
. 1
j
0
) + 1(1
i
0
. o
jl
c
l
) + 1(o
ik
c
k
. o
jl
c
l
)
= /
ij
+ o
ij
−o
ji
+ 0.
Thus, it suﬃces to set o
ij
= −/
ij
´2. (This is where the hypothesis that the characteristic
of R is not 2 is used.)
Finally, it remains to show that the vectors c
1
. . . . . c
n
. 1
1
. . . . 1
n
form a basis of \ .
Since we already know that dim(\ ) = 2n, it is enough to show that these vectors are
linearly independent. However, any linear relation of the form
o
i
c
i
+ /
j
1
j
= 0.
implies /
k
= 1(c
k
. o
i
c
i
+ /
j
1
j
) = 0 and o
k
= −1(1
k
. o
i
c
i
+ /
j
1
j
) = 0.
We often say that a basis of the form found in Proposition 1 is a symplectic or standard
basis of the symplectic space (\. 1).
Symplectic Reduction of Vector Spaces. If 1: \ \ → R is a skewsymmetric
bilinear form which is not necessarily nondegenerate, then we deﬁne the null space of 1
to be the subspace
·
B
= ¦· ∈ \ [ 1(·. n) = 0 for all n ∈ \ ¦ .
On the quotient vector space \ = \´·
B
, there is a welldeﬁned skewsymmetric bilinear
form 1: \ \ →R given by
1(r. n) = 1(r. n)
where r and n are the cosets in \ of r and n in \ . It is easy to see that (\ . 1) is a
symplectic space.
Deﬁnition 2: If 1 is a skewsymmetric bilinear form on a vector space \ , then the
symplectic space (\ . 1) is called the symplectic reduction of (\. 1).
Here is an application of the symplectic reduction idea: Using the identiﬁcation of
¹
2
(\ ) with Λ
2
(\
∗
) mentioned earlier, Proposition 1 allows us to write down a normal
form for any alternating 2form on any ﬁnite dimensional vector space.
Proposition 2: For any nonzero β ∈ Λ
2
(\
∗
), there exist an integer n ≤
1
2
dim(\ ) and
linearly independent 1forms ω
1
. ω
2
. . . . . ω
2n
∈ \
∗
for which
β = ω
1
∧ ω
2
+ω
3
∧ ω
4
. . . + ω
2n−1
∧ ω
2n
.
Thus, n is the largest integer so that β
n
= 0.
L.5.3 82
Proof: Regard β as a skewsymmetric bilinear form 1 on \ in the usual way. Let
(\ . 1) be the symplectic reduction of (\. 1). Since 1 = 0, we known that \ = ¦0¦. Let
dim(\ ) = 2n ≥ 2 and let c
1
. . . . . c
n
. 1
1
. . . . 1
n
be elements of \ so that c
1
. . . . . c
n
. 1
1
. . . . 1
n
forms a symplectic basis of \ with respect to 1. Let j = dim(\ ) −2n, and let /
1
. . . . . /
p
be a basis of ·
B
.
It is easy to see that
b =
c
1
1
1
c
2
1
2
c
n
1
n
/
1
/
p
forms a basis of \ . Let
ω
1
ω
2n+p
denote the dual basis of \
∗
. Then, as the reader can easily check, the 2form
Ω = ω
1
∧ ω
2
+ ω
3
∧ ω
4
. . . + ω
2n−1
∧ ω
2n
has the same values as β does on all pairs of elements of b. Of course this implies that
β = Ω. The rest of the Proposition also follows easily since, for example, we have
β
n
= n! ω
1
∧ ∧ ω
2n
= 0.
although β
n+1
clearly vanishes.
If we regard β as an element of ¹
2
(\ ), then n is onehalf the dimension of \ . Some
sources call the integer n the halfrank of β and others call n the rank. I use “halfrank”.
Note that, unlike the case of symmetric bilinear forms, there is no notion of signature
type or “positive deﬁniteness” for skewsymmetric forms.
It follows from Proposition 2 that for β in ¹
2
(\ ), where \ is ﬁnite dimensional, the
pair (\. β) is a symplectic space if and only if \ has dimension 2n for some n and β
n
= 0.
Subspaces of Symplectic Vector Spaces. Let Ω be a symplectic form on a vector
space \ . For any subspace \ ⊂ \ , we deﬁne the Ωcomplement to \ to be the subspace
\
⊥
= ¦· ∈ \ [ Ω(·. n) = 0 for all n ∈ \¦.
The Ωcomplement of a subspace \ is sometimes called its skewcomplement. It is an
exercise for the reader to check that, because Ω is nondegenerate,
\
⊥
⊥
= \ and that,
when \ is ﬁnitedimensional,
dim \ + dim \
⊥
= dim \.
However, unlike the case of an orthogonal with respect to a positive deﬁnite inner product,
the intersection \ ∩ \
⊥
does not have to be the zero subspace. For example, in an
Ωstandard basis for \ , the vectors c
1
. . . . . c
n
obviously span a subspace 1 which satisﬁes
1
⊥
= 1.
L.5.4 83
If \ is ﬁnite dimensional, it turns out (see the Exercises) that, up to symplectic linear
transformations of \ , a subspace \ ⊂ \ is characterized by the numbers d = dim \ and
ν = dim(\ ∩ \
⊥
) ≤ d. If ν = 0 we say that \ is a symplectic subspace of \ . This
corresponds to the case that Ω restricts to \ to deﬁne a symplectic structure on \. At
the other extreme is when ν = d, for then we have \ ∩ \
⊥
= \. Such a subspace is
called Lagrangian.
Symplectic Manifolds.
We are now ready to return to the study of manifolds.
Deﬁnition 3: A symplectic structure on a smooth manifold ` is a nondegenerate, closed
2form Ω ∈ /
2
(`). The pair (`. Ω) is called a symplectic manifold. If Ω is a symplectic
structure on ` and Υ is a symplectic structure on ·, then a smooth map φ: ` → ·
satisfying φ
∗
(Υ) = Ω is called a symplectic map. If, in addition, φ is a diﬀeomorphism, we
say that φ is a symplectomorphism.
Before developing any of the theory, it is helpful to see a few examples.
Surfaces with Area Forms. If o is an orientable smooth surface, then there exists
a volume form j on o. By deﬁnition, j is a nondegenerate closed 2form on o and hence
deﬁnes a symplectic structure on o.
Lagrangian Structures on T`. From Lecture 4, any nondegenerate Lagrangian
1: T` →R deﬁnes the 2form dω
L
, which is a symplectic structure on T`.
A “Standard” Structure on R
2n
. Think of R
2n
as a smooth manifold and let Ω
be the 2form with constant coeﬃcients
Ω =
1
2
t
drJ
n
dr = dr
1
∧ dr
n+1
+ + dr
n
∧ dr
2n
.
Symplectic Submanifolds. Let (`
2m
. Ω) be a symplectic manifold. Suppose that
1
2p
⊂ `
2m
be any submanifold to which the form Ω pulls back to be a nondegenerate
2form Ω
P
. Then (1. Ω
P
) is a symplectic manifold. We say that 1 is a symplectic sub
manifold of `.
It is not obvious just how to ﬁnd symplectic submanifolds of `. Even though being
a symplectic submanifold is an “open” condition on submanifolds of `, is is not “dense”.
One cannot hope to perturb an arbitrary even dimensional submanifold of ` slightly so
as to make it symplectic. There are even restrictions on the topology of the submanifolds
of ` on which a symplectic form restricts to be nondegenerate.
For example, no symplectic submanifold of R
2n
(with any symplectic structure on
R
2n
) could be compact for the following simple reason: Since R
2n
is contractible, its
second deRham cohomology group vanishes. In particular, for any symplectic form Ω
on R
2n
, there must be a 1form ω so that Ω = dω which implies that Ω
m
= d
ω∧Ω
m−1
.
Thus, for all : 0, the 2:form Ω
m
is exact on R
2n
(and every submanifold of R
2n
).
L.5.5 84
By Proposition 2, if `
2m
were a submanifold of R
2n
on which Ω restricted to be non
degenerate, then Ω
m
would be a volume form on `. However, on a compact manifold the
volume form is never exact (just apply Stokes’ Theorem).
Example. Complex Submanifolds. Nevertheless, there are many symplectic subman
ifolds of R
2n
. One way to construct them is to regard R
2n
as C
n
in such a way that
the linear map J: R
2n
→ R
2n
represented by J
n
becomes complex multiplication. (For
example, just deﬁne the complex coordinates by .
k
= r
k
+ir
k+n
.) Then, for any nonzero
vector · ∈ R
2n
, we have Ω(·. J·) = −[·[
2
= 0. In particular, Ω is nondegenerate on every
complex subspace o ⊂ C
n
. Thus, if `
2m
⊂ C
n
is any complex submanifold (i.e., all of
its tangent spaces are :dimensional complex subspaces of C
m
), then Ω restricts to be
nondegenerate on `.
The Cotangent Bundle. Let ` be any smooth manifold and let T
∗
` be its
cotangent bundle. As we saw in Lecture 4, there is a canonical 2form on T
∗
` which
can be deﬁned as follows: Let π: T
∗
` →` be the basepoint projection. Then, for every
· ∈ T
α
(T
∗
`), deﬁne
ω(·) = α
π
(·)
.
I claim that ω is a smooth 1form on T
∗
` and that Ω = dω is a symplectic form on T
∗
`.
To see this, let us compute ω in local coordinates. Let r: l →R
n
be a local coordinate
chart. Since the 1forms dr
1
. . . . . dr
n
are linearly independent at every point of l, it follows
that there are unique functions ξ
i
on T
∗
l so that, for α ∈ T
∗
a
l,
α = ξ
1
(α) dr
1
[
a
+ +ξ
n
(α) dr
n
[
a
.
The functions r
1
. . . . . r
n
. ξ
1
. . . . . ξ
n
then form a smooth coordinate system on T
∗
l in which
the projection mapping π is given by
π(r. j) = r.
It is then straightforward to compute that, in this coordinate system,
ω = ξ
i
dr
i
.
Hence, Ω = dξ
i
∧dr
i
and so is nondegenerate.
Symplectic Products. If (`. Ω) and (·. Υ) are symplectic manifolds, then `·
carries a natural symplectic structure, called the product symplectic structure Ω ⊕ Υ,
deﬁned by
Ω ⊕Υ = π
∗
1
(Ω) + π
∗
2
(Υ).
Thus, for example, nfold products of compact surfaces endowed with area forms give
examples of compact symplectic 2nmanifolds.
L.5.6 85
Coadjoint Orbits. Let Ad
∗
: G →GL(g
∗
) denote the coadjoint representation of G.
This is the socalled “contragredient” representation to the adjoint representation. Thus,
for any o ∈ G and ξ ∈ g
∗
, the element Ad
∗
(o)(ξ) ∈ g
∗
is determined by the rule
Ad
∗
(o)(ξ)(r) = ξ
Ad(o
−1
)(r)
for all r ∈ g.
One must be careful not to confuse ¹d
∗
(o) with
Ad(o)
∗
. Instead, as our deﬁnition
shows, ¹d
∗
(o) =
Ad(o
−1
)
∗
.
Note that the induced homomorphism of Lie algebras, ad
∗
: g →gl(g
∗
) is given by
ad
∗
(r)(ξ)(n) = −ξ
[r. n]
The orbits G ξ in g
∗
are called the coadjoint orbits. Each of them carries a natural
symplectic structure. To see how this is deﬁned, let ξ ∈ g
∗
be ﬁxed, and let φ: G → G ξ
be the usual submersion induced by the Ad
∗
action, φ(o) = Ad
∗
(o)(ξ) = o ξ. Now let ω
ξ
be the leftinvariant 1form on G whose value at c is ξ. Thus, ω
ξ
= ξ(ω) where ω is the
canonical gvalued 1form on G.
Proposition 3: There is a unique symplectic form Ω
ξ
on the orbit G ξ = G´G
ξ
satisfying
φ
∗
(Ω
ξ
) = dω
ξ
.
Proof: If Proposition 3 is to be true, then Ω
ξ
must satisfy the rule
Ω
ξ
φ
(·). φ
(n)
= dω
ξ
(·. n) for all ·. n ∈ T
a
G.
What we must do is show that this rule actually does deﬁne a symplectic 2form on G ξ.
First, note that, for r. n ∈ g = T
e
G, we may compute via the structure equations that
dω
ξ
(r. n) = ξ
dω(r. n)
= ξ
−[r. n]
= od
∗
(r)(ξ)(n).
In particular, od
∗
(r)(ξ) = 0, if and only if r lies in the null space of the 2form dω
ξ
(c). In
other words, the null space of dω
ξ
(c) is g
ξ
, the Lie algebra of G
ξ
. Since dω
ξ
is leftinvariant,
it follows that the null space of dω
ξ
(o) is 1
a
(g
ξ
) ⊂ T
a
G. Of course, this is precisely the
tangent space at o to the left coset oG
ξ
. Thus, for each o ∈ G,
·
dω
ξ
(a)
= ker φ
(o).
It follows that, T
a·ξ
(G ξ) = φ
(o)(T
a
G) is naturally isomorphic to the symplectic quotient
space (T
a
G)´
1
a
(g
ξ
)
for each o ∈ G. Thus, there is a unique, nondegenerate 2form Ω
a
on T
a·ξ
(G ξ) so that
φ
(o)
∗
(Ω
a
) = dω
ξ
(o).
It remains to show that Ω
a
= Ω
b
if o ξ = / ξ. However, this latter case occurs only
if o = // where / ∈ G
ξ
. Now, for any / ∈ G
ξ
, we have
1
∗
h
(ω
ξ
) = ξ
1
∗
h
(ω)
= ξ
Ad(/
−1
)(ω)
= Ad
∗
(/)(ξ)(ω) = ξ(ω) = ω
ξ
.
L.5.7 86
Thus, 1
∗
h
(dω
ξ
) = dω
ξ
. Since the following square commutes, it follows that Ω
a
= Ω
b
.
T
a
G
R
h
−→ T
b
G
φ
(a)
φ
(b)
T
a·ξ
(G ξ)
id
−→ T
b·ξ
(G ξ)
All this shows that there is a welldeﬁned, nondegenerate 2form Ω
ξ
on G ξ which satisﬁes
φ
∗
(Ω
ξ
) = dω
ξ
. Since φ is a smooth submersion, the equation
φ
∗
(dΩ
ξ
) = d(dω
ξ
) = 0
implies that dΩ
ξ
= 0, as promised.
Note that a consequence of Proposition 3 is that all of the coadjoint orbits are actually
even dimensional. As we shall see when we take up the subject of reduction, the coadjoint
orbits are particularly interesting symplectic manifolds.
Examples: Let G = O(n), with Lie algebra so(n), the space of skewsymmetric nbyn
matrices. Now there is an O(n)equivariant positive deﬁnite pairing of so(n) with itself '. `
given by
'r. n` = −tr(rn).
Thus, we can identify so(n)
∗
with so(n) by this pairing. The reader can check that, in this
case, the coadjoint action is isomorphic to the adjoint action
Ad(o)(r) = oro
−1
.
If ξ is the rank 2 matrix
ξ =
¸
0 −1
1 0
0
0 0
.
then it is easy to check that the stabilizer G
ξ
is just the set of matrices of the form
o 0
0 ¹
where o ∈ SO(2) and ¹ ∈ O(n − 2). The quotient O(n)´
SO(2) O(n − 2)
thus has a
symplectic structure. It is not diﬃcult to see that this homogeneous space can be identiﬁed
with the space of oriented 2planes in E
n
.
As another example, if n = 2:, then J
m
lies in so(2:), and its stabilizer is U(:) ⊂
SO(2:). It follows that the quotient space SO(2:)´U(:), which is identiﬁable as the set
of orthogonal complex structures on E
2m
, is a symplectic space.
Finally, if G = U(n), then, again, we can identify u(n)
∗
with u(n) via the U(n)
invariant, positive deﬁnite pairing
'r. n` = −Re
tr(rn)
.
L.5.8 87
Again, under this identiﬁcation, the coadjoint action agrees with the adjoint action. For
0 < j < n, the stabilizer of the element
ξ
p
=
i1
p
0
0 −i1
n−p
is easily seen to be U(j) U(n−j). The orbit of ξ
p
is identiﬁable with the space Gr
p
(C
n
),
i.e., the Grassmannian of (complex) jplanes in C
n
, and, by Proposition 3, carries a canon
ical, U(n)invariant symplectic structure.
Darboux’ Theorem. There is a manifold analogue of Proposition 1 which says that
symplectic manifolds of a given dimension are all locally “isomorphic”. This fundamental
result is known as Darboux’ Theorem. I will give the classical proof (due to Darboux) here,
deferring the more modern proof (due to Weinstein) to the next section.
Theorem 1: (Darboux’ Theorem) If Ω is a closed 2form on a manifold `
2n
which
satisﬁes the condition that Ω
n
be nowhere vanishing, then for every j ∈ `, there is a
neighborhood l of j and a coordinate system r
1
. r
2
. . . . . r
n
. n
1
. n
2
. . . . . n
n
on l so that
Ω

U
= dr
1
∧ dn
1
+ dr
2
∧ dn
2
+ + dr
n
∧ dn
n
.
Proof: We will proceed by induction on n. Assume that we know the theorem for
n−1 ≥ 0. We will prove it for n. Fix j, and let n
1
be a smooth function on ` for which
dn
1
does not vanish at j. Now let A be the unique (smooth) vector ﬁeld which satisﬁes
A Ω = dn
1
.
This vector ﬁeld does not vanish at j, so there is a function r
1
on a neighborhood l of j
which satisﬁes A(r
1
) = 1. Now let Y be the vector ﬁeld on l which satisﬁes
Y Ω = −dr
1
.
Since dΩ = 0, the Cartan formula, now gives
L
X
Ω = L
Y
Ω = 0.
We now compute
[A. Y ] Ω = L
X
Y Ω = L
X
(Y Ω) −Y (L
X
Ω)
= L
X
(−dr
1
) = −d
A(r
1
)
= −d(1) = 0.
Since Ω has maximal rank, this implies [A. Y ] = 0. By the simultaneous ﬂowbox theorem,
it follows that there exist local coordinates r
1
. n
1
. .
1
. .
2
. . . . . .
2n−2
on some neighborhood
l
1
⊂ l of j so that
A =
∂
∂r
1
and Y =
∂
∂n
1
.
L.5.9 88
Now consider the form Ω
= Ω −dr
1
∧dn
1
. Clearly dΩ
= 0. Moreover,
A Ω
= L
X
Ω
= Y Ω
= L
Y
Ω
= 0.
It follows that Ω
can be expressed as a 2form in the variables .
1
. .
2
. . . . . .
2n−2
alone.
Hence, in particular, (Ω
)
n+1
≡ 0. On the other hand, by the binomial theorem, then
0 = Ω
n
= ndr
1
∧ dn
1
∧ (Ω
)
n−1
.
It follows that Ω
may be regarded as a closed 2form of maximal halfrank n−1 on an
open set in R
2n−2
. Now apply the inductive hypothesis to Ω
.
Darboux’ Theorem has a generalization which covers the case of closed 2forms of
constant (though not necessarily maximal) rank. It is the analogue for manifolds of the
symplectic reduction of a vector space.
Theorem 2: (Darboux’ Reduction Theorem) Suppose that Ω is a closed 2formof constant
halfrank n on a manifold `
2n+k
. Then the “null bundle”
·
Ω
=
¸
· ∈ T`[ Ω(·. n) = 0 for all n ∈ T
π(v)
`
¸
is integrable and of constant rank /. Moreover, any point of ` has a neighborhood l on
which there exist local coordinates r
1
. . . . . r
n
. n
1
. . . . . n
n
. .
1
. . . . .
k
in which
Ω

U
= dr
1
∧ dn
1
+ dr
2
∧ dn
2
+ + dr
n
∧ dn
n
.
Proof: Note that a vector ﬁeld A on ` is a section of ·
Ω
if and only if A Ω = 0. In
particular, since Ω is closed, the Cartan formula implies that L
X
Ω = 0 for all such A.
If A and Y are two sections of ·
Ω
, then
[A. Y ] Ω = L
X
(Y Ω) −Y (L
X
Ω) = 0 −0 = 0.
so it follows that [A. Y ] is a section of ·
Ω
as well. Thus, ·
Ω
is integrable.
Now apply the Frobenius Theorem. For any point j ∈ `, there exists a neighborhood
l on which there exist local coordinates .
1
. . . . .
2n+k
so that ·
Ω
restricted to l is spanned
by the vector ﬁelds 7
i
= ∂´∂.
i
for 1 ≤ i ≤ /. Since 7
i
Ω = L
Z
i
Ω = 0 for 1 ≤ i ≤ /,
it follows that Ω can be expressed on l in terms of the variables .
k+1
. . . . . .
2n+k
alone.
In particular, Ω restricted to l may be regarded as a nondegenerate closed 2form on an
open set in R
2n
. The stated result now follows from Darboux’ Theorem.
L.5.10 89
Symplectic and Hamiltonian vector ﬁelds.
We now want to examine some of the special vector ﬁelds which are deﬁned on sym
plectic manifolds. Let `
2n
be manifold and let Ω be a symplectic form on `. Let
Sp(Ω) ⊂ Diff(`) denote the subgroup of symplectomorphisms of (`. Ω). We would like
to follow Lie in regarding Sp(Ω) as an “inﬁnite dimensional Lie group”. In that case,
the Lie algebra of Sp(Ω) should be the space of vector ﬁelds whose ﬂows preserve Ω. Of
course, Ω will be invariant under the ﬂow of a vector ﬁeld A if and only if L
X
Ω = 0. This
motivates the following deﬁnition:
Deﬁnition 4: A vector ﬁeld A on ` is said to be symplectic if L
X
Ω = 0. The space of
symplectic vector ﬁelds on ` will be denoted sp(Ω).
It turns out that there is a very simple characterization of the symplectic vector ﬁelds
on `: Since dΩ = 0, it follows that for any vector ﬁeld A on `,
L
X
Ω = d(A Ω).
Thus, A is a symplectic vector ﬁeld if and only if A Ω is closed.
Now, since Ω is nondegenerate, for any vector ﬁeld A on `, the 1form.(A) = −A Ω
vanishes only where A does. Since T` and T
∗
` have the same rank, it follows that the
mapping .: X(`) → /
1
(`) is an isomorphism of C
∞
(`)modules. In particular, . has
an inverse, :: /
1
(`) →X(`).
With this notation, we can write sp(Ω) = :
Z
1
(`)
where Z
1
(`) denotes the vector
space of closed 1forms on `. Now, Z
1
(`) contains, as a subspace, B
1
(`) = d
C
∞
(`)
,
the space of exact 1forms on `. This subspace is of particular interest; we encountered
it already in Lecture 4.
Deﬁnition 5: For each 1 ∈ C
∞
(`), the vector ﬁeld A
f
= :(d1) is called the Hamiltonian
vector ﬁeld associated to 1. The set of all Hamiltonian vector ﬁelds on ` is denoted h(Ω).
Thus, by deﬁnition, h(Ω) = :
B
1
(`)
. For this reason, Hamiltonian vector ﬁelds are
often called exact. Note that a Hamiltonian vector ﬁeld is one whose equations, written in
symplectic coordinates, represent an ODE in Hamiltonian form.
The following formula shows that, not only is sp(Ω) a Lie algebra of vector ﬁelds, but
that h(Ω) is an ideal in sp(Ω), i.e., that [sp(Ω). sp(Ω)] ⊂ h(Ω).
Proposition 4: For A. Y ∈ sp(Ω), we have
[A. Y ] = A
Ω(X,Y )
.
In particular, [A
f
. A
g
] = A
{f,g}
where, by deﬁnition, ¦1. o¦ = Ω(A
f
. A
g
).
Proof: We use the fact that, for any vector ﬁeld A, the operator L
X
is a derivation with
respect to any natural pairing between tensors on `:
[A. Y ] Ω =
L
X
Y
Ω = L
X
Y Ω
−Y
L
X
Ω
= d
A
Y Ω
+A d (Y Ω) + 0 = d
Ω(Y. A)
+ 0
= −d
Ω(A. Y )
=
A
Ω(X,Y )
Ω.
This proves our ﬁrst equation. The remaining equation follows immediately.
L.5.11 90
The deﬁnition ¦1. o¦ = Ω(A
f
. A
g
) is an important one. The bracket (1. o) →¦1. o¦ is
called the Poisson bracket of the functions 1 and o. Proposition 4 implies that the Poisson
bracket gives the functions on ` the structure of a Lie algebra. The Poisson bracket is
slightly more subtle than the pairing (A
f
. A
g
) →A
{f,g}
since the mapping 1 →A
f
has a
nontrivial kernel, namely, the locally constant functions.
Thus, if ` is connected, then we get an exact sequence of Lie algebras
0 −→R −→C
∞
(`) −→h(Ω) −→0
which is not, in general, split (see the Exercises). Since ¦1. 1¦ = 0 for all functions 1 on
`, it follows that the Poisson bracket on C
∞
(`) makes it into a central extension of
the algebra of Hamiltonian vector ﬁelds. The geometry of this central extension plays an
important role in quantization theories on symplectic manifolds (see [GS 2] or [We]).
Also of great interest is the exact sequence
0 −→h(Ω) −→sp(Ω) −→H
1
dR
(`. R) −→0.
where the right hand arrow is just the map described by A →[A Ω]. Since the bracket of
two elements in sp(Ω) lies in h(Ω), it follows that this linear map is actually a Lie algebra
homomorphism when H
1
dR
(`. R) is given the abelian Lie algebra structure. This sequence
also may or may not split (see the Exercises), and the properties of this extension have a
great deal to do with the study of groups of symplectomorphisms of `. See the Exercises
for further developments.
Involution
I now want to make some remarks about the meaning of the Poisson bracket and its
applications.
Deﬁnition 5: Let (`. Ω) be a symplectic manifold. Two functions 1 and o are said to
be in involution (with respect to Ω) if they satisfy the condition ¦1. o¦ = 0.
Note that, since ¦1. o¦ = do(A
f
) = −d1(A
g
), it follows that two functions 1 and o are
in involution if and only if each is constant on the integral curves of the other’s Hamiltonian
vector ﬁeld.
Now, if one is trying to describe the integral curves of a Hamiltonian vector ﬁeld,
A
f
, the more independent functions on ` that one can ﬁnd which are constant on the
integral curves of A
f
, the more accurately one can describe those integral curves. If one
were able ﬁnd, in addition to 1 itself, 2n−2 additional independent functions on ` which
are constant on the integral curves of A
f
, then one could describe the integral curves of
A
f
implicitly by setting those functions equal to a constant.
It turns out, however, that this is too much to hope for in general. It can happen that
a Hamiltonian vector ﬁeld A
f
has no functions in involution with it except for functions
of the form 1(1).
L.5.12 91
Nevertheless, in many cases which arise in practice, we can ﬁnd several functions in
involution with a given function 1 = 1
1
and, moreover, in involution with each other.
In case one can ﬁnd n−1 such independent functions, 1
2
. . . . . 1
n
, we have the following
theorem of Liouville which says that the remaining n−1 required functions can be found
(at least locally) by quadrature alone. In the classical language, a vector ﬁeld A
f
for which
such functions are known is said to be “completely integrable by quadratures”, or, more
simply as “completely integrable”.
Theorem 3: Let 1
1
. 1
2
. . . . . 1
n
be n functions in involution on a symplectic manifold
(`
2n
. Ω). Suppose that the functions 1
i
are independent in the sense that the diﬀerentials
d1
1
. . . . . d1
n
are linearly independent at every point of `. Then each point of ` has an
open neighborhood l on which there are functions o
1
. . . . . o
n
on l so that
Ω = d1
1
∧ do
1
+ + d1
n
∧ do
n
.
Moreover, the functions o
i
can be found by “ﬁnite” operations and quadrature.
Proof: By hypothesis, the forms d1
1
. . . . . d1
n
are linearly independent at every point of
`, so it follows that the Hamiltonian vector ﬁelds A
f
1 . . . . . A
f
n are also linearly inde
pendent at every point of `. Also by hypothesis, the functions 1
i
are in involution, so it
follows that d1
i
(A
f
j ) = 0 for all i and ,.
The vector ﬁelds A
f
i are linearly independent on `, so by “ﬁnite” operations, we
can construct 1forms
¯
β
1
. . . . .
¯
β
n
which satisfy the conditions
¯
β
i
(A
f
j ) = δ
ij
(Kronecker delta).
Any other set of forms β
i
which satisfy these conditions are given by expressions:
β
i
=
¯
β
i
+ o
ij
d1
j
.
for some functions o
ij
on `. Let us regard the functions o
ij
as unknowns for a moment.
Let Y
1
. . . . . Y
n
be the vector ﬁelds which satisfy
Y
i
Ω = β
i
.
with
¯
Y
i
denoting the corresponding quantities when the o
ij
are set to zero. Then it is easy
to see that
Y
i
=
¯
Y
i
−o
ij
A
f
j .
Now, by construction,
Ω(A
f
i . A
f
j ) = 0 and Ω(Y
i
. A
f
j ) = δ
ij
.
Moreover, as is easy to compute,
Ω(Y
i
. Y
j
) = Ω(
¯
Y
i
.
¯
Y
j
) −o
ji
+o
ij
.
L.5.13 92
Thus, choosing the functions o
ij
appropriately, say o
ij
= −
1
2
Ω(
¯
Y
i
.
¯
Y
j
), we may assume that
Ω(Y
i
. Y
j
) = 0. It follows that the sequence of 1forms d1
1
. . . . . d1
n
. β
1
. . . . . β
n
is the dual
basis to the sequence of vector ﬁelds Y
1
. . . . . Y
n
. A
f
1 . . . . . A
f
n. In particular, we see that
Ω = d1
1
∧ β
1
+ + d1
n
∧ β
n
.
since the 2forms on either side of this equation have the same values on all pairs of vector
ﬁelds drawn from this basis.
Now, since Ω is closed, we have
dΩ = d1
1
∧ dβ
1
+ + d1
n
∧ dβ
n
= 0.
If, for example, we wedge both sides of this equation with d1
2
. . . . . d1
n
, we see that
d1
1
∧ d1
2
∧ . . . ∧ d1
n
∧ dβ
1
= 0.
Hence, it follows that dβ
1
lies in the ideal generated by the forms d1
1
. . . . . d1
n
. Of course,
there was nothing special about the ﬁrst term, so we clearly have
dβ
i
≡ 0 mod d1
1
. . . . . d1
n
for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n.
In particular, it follows that, if we pull back the 1forms β
i
to any ndimensional level set
`
c
⊂ ` deﬁned by equations 1
i
= c
i
where the c
i
are constants, then each β
i
becomes
closed.
Let : ∈ ` be ﬁxed and choose functions o
1
. . . . . o
n
on a neighborhood l of : in `
so that o
i
(:) = 0 and so that the functions o
1
. . . . . o
n
. 1
1
. . . . . 1
n
form a coordinate chart
on l. By shrinking l if necessary, we may assume that the image of this coordinate chart
in R
n
R
n
is an open set of the form 1
1
1
2
, where 1
1
and 1
2
are open balls in R
n
(with 1
1
centered on 0). In this coordinate chart, the β
i
can be expressed in the form
β
i
= 1
j
i
(o. 1) do
j
+ C
ij
(o. 1) d1
j
.
Deﬁne new functions o
i
on 1
1
1
2
by the rule
/
i
(o. 1) =
1
0
1
j
i
(to. 1)o
j
dt.
(This is just the Poincar´e homotopy formula with the 1’s held ﬁxed. It is also the ﬁrst
place where we use “quadrature”.) Since setting the 1’s equals to constants makes β
i
a
closed 1form, it follows easily that
β
i
= d/
i
+ ¹
ij
(o. 1) d1
j
for some functions ¹
ij
on 1
1
1
2
. Thus, on l, the form Ω has the expression
Ω = d1
i
∧ d/
i
+ ¹
ij
d1
i
∧ d1
j
.
L.5.14 93
It follows that the 2form ¹ = ¹
ij
d1
i
∧d1
j
is closed on (the contractible open set) 1
1
1
2
.
Thus, the functions ¹
ij
do not depend on the ocoordinates at all. Hence, by employing
quadrature once more (i.e., the second time) in the Poincar´e homotopy formula, we can
write ¹ = −d(:
i
d1
i
) for some functions :
i
of the 1’s alone. Setting o
i
= /
i
+ :
i
, we have
the desired local normal form Ω = d1
i
∧do
i
.
In many useful situations, one does not need to restrict to a local neighborhood l
to deﬁne the functions o
i
(at least up to additive constants) and the 1forms do
i
can be
deﬁned globally on ` (or, at least away from some small subset in ` where degeneracies
occur). In this case, the construction above is often called the construction of “action
angle” coordinates. We will discuss this further in Lecture 6.
L.5.15 94
Exercise Set 5:
Symplectic Manifolds, I
1. Show that the bilinear form on R
n
deﬁned in the text by the rule 1(r. n) =
t
r¹n (where
¹ is a skewsymmetric nbyn matrix) is nondegenerate if and only if ¹ is invertible. Show
directly (i.e., without using Proposition 1) that a skewsymmetric, nbyn matrix ¹ cannot
be invertible if n is odd. (Hint: For the last part, compute det(¹) two ways.)
2. Let (\. 1) be a symplectic space and let b = (/
1
. /
2
. . . . . /
m
) be a basis of 1. Deﬁne
the :by: skewsymmetric matrix ¹
b
whose i,entry is 1(/
i
. /
j
). Show that if b
= b1
is any other basis of \ (where 1 ∈ GL(:. R) ), then
¹
b
=
t
1¹
b
1.
Use Proposition 1 and Exercise 1 to conclude that, if ¹ is an invertible, skewsymmetric
2nby2n matrix, then there exists a matrix 1 ∈ GL(2n. R) so that
¹ =
t
1
0
n
1
n
−1
n
0
n
1.
In other words, the GL(2n. R)orbit of the matrix J
n
deﬁned in the text (under the “stan
dard” (right) action of GL(2n. R) on the skewsymmetric 2nby2n matrices) is the open
set of all invertible skewsymmetric 2nby2n matrices.
3. Show that Sp(n. R), as deﬁned in the text, is indeed a Lie subgroup of GL(2n. R) and
has dimension 2n
2
+n. Compute its Lie algebra sp(n. R). Show that Sp(1. R) = SL(2. R).
4. In Lecture 2, we deﬁned the groups GL(n. C) = ¦1 ∈ GL(2n. R) [ J
n
1 = 1J
n
¦ and
O(2n) = ¦1 ∈ GL(2n. R) [
t
11 = 1
2n
¦. Show that
GL(n. C) ∩ Sp(n. R) = O(2n) ∩ Sp(n. R) = GL(n. C) ∩ O(2n) = U(n).
5. Let Ω be a symplectic form on a vector space \ of dimension 2n. Let \ ⊂ \ be a
subspace which satisﬁes dim \ = d and dim(\ ∩ \
⊥
) = ν. Show that there exists an
Ωstandard basis of \ so that \ is spanned by the vectors
c
1
. . . . . c
ν+m
. 1
1
. . . . . 1
m
where d −ν = 2:. In this basis of \ , what is a basis for \
⊥
?
E.5.1 95
6. The Pfaffian. Let \ be a vector space of dimension 2n. Fix a basis b = (/
1
. . . . . /
2n
).
For any skewsymmetric 2nby2n matrix 1 = (1
ij
), deﬁne the 2vector
Φ
F
=
1
2
1
ij
/
i
∧ /
j
=
1
2
b∧ 1 ∧
t
b.
Then there is a unique polynomial function Pf, homogeneous of degree n, on the space of
skewsymmetric 2nby2n matrices for which
(Φ
F
)
n
= n! Pf(1) /
1
∧ . . . ∧ /
2n
.
Show that
Pf(1) = 1
12
when n = 1.
Pf(1) = 1
12
1
34
+ 1
13
1
42
+1
14
1
23
when n = 2.
Show also that
Pf(¹1
t
¹) = det(¹) Pf (1)
for all ¹ ∈ GL(2n. R). (Hint: Examine the eﬀect of a change of basis b = b
¹. Compare
Problem 2.) Use this to conclude that Sp(n. R) is a subgroup of SL(2n. R). Finally, show
that (Pf(1))
2
= det(1). (Hint: Show that the left and right hand sides are polynomial
functions which agree on a certain open set in the space of skewsymmetric 2nby2n
matrices.)
The polynomial function Pf is called the Pfaﬃan. It plays an important role in
diﬀerential geometry.
7. Verify that, for any 1 ∈ ¹
2
(\ ), the symplectic reduction (\ . 1) is a welldeﬁned
symplectic space.
8. Show that if there is a Ginvariant nondegnerate pairing ( . ): g g → R, then g and
g
∗
are isomorphic as Grepresentations.
9. Compute the adjoint and coadjoint representations for
G =
o /
0 1
o ∈ R
+
. / ∈ R
Show that g and g
∗
are not isomorphic as Gspaces! (For a general G, the Adorbits of G
in g are not even of even dimension in general, so they can’t be symplectic manifolds.)
10. For any Lie group G and any ξ ∈ g
∗
, show that the symplectic structures Ω
ξ
and Ω
a·ξ
on G ξ are the same for any o ∈ G.
E.5.2 96
11. This exercise concerns the splitting properties of the two Lie algebras sequences
associated to any symplectic structure Ω on a connected manifold `:
0 −→R −→C
∞
(`) −→h(Ω) −→0
and
0 −→h(Ω) −→sp(Ω) −→H
1
dR
(`. R) −→0.
Deﬁne the “divided powers” of Ω by the rule Ω
[k]
= (1´/!) Ω
k
, for each 0 ≤ / ≤ n.
(i) Show that, for any vector ﬁelds A and Y on `,
Ω(A. Y ) Ω
[n]
= −(A Ω) ∧ (Y Ω) ∧ Ω
[n−1]
.
Conclude that the ﬁrst of the above two sequences splits if ` is compact. (Hint: For
the latter statement, show that the set of functions 1 on ` for which
M
1 Ω
[n]
= 0
forms a Poisson subalgebra of C
∞
(`).)
(ii) On the other hand, show that for R
2
with the symplectic structure Ω = dr∧dn, the
ﬁrst sequence does not split. (Hint: Show that every smooth function on R
2
is of the
form ¦r. o¦ for some o ∈ C
∞
(R
2
). Why does this help?)
(iii) Suppose that ` is compact. Deﬁne a skewsymmetric pairing
β
Ω
: H
1
dR
(`. R) H
1
dR
(`. R) →R
by the formula
β
Ω
(o. /) =
M
˜ o ∧
˜
/ ∧ Ω
[n−1]
.
where ˜ o and
˜
/ are closed 1forms representing the cohomology classes o and / respec
tively. Show that if there is a Lie algebra splitting σ: H
1
dR
(`. R) →sp(Ω) then
Ω
σ(o). σ(/)
= −
β
Ω
(o. /)
·o(`. Ω
[n]
)
for all o. / ∈ H
1
dR
(`. R). (Remember that the Lie algebra structure on H
1
dR
(`. R) is
the abelian one.) Use this to conclude that the second sequence does split for a sym
plectic structure on the standard 1holed torus, but does not split for any symplectic
structure on the 2holed torus. (Hint: To show the nonsplitting result, use the fact
that any tangent vector ﬁeld on the 2holed torus must have a zero.)
E.5.3 97
12. The Flux Homomorphism. The object of this exercise is to try to identify the
subgroup of Sp(Ω) whose Lie algebra is h(Ω). Thus, let (`. Ω) be a symplectic manifold.
First, I remind you how the construction of the (smooth) universal cover of the identity
component of Sp(Ω) goes. Let j: [0. 1] ` →` be a smooth map with the property that
the map j
t
: ` →` deﬁned by j
t
(:) = j(t. :) is a symplectomorphism for all 0 ≤ t ≤ 1.
Such a j is called a (smooth) path in Sp(`). We say that j is based at the identity map
e: ` → ` if j
0
= e. The set of smooth paths in Sp(`) which are based at e will be
denoted by P
e
Sp(Ω)
.
Two paths j and j
in P
e
Sp(Ω)
satisfying j
1
= j
1
are said to be homotopic if there
is a smooth map 1: [0. 1] [0. 1] ` →` which satisﬁes the following conditions: First,
1(:. 0. :) = : for all : and :. Second, 1(:. 1. :) = j
1
(:) = j
1
(:) for all : and :.
Third, 1(0. t. :) = j(t. :) and 1(1. t. :) = j
(t. :) for all t and :. The set of homotopy
classes of elements of P
e
Sp(Ω)
is then denoted by
Sp
0
(Ω). In any reasonable topology
on Sp(Ω), this should to be the universal covering space of the identity component of
Sp(Ω). There is a natural group structure on
Sp
0
(Ω) in which ˜e, the homotopy class of
the constant path at e, is the identity element (cf., the covering spaces exercise in Exercise
Set 2).
We are now going to construct a homomorphism Φ:
Sp
0
(Ω) → H
1
(`. R), called the
ﬂux homomorphism. Let j ∈ P
e
Sp(Ω)
be chosen, and let γ: o
1
→ ` be a closed curve
representing an element of H
1
(`. Z). Then we can deﬁne
1(j. γ) =
[0,1]×S
1
(j γ)
∗
(Ω)
where (j γ): [0. 1] o
1
→ ` is deﬁned by (j γ)(t. θ) = j
t. γ(θ)
. The number 1(j. γ)
is called the ﬂux of j through γ.
(i) Show that 1(j. γ) = 1(j
. γ
) if j is homotopic to j
and γ is homologous to γ
).
(Hint: Use Stokes’ Theorem several times.)
Thus, 1 is actually well deﬁned as a map 1:
Sp
0
(Ω) H
1
(`. R) →R.
(ii) Show that 1:
Sp
0
(Ω) H
1
(`. R) →R is linear in its second variable and that, under
the obvious multiplication, we have
1(j j
. γ) = 1(j. γ) + 1(j
. γ).
(Hint: Use Stokes’ Theorem again.)
Thus, 1 may be transposed to become a homomorphism
Φ:
Sp
0
(Ω) →H
1
(`. R).
Show(by direct computation) that if ζ is a closed 1form on ` for which the symplectic
vector ﬁeld 7 = :ζ is complete on `, then the path j in Sp(`) deﬁned by the ﬂow
of 7 from t = 0 to t = 1 satisﬁes Φ(j) = [ζ] ∈ H
1
(`. R). Conclude that the ﬂux
homomorphismΦ is always surjective and that its derivative Φ
(˜e): sp(Ω) →H
1
(`. R)
is just the operation of taking cohomology classes. (Recall that we identify sp(Ω) with
Z
1
(`).)
E.5.4 98
(iii) Show that if ` is a compact surface of genus o 1, then the ﬂux homomorphism
is actually well deﬁned as a map from Sp(Ω) to H
1
(`. R). Would the same result
be true if ` were of genus 1? How could you modify the map so as to make it well
deﬁned on Sp(Ω) in the case of the torus? (Hint: Show that if you have two paths
j and j
with the same endpoint, then you can express the diﬀerence of their ﬂuxes
across a circle γ as an integral of the form
S
1
×S
1
Ψ
∗
(Ω)
where Ψ: o
1
o
1
→ ` is a certain piecewise smooth map from the torus into `.
Now use the fact that, for any piecewise smooth map Ψ: o
1
o
1
→ `, the induced
map Ψ
∗
: H
2
(`. R) → H
2
(o
1
o
1
. R) on cohomology is zero. (Why does this follow
from the assumption that the genus of ` is greater than 1?) )
In any case, the subgroup ker Φ (or its image under the natural projection from
Sp
0
(Ω)
to Sp(Ω)) is known as the group H(Ω) of exact or Hamiltonian symplectomorphisms. Note
that, at least formally, its Lie algebra is h(Ω).
13. In the case of the geodesic ﬂow on a surface of revolution (see Lecture 4), show that
the energy 1
1
= 1
L
and the conserved quantity 1
2
= 1(:) ˙ : +G(:)
˙
θ are in involution. Use
the algorithm described in Theorem 3 to compute the functions o
1
and o
2
, thus verifying
that the geodesic equations on a surface of revolution are integrable by quadrature.
E.5.5 99
Lecture 6:
Symplectic Manifolds, II
The Space of Symplectic Structures on `.
I want to turn now to the problemof describing the symplectic structures a manifold `
can have. This is a surprisingly delicate problem and is currently a subject of research.
Of course, one fundamental question is whether a given manifold has any symplec
tic structures at all. I want to begin this lecture with a discussion of the two known
obstructions for a manifold to have a symplectic structure.
The cohomology ring condition. If Ω ∈ /
2
(`
2n
) is a symplectic structure on a
compact manifold `, then the cohomology class [Ω] ∈ H
2
dR
(`. R) is nonzero. In fact,
[Ω]
n
= [Ω
n
], but the class [Ω
n
] cannot vanish in H
2n
dR
(`) because the integral of Ω
n
over
` is clearly nonzero. Thus, we have
Proposition 1: If `
2n
is compact and has a symplectic structure, there must exist an
element n ∈ H
2
(`. R) so that n
n
= 0 ∈ H
2n
dR
(`).
Example. This immediately rules out the existence of a symplectic structure on o
2n
for
all n 1. One consequence of this, as you are asked to show in the Exercises, is that there
cannot be any simple notion of connected sum in the category of symplectic manifolds
(except in dimension 2).
The bundle obstruction. If ` admits a symplectic structure Ω, then, in particu
lar, this deﬁnes a symplectic structure on each of the tangent spaces T
m
` which varies
continuously with :. In other words, T` must carry the structure of a symplectic vector
bundle. There are topological obstructions to the existence of such a structure on the tan
gent bundle of a general manifold. As a simple example, if ` has a symplectic structure,
then T` must be orientable.
There are more subtle obstructions than orientation. Unfortunately, a description of
these obstructions requires some acquaintance with the theory of characteristic classes.
However, part of the following discussion will be useful even to those who aren’t familiar
with characteristic class theory, so I will give it now, even though the concepts will only
reveal their importance in later Lectures.
Deﬁnition 1: An almost symplectic structure on a manifold `
2n
is a smooth 2form
Ω deﬁned on ` which is nondegenerate but not necessarily closed. An almost complex
structure on `
2n
is a smooth bundle map J: T` →T` which satisﬁes J
2
· = −· for all
· in T`.
The reason that I have introduced both of these concepts at the same time is that
they are intimately related. The really deep aspects of this relationship will only become
apparent in the Lecture 9, but we can, at least, give the following result now.
L.6.1 100
Proposition 2: A manifold `
2n
has an almost symplectic structure if and only if it has
an almost complex structure.
Proof: First, suppose that ` has an almost complex structure J. Let o
0
be any Rie
mannian metric on `. (Thus, o
0
: T` → R is a smooth function which restricts to each
T
m
` to be a positive deﬁnite quadratic form.) Now deﬁne a new Riemannian metric by
the formula
o(·) = o
0
(·) + o
0
(J·).
Then o has the property that o(J·) = o(·) for all · ∈ T` since
o(J·) = o
0
(J·) + o
0
(J
2
·) = o
0
(J·) + o
0
(−·) = o(·).
Now let '. ` denote the (symmetric) inner product associated with o. Thus, '·. ·` =
o(·), so we have 'Jr. Jn` = 'r. n` when r and n are tangent vector with the same base
point. For r. n ∈ T
m
` deﬁne Ω(r. n) = 'Jr. n`. I claim that Ω is a nondegenerate 2form
on `. To see this, ﬁrst note that
Ω(r. n) = 'Jr. n` = −'Jr. J
2
n` = −'J
2
n. Jr` = −'Jn. r` = −Ω(n. r).
so Ω is a 2form. Moreover, if r is a nonzero tangent vector, then Ω(r. Jr) = 'Jr. Jr` =
o(r) 0, so it follows that r Ω = 0. Thus Ω is nondegenerate.
To go the other way is a little more delicate. Suppose that Ω is given and ﬁx a
Riemannian metric o on ` with associated inner product '. `. Then, by linear algebra
there exists a unique bundle mapping ¹: T` →T` so that Ω(r. n) = '¹r. n`. Since Ω is
skewsymmetric and nondegenerate, it follows that ¹ must be skewsymmetric relative to
'. ` and must be invertible. It follows that −¹
2
must be symmetric and positive deﬁnite
relative to '. ` .
Now, standard results from linear algebra imply that there is a unique smooth bundle
map 1: T` → T` which positive deﬁnite and symmetric with respect to '. ` and which
satisﬁes 1
2
= −¹
2
. Moreover, this linear mapping 1 must commute with ¹. (See the
Exercises if you are not familiar with this fact). Thus, the mapping J = ¹1
−1
satisﬁes
J
2
= −1, as desired.
It is not hard to showthat the mappings (J. o
0
) →Ω and (Ω. o) →J constructed in the
proof of Proposition 1 depend continuously (in fact, smoothly) on their arguments. Since
the set of Riemannian metrics on ` is contractible, it follows that the set of homotopy
classes of almost complex structures on ` is in natural onetoone correspondence with
the set of homotopy classes of almost symplectic structures.
(The reader who is familiar with the theory of principal bundles knows that at the
heart of Proposition 1 is the fact that Sp(n. R) and GL(n. C) have the same maximal
compact subgroup, namely U(n).)
L.6.2 101
Now I can describe some of the bundle obstructions. Suppose that ` has a symplectic
structure Ω and let J be any one of the almost complex structures on ` we constructed
above. Then the tangent bundle of ` can be regarded as a complex bundle, which we will
denote by T
J
and hence has a total Chern class
c(T
J
) =
1 + c
1
(J) + c
2
(J) + + c
n
(J)
where c
i
(J) ∈ H
2i
(`. Z). Now, by the properties of Chern classes, c
n
(J) = c(T`), where
c(T`) is the Euler class of the tangent bundle given the orientation determined by the
volume form Ω
n
.
These classes are related to the Pontrijagin classes of T` by the Whitney sum formula
(see [MS]):
j(T`) = 1 −j
1
(T`) + j
2
(T`) − + (−1)
[n/2]
j
[n/2]
(T`)
= c(T
J
⊕T
−J
)
=
1 + c
1
(J) + c
2
(J) + + c
n
(J)
1 −c
1
(J) + c
2
(J) − + (−1)
n
c
n
(J)
Since j(T`) depends only on the diﬀeomorphismclass of `, this gives quadratic equations
for the c
i
(J),
j
k
(T) =
c
k
(J)
2
−2c
k−1
(J)c
k+1
(J) + + (−1)
k
2c
0
(J)c
2k
(J).
to which any manifold with an almost complex structure must have solutions. Since not
every 2nmanifold has cohomology classes c
i
(J) satisfying these equations, it follows that
some 2nmanifolds have no almost complex structure and hence, by Proposition 2, no
almost symplectic structure either.
Examples. Here are two examples in dimension 4 to show that the cohomology ring
condition and the bundle obstruction are independent.
• ` = o
1
o
3
does not have a symplectic structure because H
2
(`. R) = 0. However
the bundle obstruction vanishes because ` is parallelizable (why?). Thus ` does have
an almost symplectic structure.
• ` = CP
2
#CP
2
. The cohomology ring of ` in this case is generated over Z by
two generators n
1
and n
2
in H
2
(`. Z) which are subject to the relations n
1
n
2
= 0 and
n
2
1
= n
2
2
= · where · generates H
4
(`. Z). For any nonzero class n = n
1
n
1
+ n
2
n
2
, we
have n
2
= (n
2
1
+ n
2
2
)· = 0. Thus the cohomology ring condition is satisﬁed.
However, ` has no almost symplectic structure: If it did, then T = T` would have
a complex structure J, with total Chern class c(J) and the equations above would give
j
1
(T) =
c
1
(J)
2
−2c
2
(J). Moreover, we would have c(T) = c
2
(J). Thus, we would have
to have
c
1
(J)
2
= j
1
(T) + 2c(T).
L.6.3 102
For any compact, simplyconnected, oriented 4manifold ` with orientation class
j ∈ H
4
(`. Z), the Hirzebruch Signature Theorem (see [MS]) implies j
1
(T) = 3(/
+
2
−
/
−
2
)j, where /
±
2
are the number of positive and negative eigenvalues respectively of the
intersection pairing H
2
(`. Z) H
2
(`. Z) → Z. In addition, c(T) = (2 + /
+
2
+ /
−
2
)j.
Substituting these into the above formula, we would have
c
1
(J)
2
= (4 + 5/
+
2
−/
−
2
)j for
any complex structure J on the tangent bundle of `.
In particular, if ` = CP
2
#CP
2
had an almost complex structure J, then
c
1
(J)
2
would be either 14· (if j = ·, since then /
+
2
= 2 and /
−
2
= 0) or −2· (if j = −·, since
then /
+
2
= 0 and /
−
2
= 2). However, by our previous calculations, neither 14· nor −2· is
the square of a cohomology class in H
2
(CP
2
#CP
2
. Z).
This example shows that, in general, one cannot hope to have a connected sum
operation for symplectic manifolds.
The actual conditions for a manifold to have an almost symplectic structure can be
expressed in terms of characteristic classes, so, in principle, this can always be determined
once the manifold is given explicitly. In Lecture 9 we will describe more fully the following
remarkable result of Gromov:
If `
2n
has no compact components and has an almost symplectic structure Υ, then
there exists a symplectic structure Ω on ` which is homotopic to Υ through almost
symplectic structures.
Thus, the problem of determining which manifolds have symplectic structures is now
reduced to the compact case. In this case, no obstruction beyond what I have already
described is known. Thus, I can state the following:
Basic Open Problem: If a compact manifold `
2n
satisﬁes the cohomology ring condi
tion and has an almost symplectic structure, does it have a symplectic structure?
Even (perhaps especially) for 4manifolds, this problem is extremely interesting and
very poorly understood.
Deformations of Symplectic Structures. We will now turn to some of the features
of the space of symplectic structures on a given manifold which does admit symplectic
structures. First, we will examine the “deformation problem”. The following theorem due
to Moser (see [We]) shows that symplectic structures determining a ﬁxed cohomology class
in H
2
on a compact manifold are “rigid”.
Theorem 1: If `
2n
is a compact manifold and Ω
t
for t ∈ [0. 1] is a continuous 1parameter
family of smooth symplectic structures on ` which has the property that the cohomology
classes [Ω
t
] in H
2
dR
(`. R) are independent of t, then for each t ∈ [0. 1], there exists a
diﬀeomorphism φ
t
so that φ
∗
t
(Ω
t
) = Ω
0
.
L.6.4 103
Proof: We will start by proving a special case and then deduce the general case from it.
Suppose that Ω
0
is a symplectic structure on ` and that ϕ ∈ /
1
(`) is a 1form so that,
for all : ∈ (−1. 1), the 2form
Ω
s
= Ω
0
+: dϕ
is a symplectic form on ` as well. (This is true for all suﬃciently “small” 1forms on `
since ` is compact.) Now consider the 2form on (−1. 1) ` deﬁned by the formula
Ω = Ω
0
+ : dϕ −ϕ∧ d:.
(Here, we are using : as the coordinate on the ﬁrst factor (−1. 1) and, as usual, we write
Ω
0
and ϕ instead of π
∗
2
(Ω
0
) and π
∗
2
(ϕ) where π
2
: (−1. 1) ` → ` is the projection on
the second factor.)
The reader can check that Ω is closed on (−1. 1) `. Moreover, since Ω pulls back
to each slice ¦:
0
¦ ` to be the nondegenerate form Ω
s
0
it follows that Ω has halfrank
n everywhere. Thus, the kernel ·
Ω
is 1dimensional and is transverse to each of the slices
¦t¦ `. Hence there is a unique vector ﬁeld A which spans ·
Ω
and satisﬁes d:(A) = 1.
Now because ` is compact, it is not diﬃcult to see that each integral curve of A
projects by : = π
1
diﬀeomorphically onto (−1. 1). Moreover, it follows that there is a
smooth map φ: (−1. 1) ` →` so that, for each :, the curve t →φ(t. :) is the integral
curve of A which passes through (0. :).
It follows that the map Φ: (−1. 1) ` →(−1. 1) ` deﬁned by
Φ(t. :) =
t. φ(t. :)
carries the vector ﬁeld ∂´∂: to the vector ﬁeld A. Moreover, since Ω
0
and Ω have the
same value when pulled back to the slice ¦0¦ ` and since
L
∂/∂s
Ω
0
= 0
∂´∂: Ω
0
= 0
and
L
X
Ω = 0
A Ω = 0.
it follows easily that Φ
∗
(Ω) = Ω
0
. In particular, φ
∗
t
(Ω
t
) = Ω
0
where φ
t
is the diﬀeomor
phism of ` given by φ
t
(:) = φ(t. :).
Now let us turn to the general case. If Ω
t
for 0 ≤ t ≤ 1 is any continuous family of
smooth closed 2forms for which the cohomology classes [Ω
t
] are all equal to [Ω
0
], then for
any two values t
1
and t
2
in the unit interval, consider the 1parameter family of 2forms
Υ
s
= (1 −:)Ω
t
1
+ :Ω
t
2
.
Using the compactness of `, it is not diﬃcult to show that for t
2
suﬃciently close to t
1
,
the family Υ
s
is a 1parameter family of symplectic forms on ` for : in some open interval
containing [0. 1]. Moreover, by hypothesis, [Ω
t
2
− Ω
t
1
] = 0, so there exists a 1form ϕ on
` so that dϕ = Ω
t
2
−Ω
t
1
. Thus,
Υ
s
= Ω
t
1
+ : dϕ.
L.6.5 104
By the special case already treated, there exists a diﬀeomorphism φ
t
2
,t
1
of ` so that
φ
∗
t
2
,t
1
(Ω
t
2
) = Ω
t
1
.
Finally, using the compactness of the interval [0. t] for any t ∈ [0. 1], we can subdivide
this interval into a ﬁnite number of intervals [t
1
. t
2
] on which the above argument works.
Then, by composing diﬀeomorphisms, we can construct a diﬀeomorphism φ
t
of ` so that
φ
∗
t
(Ω
t
) = Ω
0
.
The reader may have wanted the family of diﬀeomorphisms φ
t
to depend continuously
on t and smoothly on t if the family Ω
t
is smooth in t. This can, in fact, be arranged.
However, it involves showing that there is a smooth family of 1forms ϕ
t
on ` so that
d
dt
Ω
t
= dϕ
t
, i.e., smoothly solving the dequation. This can be done, but requires some
delicacy or use of elliptic machinery (e.g., HodgedeRham theory).
Theorem 1 does not hold without the hypothesis of compactness. For example, if Ω
is the restriction of the standard structure on R
2n
to the unit ball 1
2n
, then for the family
Ω
t
= c
t
Ω there cannot be any family of diﬀeomorphisms of the ball φ
t
so that φ
∗
t
(Ω
t
) = Ω
since the integrals over 1 of the volume forms (Ω
t
)
n
= c
nt
Ω
n
are all diﬀerent.
Intuitively, Theorem 1 says that the “connected components” of the space of symplec
tic structures on a manifold are orbits of the group Diff
0
(`) of diﬀeomorphisms isotopic
to the identity. (The reason this is only intuitive is that we have not actually deﬁned a
topology on the space of symplectic structures on `.)
It is an interesting question as to how many “connected components” the space of
symplectic structures on ` has. The work of Gromov has yielded methods to attack this
problem and I will have more to say about this in Lecture 9.
Submanifolds of Symplectic Manifolds
We will now pass on to the study of the geometry of submanifolds of a symplectic
manifold. The following result describes the behaviour of symplectic structures near closed
submanifolds. This theorem, due to Weinstein (see [Weinstein]), can be regarded as a
generalization of Darboux’ Theorem. The reader will note that the proof is quite similar
to the proof of Theorem 1.
Theorem 2: Let 1 ⊂ ` be a closed submanifold and let Ω
0
and Ω
1
be symplectic
structures on ` which have the property that Ω
0
(j) = Ω
1
(j) for all j ∈ 1. Then there
exist open neighborhoods l
0
and l
1
of 1 and a diﬀeomorphism φ: l
0
→ l
1
satisfying
φ
∗
(Ω
1
) = Ω
0
and which moreover ﬁxes 1 pointwise and satisﬁes φ
(j) = id
p
: T
p
` →T
p
`
for all j ∈ 1.
Proof: Consider the linear family of 2forms
Ω
t
= (1 −t)Ω
0
+ tΩ
1
L.6.6 105
which “interpolates” between the forms Ω
0
and Ω
1
. Since [0. 1] is compact and since, by
hypothesis, Ω
0
(j) = Ω
1
(j) for all j ∈ 1, it easily follows that there is an open neighborhood
l of 1 in ` so that Ω
t
is a symplectic structure on l for all t in some open interval
1 = (−ε. 1 +ε) containing [0. 1].
We may even suppose that l is a “tubular neighborhood” of 1 which has a smooth
retraction 1: [0. 1] l → l into 1. Since Φ = Ω
1
−Ω
0
vanishes on 1, it follows without
too much diﬃcultly (see the Exercises) that there is a 1form ϕ on l which vanishes on 1
and which satisﬁes dϕ = Φ.
Now, on 1 l, consider the 2form
Ω = Ω
0
+ : dϕ −ϕ∧ d:.
This is a closed 2form of halfrank n on 1 l. Just as in the previous theorem, it follows
that there exists a unique vector ﬁeld A on 1 l so that d:(A) = 1 and A Ω = 0.
Since ϕ and dϕ vanish on 1, the vector ﬁeld A has the property that A(:. j) = ∂´∂:
for all j ∈ 1 and : ∈ 1. In particular, the set ¦0¦ 1 lies in the domain of the time 1
ﬂow of A. Since this domain is an open set, it follows that there is an open neighborhood
l
0
of 1 in l so that ¦0¦ l
0
lies in the domain of the time 1 ﬂow of A. The image of
¦0¦ l
0
under the time 1 ﬂow of A is of the form ¦1¦ l
1
where l
1
is another open
neighborhood of 1 in l.
Thus, the time 1 ﬂow of A generates a diﬀeomorphism φ: l
0
→l
1
. By the arguments
of the previous theorem, it follows that φ
∗
(Ω
1
) = Ω
0
. I leave it to the reader to check that
φ ﬁxes 1 in the desired fashion.
Theorem 2 has a useful corollary:
Corollary : Let Ω be a symplectic structure on ` and let 1
0
and 1
1
be smooth embeddings
of a manifold 1 into ` so that 1
∗
0
(Ω) = 1
∗
1
(Ω) and so that there exists a smooth bundle
isomorphism τ: 1
∗
0
(T`) → 1
∗
1
(T`) which extends the identity map on the subbundle
T1 ⊂ 1
∗
i
(T`) and which identiﬁes the symplectic structures on 1
∗
i
(T`). Then there
exist open neighborhoods l
i
of 1
i
(1) in ` and a diﬀeomorphism φ: l
0
→ l
1
which
satisﬁes φ
∗
(Ω) = Ω and, moreover, φ ◦ 1
0
= 1
1
.
Proof: It is an elementary result in diﬀerential topology that, under the hypotheses of the
Corollary, there exists an open neighborhood \
0
of 1
0
(1) in ` and a smooth diﬀeomorphic
embedding ψ: \
0
→` so that ψ ◦ 1
0
= 1
1
and ψ
1
0
(j)
: T
f
0
(p)
(`) →T
f
1
(p)
(`) is equal
to τ(j). It follows that ψ
∗
(Ω) is a symplectic form on \
0
which agrees with Ω along 1
0
(1).
By Theorem 2, it follows that there is a neighborhood l
0
of 1
0
(1) which lies in \
0
and a
smooth map ν: l
0
→\
0
which is a diﬀeomorphism onto its image, ﬁxes 1
0
(1) pointwise,
satisﬁes ν
1
0
(j)
= id
f
0
(p)
for all j ∈ 1, and also satisﬁes ν
∗
ψ
∗
(Ω)
= Ω. Now just take
φ = ψ ◦ ν.
We will now give two particularly important applications of this result:
If 1 ⊂ ` is a symplectic submanifold, then by using Ω, we can deﬁne a normal bundle
for 1 as follows:
ν(1) = ¦(j. ·) ∈ 1 T`[ · ∈ T
p
`. Ω(·. n) = 0 for all n ∈ T
p
1¦.
L.6.7 106
The bundle ν(1) has a natural symplectic structure on each of its ﬁbers (see the Exer
cises), and hence is a symplectic vector bundle. The following proposition shows that, up
to local diﬀeomorphism, this normal bundle determines the symplectic structure Ω on a
neighborhood of 1.
Proposition 3: Let (1. Υ) be a symplectic manifold and let 1
0
. 1
1
: 1 → ` be two
symplectic embeddings of 1 as submanifolds of ` so that the normal bundles ν
0
(1) and
ν
1
(1) are isomorphic as symplectic vector bundles. Then there are open neighborhoods
l
i
of 1
i
(1) in ` and a symplectic diﬀeomorphism φ: l
0
→l
1
which satisﬁes 1
1
= φ ◦ 1
0
.
Proof: It suﬃces to construct the map τ required by the hypotheses of Theorem 2.
Now, we have a symplectic bundle decomposition 1
∗
i
(T`) = T1 ⊕ ν
i
(1) for i = 1. 2. If
α: ν
0
(1) → ν
1
(1) is a symplectic bundle isomorphism, we then deﬁne τ = id ⊕ α in the
obvious way and we are done.
At the other extreme, we want to consider submanifolds of ` to which the form Ω
pulls back to be as degenerate as possible.
Deﬁnition 2: If Ω is a symplectic structure on `
2n
, an immersion 1: 1 →` is said to be
isotropic if 1
∗
(Ω) = 0. If the dimension of 1 is n, we say that 1 is a Lagrangian immersion.
If in addition, 1 is onetoone, then we say that 1(1) is a Lagrangian submanifold of `.
Note that the dimension of an isotropic submanifold of `
2n
is at most n, so the
Lagrangian submanifolds of ` have maximal dimension among all isotropic submanifolds.
Example: Graphs of Symplectic Mappings. If 1: ` → · is a symplectic mapping
where Ω and Υ are the symplectic forms on ` and · respectively, then the graph of 1
in ` · is an isotropic submanifold of ` · endowed with the symplectic structure
(−Ω) ⊕Υ = π
∗
1
(−Ω) +π
∗
2
(Υ). If ` and · have the same dimension, then the graph of 1
in ` · is a Lagrangian submanifold.
Example: Closed 1forms. If α is a 1form on `, then the graph of α in T
∗
` is a
Lagrangian submanifold of T
∗
` if and only if dα = 0. This follows because Ω on T
∗
`
has the “reproducing property” that α
∗
(Ω) = dα for any 1form on `.
Proposition 4: Let Ω be a symplectic structure on ` and let 1 be a closed Lagrangian
submanifold of `. Then there exists an open neighborhood l of the zero section in T
∗
1
and a smooth map φ: l →` satisfying φ(0
p
) = j which is a diﬀeomorphism onto an open
neighborhood of 1 in `, and which pulls back Ω to be the standard symplectic structure
on l.
Proof: From the earlier proofs, the reader probably can guess what we will do. Let
ι: 1 → ` be the inclusion mapping and let ζ: 1 → T
∗
1 be the zero section of T
∗
1. I
leave as an exercise for the reader to show that ζ
∗
T(T
∗
1)
= T1 ⊕ T
∗
1, and that the
induced symplectic structure Υ on this sum is simply the natural one on the sum of a
bundle and its dual:
Υ
(·
1
. ξ
1
). (·
2
. ξ
2
)
= ξ
1
(·
2
) −ξ
2
(·
1
)
L.6.8 107
I will show that there is a bundle isomorphismτ: T1 ⊕T
∗
1 →ι
∗
(T`) which restricts
to the subbundle T1 to be ι
: T1 →ι
∗
(T`).
First, select an ndimensional subbundle 1 ⊂ ι
∗
(T`) which is complementary to
ι
(T1) ⊂ ι
∗
(T`). It is not diﬃcult to show (and it is left as an exercise for the reader)
that it is possible to choose 1 so that it is a Lagrangian subbundle of ι
∗
(T`) so that there
is an isomorphism α: T
∗
1 → 1 so that τ: T1 ⊕T
∗
1 → ι
(T1) ⊕1 deﬁned by τ = ι
⊕α
is a symplectic bundle isomorphism.
Now apply the Corollary to Theorem 2.
Proposition 4 shows that the symplectic structure on a manifold ` in a neighborhood
of a closed Lagrangian submanifold 1 is completely determined by the diﬀeomorphismtype
of 1. This fact has several interesting applications. We will only give one of them here.
Proposition 5: Let (`. Ω) be a compact symplectic manifold with H
1
dR
(`. R) = 0.
Then in Diff(`) endowed with the C
1
topology, there exists an open neighborhood U of
the identity map so that any symplectomorphism φ: ` → ` which lies in U has at least
two ﬁxed points.
Proof: Consider the manifold `` endowed with the symplectic structure Ω⊕(−Ω).
The diagonal ∆ ⊂ ` ` is a Lagrangian submanifold. Proposition 4 implies that
there exists an open neighborhood l of the zero section in T
∗
` and a symplectic map
ψ: l →` ` which is a diﬀeomorphism onto its image so that ψ(0
p
) = (j. j).
Now, there is an open neighborhood U
0
of the identity map on ` in Diff(`) endowed
with the C
0
topology which is characterized by the condition that φ belongs to U
0
if and
only if the graph of φ in ` `, namely id φ lies in the open set ψ(l) ⊂ ` `.
Moreover, there is an open neighborhood U ⊂ U
0
of the identity map on ` in Diff(`)
endowed with the C
1
topology which is characterized by the condition that φ belongs to
U if and only if ψ
−1
◦ (id φ): ` →T
∗
` is the graph of a 1form α
φ
.
Now suppose that φ ∈ U is a symplectomorphism. By our previous discussion, it
follows that the graph of φ in ` ` is Lagrangian. This implies that the graph of α
φ
is Lagrangian in T
∗
` which, by our second example, implies that α
φ
is closed. Since
H
1
dR
(`. R) = 0, this, in turn, implies that α
φ
= d1
φ
for some smooth function 1 on `.
Since ` is compact, it follows that 1
φ
must have at least two critical points. However,
these critical points are zeros of the 1formd1
φ
= α
φ
. It is a consequence of our construction
that these points must then be places where the graph of φ intersects the diagonal ∆. In
other words, they are ﬁxed points of φ.
This theorem can be generalized considerably. According to a theorem of Hamilton
[Ha], if ` is compact, then there is an open neighborhood U of the identity map id in
Sp(Ω) (with the C
1
topology) so that every φ ∈ U is the timeone ﬂow of a symplectic
vector ﬁeld A
φ
∈ sp(Ω). If A
φ
is actually Hamiltonian (which would, of course, follow if
H
1
dR
(`. R) = 0), then −A
φ
Ω = d1
φ
, so A
φ
will vanish at the critical points of 1
φ
and
these will be ﬁxed points of φ.
L.6.9 108
Appendix: Lie’s Transformation Groups, II
The reader who is learning symplectic geometry for the ﬁrst time may be astonished by
the richness of the subject and, at the same time, be wondering “Are there other geometries
like symplectic geometry which remain to be explored?” The point of this appendix is to
give one possible answer to this very vague question.
When Lie began his study of transformation groups in n variables, he modeled his
attack on the known study of the ﬁnite groups. Thus, his idea was that he would ﬁnd all
of the “simple groups” ﬁrst and then assemble them (by solving the extension problem)
to classify the general group. Thus, if one “group” G had a homomorphism onto another
“group” H
1 −→1 −→G −→H −→1
then one could regard G as a semidirect product of H with the kernel subgroup 1.
Guided by this idea, Lie decided that the ﬁrst task was to classify the transitive
transformation groups G, i.e., the ones which acted transitively on R
n
(at least locally).
The reason for this was that, if G had an orbit o of dimension 0 < / < n, then the
restriction of the action of G to o would give a nontrivial homomorphism of G into a
transformation group in fewer variables.
Second, Lie decided that he needed to classify ﬁrst the “groups” which, in his language,
“did not preserve any subset of the variables.” The example he had in mind was the group
of diﬀeomorphisms of R
2
of the form
φ(r. n) =
1(r). o(r. n)
.
Clearly the assignment φ → 1 provides a homomorphism of this group into the group of
diﬀeomorphisms in one variable. Lie called groups which “did not preserve any subset of
the variables” primitive. In modern language, primitive is taken to mean that G does not
preserve any foliation on R
n
(coordinates on the leaf space would furnish a “proper subset
of the variables” which was preserved by G).
Thus, the fundamental problem was to classify the “primitive transitive continuous
transformation groups”.
When the algebra of inﬁnitesimal generators of G was ﬁnite dimensional, Lie and his
coworkers made good progress. Their work culminated in the work of Cartan and Killing,
classifying the ﬁnite dimensional simple Lie groups. (Interestingly enough, they did not
then go on to solve the extension problem and so classify all Lie groups. Perhaps they
regarded this as a problem of lesser order. Or, more likely, the classiﬁcation turned out to
be messy, uninteresting, and ultimately intractable.)
They found that the simple groups fell into two types. Besides the special linear
groups, such as SL(n. R), SL(n. C) and other complex analogs; orthogonal groups, such as
SO(j. c) and its complex analogs; and symplectic groups, such as Sp(n. R) and its complex
analogs (which became known as the classical groups), there were ﬁve “exceptional” types.
This story is quite long, but very interesting. The “ﬁnite dimensional Lie groups” went on
L.6.10 109
to become an essential part of the foundation of modern diﬀerential geometry. A complete
account of this classiﬁcation (along with very interesting historical notes) can be found in
[He].
However, when the algebra of inﬁnitesimal generators of G was inﬁnite dimensional,
the story was not so complete. Lie himself identiﬁed four classes of these “inﬁnite dimen
sional primitive transitive transformation groups”. They were
• In every dimension n, the full diﬀeomorphism group, Diff(R
n
).
• In every dimension n, the group of diﬀeomorphisms which preserve a ﬁxed volume
form j, denoted by SDiff(j).
• In every even dimension 2n, the group of diﬀeomorphisms which preserve the standard
symplectic form
Ω
n
= dr
1
∧ dn
1
+ + dr
n
∧ dn
n
.
denoted by Sp(Ω
n
).
• In every odd dimension 2n +1, the group of diﬀeomorphisms which preserve, up to a
scalar function multiple, the 1form
ω
n
= d. + r
1
dn
1
+ +r
n
dn
n
.
This “group” was known as the contact group and I will denote it by Ct(ω
n
).
However, Lie and his coworkers were never able to discover any others, though they
searched diligently. (By the way, Lie was aware that there were also holomorphic analogs
acting in C
n
, but, at that time, the distinction between real and complex was not generally
made explicit. Apparently, an educated reader was supposed to know or be able to guess
what the generalizations to the complex category were.)
In a series of four papers spanning from 1902 to 1910,
´
Elie Cartan reformulated Lie’s
problem in terms of systems of partial diﬀerential equations and, under the hypothesis
of analyticity (real and complex were not carefully distinguished), he proved that Lie’s
classes were essentially all of the inﬁnite dimensional primitive transitive transformation
groups. The slight extension was that SDiff(j) had a companion extension to RSDiff(j),
the diﬀeomorphisms which preserve j up to a constant multiple and that Sp(Ω
n
) had
a companion extension to R Sp(Ω
n
), the diﬀeomorphisms which preserve Ω
n
up to a
constant multiple. Of course, there were also the holomorphic analogues of these. Notice
the remarkable fact that there are no “exceptional inﬁnite dimensional primitive transitive
transformation groups”.
These papers are remarkable, not only for their results, but for the wealth of concepts
which Cartan introduced in order to solve his problem. In these papers, Cartan introduces
the notion of Gstructures (of all orders), principal bundles and their connections, jet
bundles, prolongation (both of group actions and exterior diﬀerential systems), and a host
of other ideas which were only appreciated much later. Perhaps because of its originality,
Cartan’s work in this area was essentially ignored for many years.
L.6.11 110
In the 1950’s, when algebraic varieties were being explored and developed as complex
manifolds, it began to be understood that complex manifolds were to be thought of as
manifolds with an atlas of coordinate charts whose “overlaps” were holomorphic. Gener
alizing this example, it became clear that, for any collection Γ of local diﬀeomorphisms of
R
n
which satisﬁed the following deﬁnition, one could deﬁne a category of Γmanifolds as
manifolds endowed with an atlas A of coordinate charts whose overlaps lay in A.
Deﬁnition 3: A local diﬀeomorphism of R
n
is a pair (l. φ) where l ⊂ R
n
is an open
set and φ: l → R
n
is a onetoone diﬀeomorphism onto its image. A set Γ of local
diﬀeomorphisms of R
n
is said to form a pseudogroup on R
n
if it satisﬁes the following
three properties:
(1) (Composition and Inverses) If (l. φ) and (\. ψ) are in Γ, then (φ
−1
(\ ). ψ ◦ φ) and
(φ(l). φ
−1
) also belong to Γ.
(2) (Localization and Globalization) If (l. φ) is in Γ, and \ ⊂ l is open, then (\. φ
W
)
is also in Γ. Moreover, if (l. φ) is a local diﬀeomorphism of R
n
such that l can be
written as the union of open subsets \
α
for which (\
α
. φ
W
α
) is in Γ for all α, then
(l. φ) is in Γ.
(3) (Nontriviality) (R
n
. id) is in Γ.
As it turned out, the pseudogroups Γ of interest in geometry were exactly the ones
which could be characterized as the (local) solutions of a system of partial diﬀerential
equations, i.e., they were Lie’s transformation groups. This caused a revival of interest
in Cartan’s work. Consequently, much of Cartan’s work has now been redone in modern
language. In particular, Cartan’s classiﬁcation was redone according to modern standards
of rigor and a very readable account of this theory can be found in [SS].
In any case, symplectic geometry, seen in this light, is one of a small handful of
“natural” geometries that one can impose on manifolds.
L.6.12 111
Exercise Set 6:
Symplectic Manifolds, II
1. Assume n 1. Show that if ¹
r,R
⊂ R
2n
(with its standard symplectic structure) is
the annulus described by the relations : < [x[ < 1, then there cannot be a symplectic
diﬀeomorphism φ: ¹
r,R
→ ¹
s,S
that “exchanges the boundaries”. (Hint: Show that if φ
existed one would be able to construct a symplectic structure on o
2n
.) Conclude that one
cannot na¨ıvely deﬁne connected sum in the category of symplectic manifolds. (The “na¨ıve”
deﬁnition would be to try to take two symplectic manifolds `
1
and `
2
of the same dimen
sion, choose an open ball in each one, cut out a subball of each and identify the resulting
annuli by an appropriate diﬀeomorphism that was chosen to be a symplectomorphism.)
2. This exercise completes the proof of Proposition 1.
(i) Let S
+
n
denote the space of nbyn positive deﬁnite symmetric matrices. Show that
the map σ: S
+
n
→S
+
n
deﬁned by σ(:) = :
2
is a onetoone diﬀeomorphism of S
+
n
onto
itself. Conclude that every element of S
+
n
has a unique positive deﬁnite square root
and that the map : →
√
: is a smooth mapping. Show also that, for any : ∈ O(n),
we have
√
t
:o: =
t
:
√
o :, so that the square root function is O(n)equivariant.
(ii) Let A
•
n
denote the space of nbyn invertible antisymmetric matrices. Show that, for
o ∈ A
•
n
, the matrix −o
2
is symmetric and positive deﬁnite. Show that the matrix
/ =
√
−o
2
is the unique symmetric positive deﬁnite matrix that satisﬁes /
2
= −o
2
and moreover that / commutes with o. Check also that the mapping o →
√
−o
2
is
O(n)equivariant.
(iii) Now verify the claim made in the proof of Proposition 1 that, for any smooth vector
bundle 1 over a manifold ` endowed with a smooth inner product on the ﬁbers
and any smooth, invertible skewsymmetric bundle mapping ¹: 1 → 1, there exists
a unique smooth positive deﬁnite symmetric bundle mapping 1: 1 →1 that satisﬁes
1
2
= −¹
2
and that commutes with ¹.
3. This exercise requires that you know something about characteristic classes.
(i) Show that o
4n
has no almost complex structure for any n. (Hint: What could the
total Chern and Pontrijagin class of the tangent bundle be?)
(Using the Bott Periodicity Theorem, it can be shown that the characteristic
class c
n
(1) of any complex bundle 1 over o
2n
is an integer multiple of (n−1)! · where
· ∈ H
2n
(o
2n
. Z) is a generator. It follows that, among the spheres, only o
2
and o
6
could have almost complex structures and it turns out that they both do. It is a long
standing problem whether or not o
6
has a complex structure.)
(ii) Using the formulas for 4manifolds developed in the Lecture, determine how many
possibilities there are for the ﬁrst Chern class c
1
(J) of an almost complex structure J
on ` where ` a connected sum of 3 or 4 copies of CP
2
.
E.6.1 112
4. Show that, if Ω
0
is a symplectic structure on a compact manifold `, then there is an
open neighborhood l in H
2
(`. R) of [Ω
0
], such that, for all n ∈ l, there is a symplectic
structure Ω
u
on ` with [Ω
u
] = n. (Hint: Since ` is compact, for any closed 2form Υ,
the 2form Ω + tΥ is nondegenerate for all suﬃciently small t.)
5. Mimic the proof of Theorem 1 to prove another theorem of Moser: For any compact,
connected, oriented manifold `, two volume forms j
0
and j
1
diﬀer by an oriented dif
feomorphism (i.e., there exists an orientation preserving diﬀeomorphism φ: ` → ` that
satisﬁes φ
∗
(j
1
) = j
0
) if and only if
M
j
0
=
M
j
1
.
(This theorem is also true without the hypothesis of compactness, but the proof is slightly
more delicate.)
6. Let ` be a connected, smooth oriented 4manifold and let j ∈ /
4
(`) be a volume
form that satisﬁes
M
j = 1. (By the previous problem, any two such forms diﬀer by an
oriented diﬀeomorphism of `.) For any (smooth) Ω ∈ /
2
(`), deﬁne ∗(Ω
2
) ∈ C
∞
(`) by
the equation
Ω
2
= ∗(Ω
2
) j.
Now, ﬁx a cohomology class n ∈ H
2
dR
(`) satisfying n
2
= :[j] where : = 0. Deﬁne the
functional T: n →R
T(Ω) =
M
∗(Ω
2
) Ω
2
for Ω ∈ n.
Show that any Tcritical 2form Ω ∈ n is a symplectic form satisfying ∗(Ω
2
) = : and that
T has no critical values other than :
2
. Show also that T(Ω) ≥ :
2
for all Ω ∈ n.
This motivates deﬁning an invariant of the class n by
1(n) = inf
Ω∈u
T(Ω).
Gromov has suggested (private communication) that perhaps 1(n) = :
2
for all n, even
when the inﬁmum is not attained.
7. Let 1 ⊂ ` be a closed submanifold and let l ⊂ ` be an open neighborhood of 1 in
` that can be retracted onto 1, i.e., there exists a smooth map 1: l [0. 1] →l so that
1(n. 1) = n for all n ∈ l, 1(j. t) = j for all j ∈ 1 and t ∈ [0. 1], and 1(n. 0) lies in 1 for
all n ∈ l. (Every closed submanifold of ` has such a neighborhood.)
Show that if Φ is a closed /form on l that vanishes at every point of 1, then there
exists a (/−1)form φ on l that vanishes on 1 and satisﬁes dφ = Φ. (Hint: Mimic
Poincar´e’s Homotopy Argument: Let Υ = 1
∗
(Φ) and set υ =
∂
∂t
Υ. Then, using the fact
that υ(n. t) can be regarded as a (/−1)form at n for all t, deﬁne
φ(n) =
1
0
υ(n. t) dt.
Now verify that φ has the desired properties.)
E.6.2 113
8. Show that Theorem 2 implies Darboux’ Theorem. (Hint: Take 1 to be a point in a
symplectic manifold `.)
9. This exercise assumes that you have done Exercise 5.10. Let (`. Ω) be a symplectic
manifold. Show that the following description of the ﬂux homomorphism is valid. Let j be
an ebased path in Sp(Ω). Thus, j: [0. 1] ` → ` satisﬁes j
∗
t
(Ω) = Ω for all 0 ≤ t ≤ 1.
Show that j
∗
(Ω) = Ω + ϕ∧dt for some 1form ϕ on [0. 1] `. Let ι
t
: ` →[0. 1] ` be
the “tslice inclusion”: ι
t
(:) = (t. :), and set ϕ
t
= ι
∗
t
(ϕ).
Show that ϕ
t
is closed for all 0 ≤ t ≤ 1. Show that if we set
˜
Φ(j) =
1
0
ϕ
t
dt.
then the cohomology class [
˜
Φ(j)] ∈ H
1
dR
(`. R) depends only on the homotopy class of j
and hence deﬁnes a map Φ:
Sp
0
(Ω) →H
1
dR
(`. R). Verify that this map is the same as the
ﬂux homomorphism deﬁned in Exercise 5.10.
Use this description to show that if j is in the kernel of Φ, then j is homotopic to a
path j
for which the forms ϕ
t
are all exact. This shows that the kernel of Φ is actually
connected.
10. The point of this exercise is to show that any symplectic vector bundle over a sym
plectic manifold (`. Ω) can occur as the symplectic normal bundle for some symplectic
embedding ` into some other symplectic manifold.
Let (`. Ω) be a symplectic manifold and let π: 1 →` be a symplectic vector bundle
over ` of rank 2n. (I.e., 1 comes equipped with a section 1 of Λ
2
(1
∗
) that restricts
to each ﬁber 1
m
to be a symplectic structure 1
m
.) Show that there exists a symplectic
structure Ψ on an open neighborhood in 1 of the zero section of 1 that satisﬁes the
condition that Ψ
0
m
= Ω
m
+ 1
m
under the natural identiﬁcation T
0
m
1 = T
m
` ⊕1
m
.
(Hint: Choose a locally ﬁnite open cover U = ¦l
α
[ α ∈ ¹¦ of ` so that, if we deﬁne
1
α
= π
−1
(l
α
), then there exists a symplectic trivialization τ
α
: 1
α
→ R
2n
(where R
2n
is
given its standard symplectic structure Ω
0
= dr
i
∧dn
i
). Now let ¦λ
α
[ α ∈ ¹¦ be a partition
of unity subordinate to the cover U. Show that the form
Ψ = π
∗
(Ω) +
¸
α
d
λ
α
τ
∗
α
(r
i
dn
i
)
has the desired properties.)
11. Show that if 1 is a symplectic vector bundle over ` and 1 ⊂ 1 is a Lagrangian
subbundle, then 1 is isomorphic to 1 ⊕ 1
∗
as a symplectic bundle. (The symplectic
bundle structure Υ on 1 ⊕1
∗
is the one that, on each ﬁber satisﬁes
Υ
(·. α). (n. β)
= α(n) −β(·). )
E.6.3 114
(Hint: First choose a complementary subbundle 1 ⊂ 1 so that 1 = 1⊕1. Show that
1 is naturally isomorphic to 1
∗
abstractly by using the fact that the symplectic structure
on 1 is nondegenerate. Then show that there exists a bundle map ¹: 1 →1 so that
˜
1 = ¦· + ¹· [ · ∈ 1¦
is also a Lagrangian subbundle of 1 that is complementary to 1 and isomorphic to 1
∗
via
some bundle map α: 1
∗
→
˜
1. Now show that id ⊕α: 1⊕1
∗
→1⊕
˜
1 · 1 is a symplectic
bundle isomorphism.)
12. ActionAngle Coordinates. Proposition 4 can be used to show the existence of so
called action angle coordinates in the neighborhood of a compact level set of a completely
integrable Hamiltonian system. (See Lecture 5). Here is how this goes: Let (`
2n
. Ω) be
a symplectic manifold and let 1 = (1
1
. . . . . 1
n
): ` → R
n
be a smooth submersion with
the property that the coordinate functions 1
i
are in involution, i.e., ¦1
i
. 1
j
¦ = 0. Suppose
that, for some c ∈ R
n
, the 1level set `
c
= 1
−1
(c) is compact. Replacing 1 by 1 −c, we
may assume that c = 0, which we do from now on.
Show that `
0
⊂ ` is a closed Lagrangian submanifold of `.
Use Proposition 4 to show that there is an open neighborhood 1 of 0 ∈ R
n
so that
1
−1
(1). Ω
is symplectomorphic to a neighborhood l of the zero section in T
∗
`
0
(en
dowed with its standard symplectic structure) in such a way that, for each / ∈ 1, the sub
manifold `
b
= 1
−1
(/) is identiﬁed with the graph of a closed 1form ω
b
on `
0
. Show that
it is possible to choose /
1
. . . . . /
n
in 1 so that the corresponding closed 1forms ω
1
. . . . . ω
n
are linearly independent at every point of `
0
.
Conclude that `
0
is diﬀeomorphic to a torus T = R
n
´Λ where Λ ⊂ R
n
is a lattice,
in such a way that the forms ω
i
become identiﬁed with dθ
i
where θ
i
are the corresponding
linear coordinates on R
n
.
Now prove that for any / ∈ 1, the 1form ω
b
must be a linear combination of the ω
i
with constant coeﬃcients. Thus, there are functions o
i
on 1 so that ω
b
= o
i
(/)ω
i
. (Hint:
Show that the coeﬃcients must be invariant under the ﬂows of the vector ﬁelds dual to
the ω
i
.)
Conclude that, under the symplectic map identifying `
B
with l, the form Ω gets
identiﬁed with do
i
∧dθ
i
. The functions o
i
and θ
i
are the socalled “actionangle coordi
nates”.
Extra Credit: Trace through the methods used to prove Proposition 4 and show that,
in fact, the actionangle coordinates can be constructed using quadrature and “ﬁnite”
operations.
E.6.4 115
Lecture 7:
Classical Reduction
In this section, we return to the study of group actions. This time, however, we
will concentrate on group actions on symplectic manifolds that preserve the symplectic
structure. Such actions happen to have quite interesting properties and moreover, turn
out to have a wide variety of applications.
Symplectic Group Actions. First, the basic deﬁnition.
Deﬁnition 1: Let (`. Ω) be a symplectic manifold and let G be a Lie group. A left
action λ: G ` →` of G on ` is a symplectic action if λ
∗
a
(Ω) = Ω for all o ∈ G.
We have already encountered several examples:
Example: Lagrangian Symmetries. If G acts on a manifold ` is such a way that
it preserves a nondegenerate Lagrangian 1: T` → R, then, by construction, it preserves
the symplectic 2form dω
L
.
Example: Cotangent Actions. A left Gaction λ: G ` → `, induces an action
˜
λ of G on T
∗
`. Namely, for each o ∈ G, the diﬀeomorphism λ
a
: ` → ` induces a
diﬀeomorphism
˜
λ
a
: T
∗
` → T
∗
`. Since the natural symplectic structure on T
∗
` is
invariant under diﬀeomorphisms, it follows that
˜
λ is a symplectic action.
Example: Coadjoint Orbits. As we saw in Lecture 5, for every ξ ∈ g
∗
, the coadjoint
orbit G ξ carries a natural Ginvariant symplectic structure Ω
ξ
. Thus, the left action of
G on G ξ is symplectic.
Example: Circle Actions on C
n
. Let .
1
. . . . . .
n
be linear complex coordinates on C
n
and let this vector space be endowed with the symplectic structure
Ω =
i
2
d.
1
∧ d¯ .
1
+ + d.
n
∧ d¯ .
n
= dr
1
∧ dn
1
+ + dr
n
∧ dn
n
where .
k
= r
k
+in
k
. Then for any integers (/
1
. . . . . /
n
), we can deﬁne an action of o
1
on
C
n
by the formula
c
iθ
¸
.
1
.
.
.
.
n
=
¸
c
ik
1
θ
.
1
.
.
.
c
ik
n
θ
.
n
The reader can easily check that this deﬁnes a symplectic circle action on C
n
.
Generally what we will be interested in is the following: Y will be a Hamiltonian
vector ﬁeld on a symplectic manifold (`. Ω) and G will act symplectically on ` as a
group of symmetries of the ﬂow of Y . We want to understand how to use the action of G
to “reduce” the problem of integrating the ﬂow of Y .
L.7.1 116
In Lecture 3, we saw that when Y was the EulerLagrange vector ﬁeld associated to a
nondegenerate Lagrangian 1, then the inﬁnitesimal generators of symmetries of 1 could
be used to generate conserved quantities for the ﬂow of Y . We want to extend this process
(as far as is reasonable) to the general case.
For the rest of the lecture, I will assume that G is a Lie group with a symplectic
action λ on a connected symplectic manifold (`. Ω).
Since λ is symplectic, it follows that the mapping λ
∗
: g → X(`) actually has image
in sp(Ω), the algebra of symplectic vector ﬁelds on `. As we saw in Lecture 3, λ
∗
is
an antihomomorphism, i.e., λ
∗
[r. n]
= −
λ
∗
(r). λ
∗
(n)
. Since, as we saw in Lecture
5, [sp(Ω). sp(Ω)] ⊂ h(Ω), it follows that λ
∗
[g. g]
⊂ h(Ω). Thus, H
λ
: g → H
1
dR
(`. R)
deﬁned by H
λ
(r) =
λ
∗
(r) Ω
is a homomorphism of Lie algebras with kernel containing
the commutator subalgebra [g. g].
The map H
λ
is the obstruction to ﬁnding a Hamiltonian function associated to each
inﬁnitesimal symmetry λ
∗
(r) since H
λ
(r) = 0 if and only if λ
∗
(r) Ω = −d1 for some
1 ∈ C
∞
(`).
Deﬁnition 2: A symplectic action λ: G ` → ` is said to be Hamiltonian if H
λ
= 0,
i.e., if λ
∗
(g) ⊂ h(Ω).
There are a few particularly interesting cases where the obstruction H
λ
must vanish:
• If H
1
dR
(`. R) = 0. In particular, if ` is simply connected.
• If g is perfect, i.e., [g. g] = g. For example this happens whenever the Killing form
on g is nondegenerate (this is the ﬁrst Whitehead Lemma, see Exercise 3). However, this
is not the only case: For example, if G is the group of rigid motions in R
n
for n ≥ 3, then
g has this property, even though its Killing form is degenerate.
• If there exists a 1form ω on ` that is invariant under G and satisﬁes Ω = dω.
(This is the case of symmetries of a Lagrangian.) To see this, note that if A is a vector
ﬁeld on ` that preserves ω, then
0 = L
X
ω = d(A ω) + A Ω.
so A Ω is exact.
For a Hamiltonian action λ, every inﬁnitesimal symmetry λ
∗
(r) has a Hamiltonian
function 1
x
∈ C
∞
. However, the choice of 1
x
is not unique since we can add any constant
to 1
x
without changing its Hamiltonian vector ﬁeld. This nonuniqueness causes some
problems in the theory we wish to develop.
To see why, suppose that we choose a (linear) lifting ρ: g →C
∞
(`) of −λ
∗
: g →h(Ω).
(The choice of −λ
∗
instead of λ
∗
was made to get rid of the annoying sign in the formula
for the bracket.)
g
ρ
↓ `
−λ
∗
0 → R → C
∞
(`) → h(Ω) → 0
L.7.2 117
Thus, for every r ∈ g, we have λ
∗
(r) Ω = d
ρ(r)
. A short calculation (see the Exercises)
now shows that ¦ρ(r). ρ(n)¦ is a Hamiltonian function for −λ
∗
([r. n]), i.e., that
λ
∗
[r. n]
Ω = d
¦ρ(r). ρ(n)¦
.
In particular, it follows (since ` is connected) that there must be a skewsymmetric
bilinear map c
ρ
: g g →R so that
¦ρ(r). ρ(n)¦ = ρ
[r. n]
+c
ρ
(r. n).
An application of the Jacobi identity implies that the map c
ρ
satisﬁes the condition
c
ρ
[r. n]. .
+c
ρ
[n. .]. r
+ c
ρ
[.. r]. n
= 0 for all r. n. . ∈ g.
This condition is known as the 2cocycle condition for c
ρ
regarded as an element of ¹
2
(g) =
Λ
2
(g
∗
). (See Exercise 3 for an explanation of this terminology.)
For purposes of simplicity, it would be nice if we could choose ρ so that c
ρ
were
identically zero. In order to see whether this is possible, let us choose another linear map
˜ ρ: g →C
∞
(`) that satisﬁes ˜ ρ(r) = ρ(r) + ξ(r) where ξ: g →R is any linear map. Every
possible lifting of −λ
∗
is clearly of this form for some ξ. Now we compute that
¸
˜ ρ(r). ˜ ρ(n)
¸
=
¸
ρ(r). ρ(n)
¸
= ρ
[r. n]
+ c
ρ
(r. n)
= ˜ ρ
[r. n]
+ c
ρ
(r. n) −ξ
[r. n]
.
Thus, c
˜ ρ
(r. n) = c
ρ
(r. n) −ξ
[r. n]
. Thus, in order to be able to choose ˜ ρ so that c
˜ ρ
= 0,
we see that there must exist a ξ ∈ g
∗
so that c
ρ
= −δξ where δξ is the skewsymmetric
bilinear map on g that satisﬁes δξ(r. n) = −ξ
[r. n]
(see the Exercises for an explanation
of this notation). This is known as the 2coboundary condition.
There are several important cases where we can assure that c
ρ
can be written in the
form −δξ. Among them are:
• If ` is compact, then the sequence
0 →R →C
∞
(`) →H(Ω) →0
splits: If we let C
∞
0
(`. Ω) ⊂ C
∞
(`) denote the space of functions 1 for which
M
1 Ω
n
=
0, then these functions are closed under Poisson bracket (see Exercise 5.6 for a hint as to
why this is true) and we have a splitting of Lie algebras C
∞
(`) = R ⊕ C
∞
0
(`. Ω). Now
just choose the unique ρ so that it takes values in C
∞
0
(`. Ω). This will clearly have c
ρ
= 0.
• If g has the property that every 2cocycle for g is actually a 2coboundary. This hap
pens, for example, if the Killing form of g is nondegenerate (this is the second Whitehead
Lemma, see Exercise 3), though it can also happen for other Lie algebras. For example,
for the nonabelian Lie algebra of dimension 2, it is easy to see that every 2cocycle is a
2coboundary.
L.7.3 118
• If there is a 1form ω on ` that is preserved by the G action and satisﬁes dω = Ω.
(This is true in the case of symmetries of a Lagrangian.) In this case, we can merely take
ρ(r) = −ω
λ
∗
(r)
. I leave as an exercise for the reader to check that this works.
Deﬁnition 3: A Hamiltonian action λ: G ` → ` is said to be a Poisson action if
there exists a lifting ρ with c
ρ
= 0.
Henceforth in this Lecture, I am only going to consider Poisson actions. By my
previous remarks, this case includes all of the Lagrangians with symmetries, but it also
includes many others.
I will assume that, in addition to having a Poisson action λ: G ` → ` speciﬁed,
we have chosen a lifting ρ: g → C
∞
(`) of −λ
∗
that satisﬁes
¸
ρ(r). ρ(n)
¸
= ρ
[r. n]
for
all r. n ∈ g. Note that such a ρ is unique up to replacement by ˜ ρ = ρ +ξ where ξ : g →R
satisﬁes δξ = 0. Such ξ (if any nonzero ones exist) are ﬁxed under the coadjoint action
of the identity component of G.
The Momentum Mapping. We are now ready to make one of the most important
constructions in the theory.
Deﬁnition 4: The momentum mapping associated to λ and ρ is the mapping j: ` →g
∗
that satisﬁes
j(:)(n) = ρ(n)(:).
Note that, for ﬁxed : ∈ `, the assignment n → ρ(n)(:) is a linear map from g to
R, so the deﬁnition makes sense.
It is worth pausing to consider why this mapping is called the momentum mapping.
The reader should calculate this mapping in the case of a free particle or a rigid body
moving in space. In either case, the Lagrangian is invariant under the action of the group
G of rigid motions of space. If n ∈ g corresponds to a translation, then ρ(n) gives the
function on TR
3
that evaluates at each point (i.e., each positionplusvelocity) to be the
linear momentum in the direction of translation. If n corresponds to rotation about a ﬁxed
axis, then ρ(n) turns out to be the angular momentum of the body about that axis.
One important reason for studying the momentum mapping is the following formula
tion of the classical conservation of momentum theorems:
Proposition 1: If Y is a symplectic vector ﬁeld on ` that is invariant under the action
of G, then j is constant on the integral curves of Y .
In particular, j provides conserved quantities for any Ginvariant Hamiltonian.
The main result about the momentum mapping is the following one.
Theorem 1: If G is connected, then the momentum mapping j: ` →g
∗
is Gequivariant.
L.7.4 119
Proof: Recall that the coadjoint action of G on g
∗
is deﬁned by Ad
∗
(o)(ξ)(r) =
ξ
Ad(o
−1
) r
. The condition that j be Gequivariant, i.e., that j(o :) = Ad
∗
(o)
j(:)
for all : ∈ ` and o ∈ G, is thus seen to be equivalent to the condition that
ρ
Ad(o
−1
)n
(:) = ρ(n)(o :)
for all : ∈ `, o ∈ G, and n ∈ g. This is the identity I shall prove.
Since G is connected and since each side of the above equation represents a Gaction,
if we prove that the above formula holds for o of the form o = c
tx
for any r ∈ g and any
t ∈ R, the formula for general o will follow. Thus, we want to prove that
ρ
Ad(c
−tx
)n
(:) = ρ(n)(c
tx
:)
for all t. Since this latter equation holds at t = 0, it is enough to show that both sides
have the same derivative with respect to t.
Now the derivative of the right hand side of the formula is
d
ρ(n)
λ
∗
(r)(c
tx
:)
= Ω
λ
∗
(n)(c
tx
:). λ
∗
(r)(c
tx
:)
= Ω
λ
∗
Ad(c
−tx
)n
(:). λ
∗
Ad(c
−tx
)r
(:)
= Ω
λ
∗
Ad(c
−tx
)n
(:). λ
∗
(r)(:)
where, to verify the second equality we have used the identity
λ
a
λ
∗
(n)(:)
= λ
∗
Ad(o)n
(o :)
and the fact that Ω is Ginvariant.
On the other hand, the derivative of the left hand side of the formula is clearly
ρ
[−r. Ad(c
−tx
)n]
(:) = −
¸
ρ(r). ρ
Ad(c
−tx
)n
¸
(:)
= Ω
λ
∗
Ad(c
−tx
)n
(:). λ
∗
(r)(:)
so we are done. (Note that I have used my assumption that c
ρ
= 0!)
Example: LeftInvariant Metrics on Lie Groups. Let G be a Lie group and let
Q: g → R be a nondegenerate quadratic form with associated inner product '. `
Q
. Let
1: TG →R be the Lagrangian
1 =
1
2
Q
ω
where ω: TG → g is, as usual, the canonical leftinvariant form on G. Then, using the
basepoint map π: TG →G, we compute that
ω
L
=
ω. π
∗
(ω)
Q
.
As we saw in Lecture 3, the assumption that Q is nondegenerate implies that dω
L
is
a symplectic form on TG. Now, since the ﬂow of a rightinvariant vector ﬁeld Y
x
is
multiplication on the left by c
tx
, it follows that, for this action, we may deﬁne
ρ(r) = −ω
L
(Y
x
) = −
ω. ω(Y
x
)
Q
= −
ω. Ad(o
−1
)r
Q
L.7.5 120
(where o: TG →G is merely a more descriptive name for the base point map than π).
Now, there is an isomorphism τ
Q
: g → g
∗
, called transpose with respect to Q that
satisﬁes τ
Q
(r)(n) = 'r. n`
Q
for all r. n ∈ g. In terms of τ
Q
, we can express the momentum
mapping as
j(·) = −Ad
∗
(o)
τ
Q
(ω(·))
for all · ∈ TG. Note that j is Gequivariant, as promised by the theorem.
According to the Proposition 1, the function j is a conserved quantity for the solutions
of the EulerLagrange equations. In one of the Exercises, you are asked to show how this
information can be used to help solve the EulerLagrange equations for the 1critical
curves.
Example: Coadjoint Orbits. Let G be a Lie group and consider ξ ∈ g
∗
with stabilizer
subgroup G
ξ
⊂ G. The orbit G ξ ⊂ g
∗
is canonically identiﬁed with G´G
ξ
( identify o ξ
with oG
ξ
) and we have seen that there is a canonical Ginvariant symplectic form Ω
ξ
on G´G
ξ
that satisﬁes π
∗
ξ
(Ω
ξ
) = dω
ξ
where π
ξ
: G → G´G
ξ
is the coset projection, ω is
the tautological leftinvariant 1form on G, and ω
ξ
= ξ(ω).
Recall also that, for each r ∈ g, the rightinvariant vector ﬁeld Y
x
on G is deﬁned so
that Y
x
(c) = r ∈ g. Then the vector ﬁeld λ
∗
(r) on G´G
ξ
is π
ξ
related to Y
x
, so
π
∗
ξ
λ
∗
(r) Ω
ξ
= Y
x
dω
ξ
= d
−ω
ξ
(Y
x
)
.
(This last equality follows because ω
ξ
, being leftinvariant, is invariant under the ﬂow
of Y
x
.) Now, the value of the function ω
ξ
(Y
x
) at o ∈ G is
ω
ξ
(Y
x
)(o) = ξ
ω(Y
x
(o))
= ξ
Ad(o
−1
)(r)
= Ad
∗
(o)(ξ)(r) = (o ξ)(r).
Thus, it follows that the natural left action of G on Gξ is Poisson, with momentum
mapping j : Gξ →g
∗
given by
j(o ξ) = −o ξ.
(Note: some authors do not have a minus sign here, but that is because their Ω
ξ
is the
negative of ours.)
Reduction. I now want to discuss a method of taking quotients by group actions in
the symplectic category. Now, when a Lie group G acts symplectically on the left on a
symplectic manifold `, it is not generally true that the space of orbits G`` can be given
a symplectic structure, even when this orbit space can be given the structure of a smooth
manifold (for example, the quotient need not be even dimensional).
However, when the action is Poisson, there is a natural method of breaking the orbit
space G`` into a union of symplectic submanifolds provided that certain regularity criteria
are met. The procedure I will describe is known as symplectic reduction. It is due, in its
modern form, to Marsden and Weinstein (see [GS 2]).
The idea is simple: If j: ` →g
∗
is the momentum mapping, then the Gequivariance
of j implies that there is a welldeﬁned set map
¯ j: G`` →G`g
∗
.
L.7.6 121
The theorem we are about to prove asserts that, provided certain regularity criteria are
met, the subsets `
ξ
= ¯ j
−1
(
¯
ξ) ⊂ G`` are symplectic manifolds in a natural way.
Deﬁnition 4: Let 1: A → Y be a smooth map. A point n ∈ Y is a clean value of 1 if
the set 1
−1
(n) ⊂ A is a smooth submanifold of A and, moreover, if T
x
1
−1
(n) = ker 1
(r)
for each r ∈ 1
−1
(n).
Note: While every regular value of 1 is clean, not every clean value of 1 need be
regular. The concept of cleanliness is very frequently encountered in the reduction theory
we are about to develop.
Theorem 2: Let λ: G ` → ` be a Poisson action on the symplectic manifold `.
Let j: ` →g
∗
be a momentum mapping for λ. Suppose that, ξ ∈ g
∗
is a clean value of j.
Then G
ξ
acts smoothly on j
−1
(ξ). Suppose further that the space of G
ξ
orbits in j
−1
(ξ),
say, `
ξ
= G
ξ
`
j
−1
(ξ)
, can be given the structure of a smooth manifold in such a way
that the quotient mapping π
ξ
: j
−1
(ξ) →`
ξ
is a smooth submersion. Then there exists a
symplectic structure Ω
ξ
on `
ξ
that is deﬁned by the condition that π
∗
ξ
(Ω
ξ
) be the pullback
of Ω to j
−1
(ξ).
Proof: Since ξ is a clean value of j, we know that j
−1
(ξ) is a smooth submanifold of `.
By the Gequivariance of the momentum mapping, the stabilizer subgroup G
ξ
⊂ G acts
on ` preserving the submanifold j
−1
(ξ). The restricted action of G
ξ
on j
−1
(ξ) is easily
seen to be smooth.
Now, I claim that, for each : ∈ j
−1
(ξ), the Ωcomplementary subspace to T
m
j
−1
(ξ)
is the space T
m
G :
, i.e., the tangent to the Gorbit through :. To see this, ﬁrst
note that the space T
m
G :
is spanned by the values at : assumed by the vector
ﬁelds λ
∗
(r) for r ∈ g. Thus, a vector · ∈ T
m
` lies in the Ωcomplementary space
of T
m
G :
if and only if · satisﬁes Ω
λ
∗
(r)(:). ·
= 0 for all r ∈ g. Since, by
deﬁnition, Ω
λ
∗
(r)(:). ·
= d
ρ(r)
(·), it follows that this condition on · is equivalent
to the condition that · lie in ker j
(:). However, since ξ is a clean value of j, we have
ker j
(:) = T
m
j
−1
(ξ)
, as claimed.
Now, the Gequivariance of j implies that j
−1
(ξ)∩
G:
= G
ξ
: for all : ∈ j
−1
(ξ).
In particular, T
m
G
ξ
:
⊆ T
m
j
−1
(ξ)
∩T
m
G:
. To demonstrate the reverse inclusion,
suppose that · lies in both T
m
j
−1
(ξ)
and T
m
G :
. Then · = λ
∗
(r)(:) for some r ∈ g,
and, by the Gequivariance of the momentum mapping and the assumption that ξ is clean
(so that T
m
j
−1
(ξ)
= ker j
(:)) we have
0 = j
(:)(·) = j
(:)
λ
∗
(r)(:)
=
Ad
∗
∗
(r)(j(:)) =
Ad
∗
∗
(r)(ξ)
so that r must lie in g
ξ
. Consequently, · = λ
∗
(r)(:) is tangent to the orbit G
ξ
: and
thus,
T
m
j
−1
(ξ)
∩ T
m
G :
= ker j
(:) ∩ T
m
G :
= T
m
G
ξ
:
.
As a result, since the Ωcomplementary spaces T
m
j
−1
(ξ)
and T
m
G :
intersect in the
tangents to the G
ξ
orbits, it follows that if
˜
Ω
ξ
denotes the pullback of Ω to j
−1
(ξ), then
the null space of
˜
Ω
ξ
at : is precisely T
m
G
ξ
:
.
L.7.7 122
Finally, let us assume, as in the theorem, that there is a smooth manifold structure
on the orbit space `
ξ
= G
ξ
`j
−1
(ξ) so that the orbit space projection π
ξ
: j
−1
(ξ) →`
ξ
is
a smooth submersion. Since
˜
Ω
ξ
is clearly G
ξ
invariant and closed and moreover, since its
null space at each point of ` is precisely the tangent space to the ﬁbers of π
ξ
, it follows
that there exists a unique “push down” 2form Ω
ξ
on `
ξ
as described in the statement of
the theorem. That Ω
ξ
is closed and nondegenerate is now immediate.
The point of Theorem 2 is that, even though the quotient of a symplectic manifold
by a symplectic group action is not, in general, a symplectic manifold, there is a way to
produce a family of symplectic quotients parametrized by the elements of the space g
∗
.
The quotients `
ξ
often turn out to be quite interesting, even when the original symplectic
manifold ` is very simple.
Before I pass on to the examples, let me make a few comments about the hypotheses
in Theorem 2.
First, there will always be clean values ξ of j for which j
−1
(ξ) is not empty (even
when there are no such regular values). This follows because, if we look at the closed
subset 1
µ
⊂ ` consisting of points : where j
(:) does not reach its maximum rank,
then j
1
µ
) can be shown (by a sort of Sard’s Theorem argument) to be a proper subset
of j(`). Meanwhile, it is not hard to show that any element ξ ∈ j(`) that does not lie
in j
1
µ
) is clean.
Second, it quite frequently does happen that the G
ξ
orbit space `
ξ
has a manifold
structure for which π
ξ
is a submersion. This can be guaranteed by various hypotheses that
are often met with in practice. For example, if G
ξ
is compact and acts freely on j
−1
(ξ),
then `
ξ
will be a manifold. (More generally, if the orbits G
ξ
: are compact and all of the
stabilizer subgroups G
m
⊂ G
ξ
are conjugate in G
ξ
, then `
ξ
will have a manifold structure
of the required kind.)
Weaker hypotheses also work. Basically, one needs to know that, at every point :
of j
−1
(ξ), there is a smooth slice to the action of G
ξ
, i.e., a smoothly embedded disk 1
in j
−1
(ξ) that passes through : and intersects each G
ξ
orbit in G
ξ
1 transversely and
in exactly one point. (Compare the construction of a smooth structure on each Gorbit in
Theorem 1 of Lecture 3.)
Even when there is not a slice around each point of j
−1
(ξ), there is very often a near
slice, i.e., a smoothly embedded disk 1 in j
−1
(ξ) that passes through : and intersects
each G
ξ
orbit in G
ξ
1 transversely and in a ﬁnite number of points. In this case, the
quotient space `
ξ
inherits the structure of a symplectic orbifold, and these ‘generalized
manifolds’ have turned out to be quite useful.
Finally, it is worth computing the dimension of `
ξ
when it does turn out to be a
manifold. Let G
m
⊂ G be the stabilizer of : ∈ j
−1
(ξ). I leave as an exercise for the
reader to check that
dim `
ξ
= dim ` −dim G −dim G
ξ
+ 2 dim G
m
= dim ` −2 dim G´G
m
+ dim G´G
ξ
.
L.7.8 123
Since we will see so many examples in the next Lecture, I will content myself with
only mentioning two here:
• Let ` = T
∗
G and let G act on T
∗
G on the left in the obvious way. Then the reader
can easily check that, for each r ∈ g, we have ρ(r)(α) = α
Y
x
(o)
for all α ∈ T
∗
a
G where,
as usual, Y
x
denotes the right invariant vector ﬁeld on G whose value at c is r ∈ g. Hence,
j: T
∗
G →g
∗
is given by j(α) = 1
∗
π(α)
(α).
Consequently, j
−1
(ξ) ⊂ T
∗
G is merely the graph in T
∗
G of the leftinvariant 1form
ω
ξ
(i.e., the leftinvariant 1form whose value at c is ξ ∈ g
∗
). Thus, we can use ω
ξ
as a
section of T
∗
G to pull back Ω (the canonical symplectic form on T
∗
G, which is clearly
Ginvariant) to get the 2form dω
ξ
on G. As we already saw in Lecture 5, and is now
borne out by Theorem 2, the null space of dω
ξ
at any point o ∈ G is T
a
oG
ξ
, the quotient
by G
ξ
is merely the coadjoint orbit G´G
ξ
, and the symplectic structure Ω
ξ
is just the one
we already constructed.
Note, by the way, that every value of j is clean in this example (in fact, they are all
regular), even though the dimensions of the quotients G´G
ξ
vary with ξ.
• Let G = SO(3) act on R
6
= T
∗
R
3
by the extension of rotation about the origin in
R
3
. Then, in standard coordinates (r. n) (where r. n ∈ R
3
), the action is simply o (r. n) =
(or. on), and the symplectic form is Ω = dr dn =
t
dr∧dn.
We can identify so(3)
∗
with so(3) itself by interpreting o ∈ so(3) as the linear func
tional / → −tr(o/). It is easy to see that the coadjoint action in this case gets identiﬁed
with the adjoint action.
We compute that ρ(o)(r. n) = −
t
ron, so it follows without too much diﬃculty that,
with respect to our identiﬁcation of so(3)
∗
with so(3), we have j(r. n) = r
t
n −n
t
r.
The reader can check that all of the values of j are clean except for 0 ∈ so(3). Even
this value would be clean if, instead of taking ` to be all of R
6
, we let ` be R
6
minus
the origin (r. n) = (0. 0).
I leave it to the reader to check that the Ginvariant map 1: R
6
→R
3
deﬁned by
1(r. n) = (r r. r n. n n)
maps the set j
−1
(0) onto the “cone” consisting of those points (o. /. c) ∈ R
3
with o. c ≥ 0
and /
2
= oc and the ﬁbers of 1 are the G
0
orbits of the points in j
−1
(0).
For ξ = 0, the 1image of the set j
−1
(ξ) is one nappe of the hyperboloid of two sheets
described as oc − /
2
= −tr(ξ
2
). The reader should compute the area forms Ω
ξ
on these
sheets.
L.7.9 124
Exercise Set 7:
Classical Reduction
1. Let ` be the torus R
2
´Z
2
and let dr and dn be the standard 1forms on `. Let
Ω = dr∧dn. Show that the “translation action” (o. /) [r. n] = [r +o. n +/] of R
2
on ` is
symplectic but not Hamiltonian.
2. Let (`. Ω) be a connected symplectic manifold and let λ: G` →` be a Hamiltonian
group action.
(i) Prove that, if ρ: g → C
∞
(`) is a linear mapping that satisﬁes λ
∗
(r) Ω = d
ρ(r)
,
then λ
∗
[r. n]
Ω = d
¦ρ(r). ρ(n)¦
.
(ii) Show that the associated linear mapping c
ρ
: gg →R deﬁned in the text does indeed
satisfy c
ρ
[r. n]. .
+ c
ρ
[n. .]. r
+ c
ρ
[.. r]. n
= 0 for all r. n. . ∈ g. (Hint: Use the
fact the Poisson bracket satisﬁes the Jacobi identity and that the Poisson bracket of
a constant function with any other function is zero.)
3. Lie Algebra Cohomology. The purpose of this exercise is to acquaint the reader
with the rudiments of Lie algebra cohomology.
The Lie bracket of a Lie algebra g can be regarded as a linear map ∂: Λ
2
(g) → g.
The dual of this linear map is a map −δ: g
∗
→ Λ
2
(g
∗
). (Thus, for ξ ∈ g
∗
, we have
δξ(r. n) = −ξ
[r. n]
.) This map δ can be extended uniquely to a graded, degreeone
derivation δ: Λ
∗
(g
∗
) →Λ
∗
(g
∗
).
(i) For any c ∈ Λ
2
(g
∗
), show that δc(r. n. .) = −c
[r. n]. .
− c
[n. .]. r
− c
[.. r]. n
.
(Hint: Every c ∈ Λ
2
(g
∗
) is a sum of wedge products ξ∧η where ξ. η ∈ g
∗
.) Conclude
that the Jacobi identity in g is equivalent to the condition that δ
2
= 0 on all of Λ
∗
(g
∗
).
Thus, for any Lie algebra g, we can deﬁne the /’th cohomology group of g, denoted H
k
(g),
as the kernel of δ in Λ
k
(g
∗
) modulo the subspace δ
Λ
k−1
(g
∗
)
.
(ii) Let G be a Lie group whose Lie algebra is g. For each Φ ∈ Λ
k
(g
∗
), deﬁne ω
Φ
to be the
leftinvariant /form on G whose value at the identity is Φ. Show that dω
Φ
= ω
δΦ
.
(Hint: the space of leftinvariant forms on G is clearly closed under exterior derivative
and is generated over R by the leftinvariant 1forms. Thus, it suﬃces to prove this
formula for Φ of degree 1. Why?)
Thus, the cohomology groups H
k
(g) measure “closedmodexact” in the space of left
invariant forms on G. If G is compact, then these cohomology groups are isomorphic to
the corresponding deRham cohomology groups of the manifold G.
(iii) (The Whitehead Lemmas) Show that if the Killing form of g is nondegenerate,
then H
1
(g) = H
2
(g) = 0. (Hint: You should have already shown that if κ is non
degenerate, then [g. g] = g. Show that this implies that H
1
(g)=0. Next show that for
Φ ∈ Λ
2
(g
∗
), we can write Φ(r. n) = κ(1r. n) where 1: g →g is skewsymmetric. Then
show that if δΦ = 0, then 1 is a derivation of g. Now see Exercise 3.3, part (iv).)
E.7.1 125
4. Homogeneous Symplectic Manifolds. Suppose that (`. Ω) is a symplectic mani
fold and suppose that there exists a transitive symplectic action λ: G` →` where G is
a group whose Lie algebra satisﬁes H
1
(g) = H
2
(g) = 0. Show that there is a Gequivariant
symplectic covering map π: ` → G´G
ξ
for some ξ ∈ g
∗
. Thus, up to passing to covers,
the only symplectic homogeneous spaces of a Lie group satisfying H
1
(g) = H
2
(g) = 0 are
the coadjoint orbits. This result is usually associated with the names Kostant, Souriau,
and Symes.
(Hint: Since G acts homogeneously on `, it follows that, as Gspaces, ` = G´H for
some closed subgroup H ⊂ G that is the stabilizer of a point : of `. Let φ: G → ` be
φ(o) = o :. Now consider the leftinvariant 2form φ
∗
(Ω) on G in light of the previous
Exercise. Why do we also need the hypothesis that H
1
(g) = 0?)
Remark: This characterization of homogeneous symplectic spaces is sometimes mis
quoted. Either the covering ambiguity is overlooked or else, instead of hypotheses about
the cohomology groups, sometimes compactness is assumed, either for ` or G. The ex
ample of o
1
o
1
acting on itself and preserving the biinvariant area form shows that
compactness is not generally helpful. Here is an example that shows that you must allow
for the covering possibility: Let H ⊂ SL(2. R) be the subgroup of diagonal matrices with
positive entries on the diagonal. Then SL(2. R)´H has an SL(2. R)invariant area form,
but it double covers the associated coadjoint orbit.
5. Verify the claim made in the text that, if there exists a Ginvariant 1form ω on ` so
that dω = Ω, then the formula ρ(r) = −ω
λ
∗
(r)
yields a lifting ρ for which c
ρ
= 0.
6. Show that if R
2
acts on itself by translation then, with respect to the standard area
form Ω = dr∧dn, this action is Hamiltonian but not Poisson.
7. Verify the claim made in the proof of Theorem 1 that the following identity holds for
all o ∈ G, all n ∈ g, and all : ∈ `:
λ
a
λ
∗
(n)(:)
= λ
∗
Ad(o)n
(o :).
8. Here are a few mechanical exercises that turn out to be useful in calculations:
(i) Show that if λ
i
: G `
i
→ `
i
for i = 1. 2 are Poisson actions on symplectic
manifolds (`
i
. Ω
i
) with corresponding momentum mappings j
i
: `
i
→ g
∗
, then
the induced product action of G on ` = `
1
`
2
(where ` is endowed with the
product symplectic structure) is also Poisson, with momentum mapping j : ` → g
∗
given by j = j
1
◦π
1
+j
2
◦π
2
, where π
i
: ` →`
i
is the projection onto the ith factor.
(ii) Showthat if λ : G` →` is a Poisson action of a connected group G on a symplectic
manifold (`. Ω) with equivariant momentum mapping j : ` → g
∗
and H ⊂ G is
a (connected) Lie subgroup, then the restricted action of H on ` is also Poisson
and the associated momentum mapping is the composition of j with the natural
mapping g
∗
→h
∗
induced by the inclusion h →g.
E.7.2 126
(iii) Let (\. Ω) be a symplectic vector space and let G = Sp(\. Ω) (· Sp(n. R) where the
dimension of \ is 2n). Show that the natural action of G on \ is Poisson, with
momentum mapping j(r) = −
1
2
r ⊗(r Ω)
. (Use the identiﬁcation of g = sp(\. Ω)
with g
∗
deﬁned by the nondegenerate quadratic form 'o. /` = tr(o/).) Show that the
mapping o
2
(\ ) →sp(\. Ω) deﬁned on decomposables by
r◦n →−
1
2
r ⊗(n Ω) + n ⊗(r Ω)
is an isomorphism of Sp(\. Ω)representations. Using this isomorphism, we can inter
pret the momentum mapping as the quadratic mapping ˜ j : \ → o
2
(\ ) deﬁned by
the rule ˜ j(r) =
1
2
r
2
. What are the clean values of j? (There are no regular values.)
Let `
k
be the product of / copies of \ and let G act ‘diagonally’ on `
k
. Discuss the
clean values and regular values (if any) of j
k
: `
k
→g
∗
. What can you say about the
corresponding symplectic quotients? (It may help to note that the group O(/) acts
on `
k
in such a way that it commutes with the diagonal action and the corresponding
momentum mapping.)
9. The Shifting Trick. It turns out that reduction at a general ξ ∈ g can be reduced
to reduction at 0 ∈ g. Here is how this can be done: Suppose that λ : G ` → ` is
a Poisson action on the symplectic manifold (`. Ω), that j : ` → g
∗
is a corresponding
momentum mapping, and that ξ is an element of g
∗
. Let
`
ξ
. Ω
ξ
be the symplectic
product of (`. Ω) with (Gξ. Ω
ξ
) and let j
ξ
: `
ξ
→ g
∗
be the corresponding combined
momentum mapping. (Thus, by the computation for coadjoint orbits done in the text,
j
ξ
(:. oξ) = j(:) −oξ.)
(i) Show that 0 ∈ g
∗
is a clean value for j
ξ
if and only if ξ is a clean value for j.
Assume for the rest of the problem that ξ is a clean value of j.
(ii) There is a natural identiﬁcation of the Gorbits in (j
ξ
)
−1
(0) ⊂ `
ξ
with the G
ξ

orbits in j
−1
(ξ) and that there is a smooth structure on G`(j
ξ
)
−1
(0) for which the
map π
ξ
0
: (j
ξ
)
−1
(0) → G`(j
ξ
)
−1
(0) is a smooth submersion if and only if there is
a smooth structure on G
ξ
`j
−1
(ξ) for which the map π
ξ
: j
−1
(ξ) → G
ξ
`j
−1
(ξ) is a
smooth submersion. In this case, the natural identiﬁcation of the two quotient spaces
is a diﬀeomorphism.
(iii) This natural identiﬁcation is a symplectomorphism of
(`
ξ
)
0
. (Ω
ξ
)
0
with (`
ξ
. Ω
ξ
).
This shifting trick will be useful when we discuss K¨ ahler reduction in the next Lecture.
10. Matrix Calculations. The purpose of this exercise is to let you get some practice
in a case where everything can be written out in coordinates.
Let G = GL(n. R) and let Q: gl(n. R) → R be a nondegenerate quadratic form.
Show that if we use the inclusion mapping r: GL(n. R) → ´
n×n
as a coordinate chart,
then, in the associated canonical coordinates (r. j), the Lagrangian 1 takes the form
1 =
1
2
'r
−1
j. r
−1
j`
Q
. Show also that ω
L
= 'r
−1
j. r
−1
dr`
Q
.
Now compute the expression for the momentum mapping j and the EulerLagrange
equations for motion under the Lagrangian 1. Show directly that j is constant on the
solutions of the EulerLagrange equations.
E.7.3 127
Suppose that Q is Adinvariant, i.e., Q
Ad(o)(r)
= Q(r) for all o ∈ G and r ∈ g.
Show that the constancy of j is equivalent to the assertion that j r
−1
is constant on the
solutions of the EulerLagrange equations. Show that, in this case, the 1critical curves in
G are just the curves γ(t) = γ
0
c
tv
where γ
0
∈ G and · ∈ g are arbitrary.
Finally, repeat all of these constructions for the general Lie group G, translating
everything into invariant notation (as opposed to matrix notation).
11. Euler’s Equation. Look back over the example given in the Lecture of leftinvariant
metrics on Lie groups. Suppose that γ: R → G is an 1critical curve. Deﬁne ξ(t) =
τ
Q
ω( ˙ γ(t))
. Thus, ξ: R → g
∗
. Show that the image of ξ lies on a single coadjoint orbit.
Moreover, show that ξ satisﬁes Euler’s Equation:
˙
ξ + ad
∗
τ
−1
Q
(ξ)
(ξ) = 0.
The reason Euler’s Equation is so remarkable is that it only involves “half of the
variables” of the curve ˙ γ in TG.
Once a solution to Euler’s Equation is found, the equation for ﬁnding the original
curve γ is just ˙ γ = 1
γ
τ
−1
Q
(ξ)
, which is a Lie equation for γ and hence is amenable to
Lie’s method of reduction.
Actually more is true. Showthat, if we set ξ(0) = ξ
0
, then the equation Ad
∗
(γ)(ξ) = ξ
0
determines the solution γ of the Lie equation with initial condition γ(0) = c up to right
multiplication by a curve in the stabilizer subgroup G
ξ
0
. Thus, we are reduced to solving
a Lie equation for a curve in G
ξ
0
. (It may be of some interest to recall that the stabilizer
of the generic element η ∈ g
∗
is an abelian group. Of course, for such η, the corresponding
Lie equation can be solved by quadratures.)
12. Project: Analysis of the Rigid Body in R
3
. Go back to the example of the
motion of a rigid body in R
3
presented in Lecture 4. Use the information provided in
the previous two Exercises to show that the equations of motion for a free rigid body
are integrable by quadratures. You will want to ﬁrst compute the coadjoint action and
describe the coadjoint orbits and their stabilizers.
13. Verify that, under the hypotheses of Theorem 2, the dimension of the reduced space
`
ξ
is given by the formula
dim `
ξ
= dim ` −dim G −dim G
ξ
+ 2 dim G
m
where G
m
is the stabilizer of any : ∈ j
−1
(ξ).
(Hint: Show that for any : ∈ j
−1
(ξ), we have
dim T
m
j
−1
(ξ) +dim T
m
G :
= dim `
and then do some arithmetic.)
E.7.4 128
14. In the reduction process, what is the relationship between `
ξ
and `
Ad
∗
(g)(ξ)
?
15. Suppose that λ: G ` → ` is a Poisson action and that Y is a symplectic vector
ﬁeld on ` that is Ginvariant. Then according to Proposition 1, Y is tangent to each
of the submanifolds j
−1
(ξ) (when ξ is a clean value of j). Show that, when the sym
plectic quotient `
ξ
exists, then there exists a unique vector ﬁeld Y
ξ
on `
ξ
that satisﬁes
Y
ξ
π
ξ
(:)
= π
ξ
Y (:)
. Show also that Y
ξ
is symplectic. Finally show that, given an
integral curve γ: R → `
ξ
of Y
ξ
, then the problem of lifting this to an integral curve of Y
is reducible by “ﬁnite” operations to solving a Lie equation for G
ξ
.
This procedure is extremely helpful for two reasons: First, since `
ξ
is generally quite
a bit smaller than `, it should, in principle, be easier to ﬁnd integral curves of Y
ξ
than
integral curves of Y . For example, if `
ξ
is two dimensional, then Y
ξ
can be integrated
by quadratures (Why?). Second, it very frequently happens that G
ξ
is a solvable group.
As we have already seen, when this happens the “lifting problem” can be integrated by (a
sequence of) quadratures.
E.7.5 129
Lecture 8:
Recent Applications of Reduction
In this Lecture, we will see some examples of symplectic reduction and its generaliza
tions in somewhat nonclassical settings.
In many cases, we will be concerned with extra structure on ` that can be carried
along in the reduction process to produce extra structure on `
ξ
. Often this extra structure
takes the form of a Riemannian metric with special holonomy, so we begin with a short
review of this topic.
Riemannian Holonomy. Let `
n
be a connected and simply connected nmanifold,
and let o be a Riemannian metric on `. Associated to o is the notion of parallel transport
along curves. Thus, for each (piecewise C
1
) curve γ: [0. 1] →`, there is associated a linear
mapping 1
γ
: T
γ(0)
` →T
γ(1)
`, called parallel transport along γ, which is an isometry of
vector spaces and which satisﬁes the conditions 1
¯ γ
= 1
−1
γ
and 1
γ
2
γ
1
= 1
γ
2
◦ 1
γ
1
where ¯ γ
is the path deﬁned by ¯ γ(t) = γ(1 −t) and γ
2
γ
1
is deﬁned only when γ
1
(1) = γ
2
(0) and, in
this case, is given by the formula
γ
2
γ
1
(t) =
γ
1
(2t) for 0 ≤ t ≤
1
2
,
γ
2
(2t −1) for
1
2
≤ t ≤ 1.
These properties imply that, for any r ∈ `, the set of linear transformations of the form 1
γ
where γ(0) = γ(1) = r is a subgroup H
x
⊂ O(T
x
`) and that, for any other point n ∈ `,
we have H
y
= 1
γ
H
x
1
¯ γ
where γ: [0. 1] → ` satisﬁes γ(0) = r and γ(1) = n. Because we
are assuming that ` is simply connected, it is easy to show that H
x
is actually connected
and hence is a subgroup of SO(T
x
`).
´
Elie Cartan was the ﬁrst to deﬁne and study H
x
. He called it the holonomy of o at r.
He assumed that H
x
was always a closed Lie subgroup of SO(T
x
`), a result that was only
later proved by Borel and Lichnerowitz (see [KN]).
Georges de Rham, a student of Cartan, proved that, if there is a splitting T
x
` =
\
1
⊕ \
2
that remains invariant under all the action of H
x
, then, in fact, the metric o is
locally a product metric in the following sense: The metric o can be written as a sum of the
form o = o
1
+o
2
in such a way that, for every point n ∈ ` there exists a neighborhood l
of n, a coordinate chart (r
1
. r
2
): l →R
d
1
R
d
2
, and metrics ¯ o
i
on R
d
i
so that o
i
= r
∗
i
(¯ o
i
).
He also showed that in this reducible case the holonomy group H
x
is a direct product
of the form H
1
x
H
2
x
where H
i
x
⊂ SO(\
i
). Moreover, it turns out (although this is not
obvious) that, for each of the factor groups H
i
x
, there is a submanifold `
i
⊂ ` so that
T
x
`
i
= \
i
and so that H
i
x
is the holonomy of the Riemannian metric o
i
on `
i
.
From this discussion it follows that, in order to know which subgroups of SO(n) can
occur as holonomy groups of simply connected Riemannian manifolds, it is enough to ﬁnd
the ones that, in addition, act irreducibly on R
n
. Using a great deal of machinery from the
theory of representations of Lie groups, M. Berger [Ber] determined a relatively short list
L.8.1 130
of possibilities for irreducible Riemannian holonomy groups. This list was slightly reduced
a few years later, independently by Alexseevski and by Brown and Gray. The result of
their work can be stated as follows:
Theorem 1: Suppose that o is a Riemannian metric on a connected and simply connected
nmanifold ` and that the holonomy H
x
acts irreducibly on T
x
` for some (and hence
every) r ∈ `. Then either (`. o) is locally isometric to an irreducible Riemannian
symmetric space or else there is an isometry ι: T
x
` → R
n
so that H = ι H
x
ι
−1
is one of
the subgroups of SO(n) in the following table.
Irreducible Holonomies of NonSymmetric Metrics
Subgroup Conditions Geometrical Type
SO(n) any n generic metric
U(:) n = 2: 2 K¨ ahler
SU(:) n = 2: 2 Ricciﬂat K¨ ahler
Sp(:)Sp(1) n = 4: 4 Quaternionic K¨ahler
Sp(:) n = 4: 4 hyperK¨ ahler
G
2
n = 7 Associative
Spin(7) n = 8 Cayley
A few words of explanation and comment about Theorem 1 are in order.
First, a Riemannian symmetric space is a Riemannian manifold diﬀeomorphic to a
homogeneous space G´H where H ⊂ G is essentially the ﬁxed subgroup of an involutory
homomorphismσ: G →G that is endowed with a Ginvariant metric o that is also invariant
under the involution ι: G´H →G´H deﬁned by ι(oH) = σ(o)H. The classiﬁcation of the
Riemannian symmetric spaces reduces to a classiﬁcation problem in the theory of Lie
algebras and was solved by Cartan. Thus, the Riemannian symmetric spaces may be
regarded as known.
Second, among the holonomies of nonsymmetric metrics listed in the table, the ranges
for n have been restricted so as to avoid repetition or triviality. Thus, U(1) = SO(2) and
SU(1) = ¦c¦ while Sp(1) = SU(2), and Sp(1)Sp(1) = SO(4).
Third, according to S. T. Yau’s celebrated proof of the Calabi Conjecture, any compact
complex manifold for which the canonical bundle is trivial and that has a K¨ahler metric
also has a Ricciﬂat K¨ ahler metric (see [Bes]). For this reason, metrics with holonomy
SU(:) are often referred to as CalabiYau metrics.
Finally, I will not attempt to discuss the proof of Theorem 1 in these notes. Even
with modern methods, the proof of this result is nontrivial and, in any case, would take
us far from our present interests. Instead, I will content myself with the remark that it
is now known that every one of these groups does, in fact, occur as the holonomy of a
Riemannian metric on a manifold of the appropriate dimension. I refer the reader to [Bes]
for a complete discussion.
L.8.2 131
We will be particularly interested in the K¨ ahler and hyperK¨ ahler cases since these
cases can be characterized by the condition that the holonomy of o leaves invariant certain
closed nondegenerate 2forms. Hence these cases represent symplectic manifolds with
“extra structure”, namely a compatible metric.
The basic result will be that, for a manifold ` that carries one of these two structures,
there is a reduction process that can be applied to suitable group actions on ` that preserve
the structure.
K¨ahler Manifolds and Algebraic Geometry.
In this section, we give a very brief introduction to K¨ ahler manifolds. These are
symplectic manifolds that are also complex manifolds in such a way that the complex
structure is “maximally compatible” with the symplectic structure. These manifolds arise
with great frequency in Algebraic Geometry, and it is beyond the scope of these Lectures
to do more than make an introduction to their uses here.
Hermitian Linear Algebra. As usual, we begin with some linear algebra. Let
H: C
n
C
n
→C be the hermitian inner product given by
H(.. n) =
t
¯ .n = ¯ .
1
n
1
+ + ¯ .
n
n
n
.
Then U(n) ⊂ GL(n. C) is the group of complex linear transformations of C
n
that pre
serve H since H(¹.. ¹n) = H(.. n) for all .. n ∈ C
n
if and only if
t
¯
¹¹ = 1
n
.
Now, H can be split into real and imaginary parts as
H(.. n) = '.. n` + ı Ω(.. n).
It is clear from the relation H(.. n) = H(n. .) that '. ` is symmetric and Ω is skew
symmetric. I leave it to the reader to show that '. ` is positive deﬁnite and that Ω is
nondegenerate.
Moreover, since H(.. ı n) = ı H(.. n), it also follows that Ω(.. n) = 'ı .. n` and
'.. n` = Ω(.. ı n). It easily follows from these equations that, if we let J: C
n
→ C
n
denote multiplication by ı, then knowing any two of the three objects '. `, Ω, or J on R
2n
determines the third.
Deﬁnition 1: Let \ be a vector space over R. A nondegenerate 2form Ω on \ and
a complex structure J: \ → \ are said to be compatible if Ω(r. Jn) = Ω(n. Jr) for all
r. n ∈ \ . If the pair (Ω. J) is compatible, then we say that the pair forms an Hermitian
structure on \ if, in addition, Ω(r. Jr) 0 for all nonzero r ∈ \ . The positive deﬁnite
quadratic form o(r. r) = Ω(r. Jr) is called the associated metric on \ .
I leave as an exercise for the reader the task of showing that any two Hermitian
structures on \ are isomorphic via some invertible endomorphism of \ .
It is easy to show that, if o is the quadratic form associated to a compatible pair
Ω. J
,
then Ω(·. n) = o(J·. n). It follows that any two elements of the triple
Ω. J. o
determine
the third.
L.8.3 132
In an extension of the notion of compatibility, we deﬁne a quadratic form o on \ to
be compatible with a nondegenerate 2form Ω on \ if the linear map J: \ → \ deﬁned
by the relation Ω(·. n) = o(J·. n) satisﬁes J
2
= −1. Similarly, we deﬁne a quadratic form
o on \ to be compatible with a complex structure J on \ if o(J·. n) = −o(Jn. ·), so that
Ω(·. n) = o(J·. n) deﬁnes a 2form on \ .
Almost Hermitian Manifolds. Since our main interest is in symplectic and com
plex structures, I will introduce the notion of an almost Hermitian structure on a manifold
in terms of its almost complex and almost symplectic structures:
Deﬁnition 2: Let `
2n
be a manifold. A 2form Ω and an almost complex structure J
deﬁne an almost Hermitian structure on ` if, for each : ∈ `, the pair (Ω
m
. J
m
) deﬁnes
a Hermitian structure on T
m
`.
When (Ω. J) deﬁnes an almost Hermitian structure on `, the Riemannian metric o
on ` deﬁned by o(·) = Ω(·. J·) is called the associated metric.
Just as one must place conditions on an almost symplectic structure in order to get a
symplectic structure, there are conditions that an almost complex structure must satisfy
in order to be a complex structure.
Deﬁnition 3: An almost complex structure J on `
2n
is integrable if each point of ` has a
neighborhood l on which there exists a coordinate chart .: l →C
n
so that .
(J·) = ı .
(·)
for all · ∈ Tl. Such a coordinate chart is said to be Jholomorphic.
According to the KornLichtenstein theorem, when n = 1 all almost complex struc
tures are integrable. However, for n ≥ 2, one can easily write down examples of almost
complex structures J that are not integrable. (See the Exercises.)
When J is an integrable almost complex structure on `, the set
U
J
= ¦(l. .) [ .: l →C
n
is Jholomorphic¦
forms an atlas of charts that are holomorphic on overlaps. Thus, U
J
deﬁnes a holomorphic
structure on `.
The reader may be wondering just how one determines whether an almost complex
structure is integrable or not. In the Exercises, you are asked to showthat, for an integrable
almost complex structure J , the identity L
JX
J−J◦L
X
J = 0 must hold for all vector ﬁelds
A on `. It is a remarkable result, due to Newlander and Nirenberg, that this condition
is suﬃcient for J to be integrable.
The reason that I mention this condition is that it shows that integrability is deter
mined by J and its ﬁrst derivatives in any local coordinate system. This condition can be
rephrased as the condition that the vanishing of a certain tensor ·
J
, called the Nijnhuis
tensor of J and constructed out of the ﬁrstorder jet of J at each point, is necessary and
suﬃcient for the integrability of J.
We are now ready to name the various integrability conditions that can be deﬁned for
an almost Hermitian manifold.
L.8.4 133
Deﬁnition 4: We call an almost Hermitian pair (Ω. J) on a manifold ` almost K¨ ahler
if Ω is closed, Hermitian if J is integrable, and K¨ ahler if Ω is closed and J is integrable.
We already saw in Lecture 6 that a manifold has an almost complex structure if and
only if it has an almost symplectic structure. However, this relationship does not, in
general, hold between complex structures and symplectic structures.
Example: Here is a complex manifold that has no symplectic structure. Let Z act on
` = C
2
`¦0¦ by n . = 2
n
.. This free action preserves the standard complex structure on
`. Let · = Z`
˜
`, then, via the quotient mapping, · inherits the structure of a complex
manifold.
However, · is diﬀeomorphic to o
1
o
3
as a smooth manifold. Thus · is a compact
manifold satisfying H
2
dR
(·. R) = 0. In particular, by the cohomology ring obstruction
discussed in Lecture 6, we see that ` cannot be given a symplectic structure.
Example: Here is an example due to Thurston, of a compact 4manifold that has a
complex structure and has a symplectic structure, but has no K¨ ahler structure.
Let H
3
⊂ GL(3. R) be the Heisenberg group, deﬁned in Lecture 2 as the set of matrices
of the form
o =
¸
1 r . +
1
2
rn
0 1 n
0 0 1
.
The left invariant forms and their structure equations on H
3
are easily computed in these
coordinates as
ω
1
= dr
ω
2
= dn
ω
3
= d. −
1
2
(rdn −n dr)
dω
1
= 0
dω
2
= 0
dω
3
= −ω
1
∧ ω
2
Now, let Γ = H
3
∩ GL(3. Z) be the subgroup of H
3
consisting of those elements of H
3
all
of whose entries are integers. Let A = Γ`H
3
be the space of right cosets of Γ. Since the
forms ω
i
are leftinvariant, it follows that they are welldeﬁned on A and form a basis for
the 1forms on A.
Now let ` = A o
1
and let ω
4
= dθ be the standard 1form on o
1
. Then the forms
ω
i
for 1 ≤ i ≤ 4 form a basis for the 1forms on `. Since dω
4
= 0, it follows that the
2form
Ω = ω
1
∧ ω
3
+ ω
2
∧ ω
4
is closed and nondegenerate on `. Thus, ` has a symplectic structure.
Next, I want to construct a complex structure on `. In order to do this, I will
produce the appropriate local holomorphic coordinates on `. Let
˜
` = H
3
R be the
simply connected cover of ` with coordinates (r. n. .. θ). We regard
˜
` as a Lie group.
Deﬁne the functions n
1
= r + ı n and n
2
= . + ı
θ +
1
4
(r
2
+ n
2
)
on
˜
`. Then I leave to
the reader to check that, if o
0
is the element of
˜
` with coordinates (r
0
. n
0
. .
0
. θ
0
), then
1
∗
g
0
(n
1
) = n
1
+ n
1
0
and 1
∗
g
0
(n
2
) = n
2
+
ı´2
¯ n
1
0
n
1
+ n
2
0
.
L.8.5 134
Thus, the coordinates n
1
and n
2
deﬁne a leftinvariant complex structure on
˜
`. Since `
is obtained from
˜
` by dividing by the obvious left action of ΓZ, it follows that there is
a unique complex structure on ` for which the covering projection is holomorphic.
Finally, we show that ` cannot carry a K¨ ahler structure. Since Γ is a discrete
subgroup of H
3
, the projection H
3
→ A is a covering map. Since H
3
= R
3
as manifolds,
it follows that π
1
(A) = Γ. Moreover, A is compact since it is the image under the
projection of the cube in H
3
consisting of those elements whose entries lie in the closed
interval [0. 1]. On the other hand, since [Γ. Γ] · Z, it follows that Γ´[Γ. Γ] · Z
2
. Thus,
H
1
(`. Z) = H
1
(A o
1
. Z) = Z
2
⊕ Z. From this, we get that H
1
dR
(`. R) = R
3
. In
particular, the ﬁrst Betti number of ` is 3. Now, it is a standard result in K¨ahler
geometry that the odd degree Betti numbers of a compact K¨ ahler manifold must be even
(for example, see [Ch]). Hence, ` cannot carry any K¨ ahler metric.
Example: Because of the classiﬁcation of compact complex surfaces due to Kodaira, we
know exactly which compact 4manifolds can carry complex structures. Fernandez, Gotay,
and Gray [FGG] have constructed a compact, symplectic 4manifold ` whose underlying
manifold is not on Kodaira’s list, thus, providing an example of a compact symplectic
4manifold that carries no complex structure.
The fundamental theorem relating the two “integrability conditions” to the idea of
holonomy is the following one. We only give the idea of the proof because a complete proof
would require the development of considerable machinery.
Theorem 2: An almost Hermitian structure (Ω. J) on a manifold ` is K¨ahler if and
only if the form Ω is parallel with respect to the parallel transport of the associated metric
o.
Proof: (Idea) Once the formulas are developed, it is not diﬃcult to see that the covariant
derivatives of Ω with respect to the LeviCivita connection of o are expressible in terms of
the exterior derivative of Ω and the Nijnhuis tensor of J. Conversely, the exterior derivative
of Ω and the Nijnhuis tensor of J can be expressed in terms of the covariant derivative
of Ω with respect to the LeviCivita connection of o. Thus, Ω is covariant constant (i.e.,
invariant under parallel translation with respect to o) if and only it is closed and J is
integrable.
It is worth remarking that J is invariant under parallel transport with respect to o if
and only if Ω is.
The reason for this is that J is determined from and determines Ω once o is ﬁxed.
The observation now follows, since o is invariant under parallel transport with respect to
its own LeviCivita connection.
K¨ahler Reduction. We are now ready to state the ﬁrst of the reduction theorems
we will discuss in this Lecture.
It turns out that it’s a good idea to discuss a special case ﬁrst.
L.8.6 135
Theorem 3: K¨ ahler Reduction at 0. Let (Ω. o) be a K¨ ahler structure on `
2n
.
Let λ: G ` → ` be a left action that is Poisson with respect to Ω and preserves the
metric o. Let j: ` →g
∗
be the associated momentum mapping. Suppose that 0 ∈ g
∗
is a
clean value of j and that there is a smooth structure on the orbit space `
0
= G`j
−1
(0)
for which the natural projection π
0
: j
−1
(0) → G`j
−1
(0) is a smooth submersion. Then
there is a unique K¨ ahler structure (Ω
0
. o
0
) on `
0
deﬁned by the conditions that π
∗
0
(Ω
0
)
be equal to the pullback of Ω to j
−1
(0) ⊂ ` and that π
0
: j
−1
(0) →`
0
be a Riemannian
submersion.
Proof: Let ˜ o
0
and
˜
Ω
0
be the pullbacks of o and Ω respectively to j
−1
(0). By hypotheses,
˜ o
0
and
˜
Ω
0
are invariant under the action of G.
From Theorem 2 of Lecture 7, we already know that there exists a unique symplectic
structure Ω
0
on `
0
for which π
∗
0
(Ω
0
) =
˜
Ω
0
.
Here is how we construct o
0
. For any : ∈ j
−1
(0), there is a well deﬁned ˜ o
0
orthogonal
splitting
T
m
j
−1
(0) = T
m
G :
⊕H
m
that is clearly Ginvariant. Since, by hypothesis, π
0
: j
−1
(0) → `
0
is a submersion, it
easily follows that π
0
(:): H
m
→T
π
0
(m)
`
0
is an isomorphism of vector spaces. Moreover,
the Ginvariance of ˜ o shows that there is a welldeﬁned quadratic form o
0
(:) on T
π
0
(m)
`
0
that corresponds to the restriction of ˜ o
0
to H
m
under this isomorphism. By the very
deﬁnition of Riemannian submersion, it follows that o
0
is a Riemannian metric on `
0
for
which π
0
is a Riemannian submersion.
It remains to show that (Ω
0
. o
0
) deﬁnes a K¨ahler structure on `
0
. First, we show
that it is an almost K¨ ahler structure, i.e., that Ω
0
and o
0
are actually compatible. Since
π
0
(:): H
m
→ T
π
0
(m)
`
0
is an isomorphism of vector spaces that identiﬁes (Ω
0
. o
0
) with
the restriction of (Ω. o) to H
m
, it suﬃces to show that H
m
is invariant under the action
of J.
Here is how we do this. Tracing back through the deﬁnitions, we see that r ∈ T
m
`
lies in the subspace H
m
if and only if r satisﬁes both of the conditions Ω(r. n) = 0 and
o(r. n) = 0 for all n ∈ T
m
G :
. However, since Ω(r. n) = o(Jr. n) for all n, it follows that
the necessary and suﬃcient conditions that r lie in H
m
can also be expressed as the two
conditions o(Jr. n) = 0 and Ω(Jr. n) = 0 for all n ∈ T
m
G :
. Of course, these conditions
are exactly the conditions that Jr lie in H
m
. Thus, r ∈ H
m
implies that Jr ∈ H
m
, as
desired.
Finally, in order to show that the almost K¨ ahler structure on `
0
is actually K¨ ahler,
it must be shown that Ω
0
is parallel with respect to the LeviCivita connection of o
0
.
This is a straightforward calculation using the structure equations and will not be done
here. (Alternatively, to prove that the structure is actually K¨ahler, one could instead show
that the induced almost complex structure is integrable. This is somewhat easier and the
interested reader can consult the Exercises, where a proof is outlined.)
L.8.7 136
Now, it seems unreasonable to consider only reduction at 0 ∈ g
∗
. However, some
caution is in order because the na¨ıve attempt to generalize Theorem 3 to reduction at a
general ξ ∈ g
∗
fails: Let λ : G` →` be a Poisson action on a K¨ ahler manifold (`. Ω. o)
that preserves o and let j : ` → g
∗
be a Poisson momentum mapping. Then for every
clean value ξ ∈ g
∗
for which the orbit space `
ξ
= G
ξ
`j
−1
(ξ) has a smooth structure that
makes π
ξ
: j
−1
(ξ) → `
ξ
a smooth submersion, there is a symplectic structure Ω
ξ
on `
ξ
that is induced by reduction in the usual way. Moreover, there is a unique metric o
ξ
on `
ξ
for which π
ξ
is a Riemannian submersion (when j
−1
(ξ) ⊂ ` is given the induced sub
manifold metric). Unfortunately, it is not , in general, true that o
ξ
is compatible with Ω
ξ
.
(See the Exercises for an example.)
If you examine the proof given above in the general case, you’ll see that the main
problem is that the ‘horizontal space’ H
m
need not be stable under J. In fact, what one
knows in the general case is that H
m
is oorthogonal to both T
m
G
ξ
: and to J
T
m
G:
.
However, when G
ξ
is a proper subgroup of G (i.e., when ξ is not a ﬁxed point of the co
adjoint action), we won’t have T
m
G
ξ
: = T
m
G:, which is what we needed in the proof
to show that H
m
is stable under J.
In fact, the proof does work when G
ξ
= G, but this can be seen directly from the fact
that, in this case, the ‘shifted’ momentum mapping j
ξ
= j−ξ still satisﬁes Gequivariance
and we are simply performing reduction at 0 for the shifted momentum mapping j
ξ
.
Reduction at K¨ ahler coadjoint orbits. Generalizing the case where Gξ = ¦ξ¦,
there is a way to deﬁne K¨ahler reduction at certain values of ξ ∈ g
∗
, by relying on the
‘shifting trick’ described in the Exercises of Lecture 7:
In many cases, a coadjoint orbit Gξ ⊂ g
∗
can be equipped with a Ginvariant metric /
ξ
for which the pair (Ω
ξ
. /
ξ
) deﬁnes a K¨ahler structure on the orbit Gξ. (For example, this
is always the case when G is compact.) In such a case, the shifting trick allows us to deﬁne
a K¨ ahler metric on `
ξ
= G
ξ
`j
−1
(0) by doing K¨ ahler reduction at 0 on ` Gξ endowed
with the product K¨ ahler structure. In the cases in which there is only one Ginvariant
K¨ ahler metric /
ξ
on Gξ that is compatible with Ω
ξ
(and, again, this always holds when G
is compact), this deﬁnes a canonical K¨ahler reduction procedure for ξ ∈ g
∗
.
Example: K¨ ahler reduction in Algebraic Geometry. By far the most com
mon examples of K¨ahler manifolds arise in Algebraic Geometry. Here is a sample of what
K¨ ahler reduction yields:
Let ` = C
n+1
with complex coordinates .
0
. .
1
. . . . . .
n
. We let .
k
= r
k
+ ı n
k
deﬁne
real coordinates on `. Let G = o
1
act on ` by the rule
c
ıθ
. = c
ıθ
..
Then G clearly preserves the K¨ahler structure deﬁned by the natural complex structure
on ` and the symplectic form
Ω =
ı
2
t
d. ∧ d¯ . = dr
1
∧ dn
1
+ + dr
n
∧ dn
n
.
The associated metric is easily seen to be just
o =
t
d. ◦ d¯ . =
dr
1
2
+
dn
1
2
+ +
dr
n
2
+
dn
n
2
.
L.8.8 137
Now, setting A =
∂
∂θ
, we can compute that
λ
∗
(A) = r
k
∂
∂n
k
−n
k
∂
∂r
k
.
Thus, it follows that
dρ(A) = λ
∗
(A) Ω = −r
k
dr
k
−n
k
dn
k
= d
−
1
2
[.[
2
.
Thus, identifying g
∗
with R, we have that j: C
n
→R is merely j(.) = −
1
2
[.[
2
.
It follows that every negative number is a nontrivial clean value for j. For example,
o
2n+1
= j
−1
(−
1
2
). Clearly G = o
1
itself is the stabilizer subgroup of all of the values of
j. Thus, `
−
1
2
is the quotient of the unit sphere by the action of o
1
. Since each Gorbit
is merely the intersection of o
2n+1
with a (unique) complex line through the origin, it is
clear that `
−
1
2
is diﬀeomorphic to CP
n
.
Since the coadjoint action is trivial, reduction at ξ = −
1
2
will deﬁne a K¨ ahler struc
ture on CP
n
. It is instructive to compute what this K¨ ahler structure looks like in local
coordinates. Let A
0
⊂ CP
n
be the subset consisting of those points [.
0
. . . . . .
n
] for which
.
0
= 0. Then A
0
can be parametrized by φ : C
n
→A
0
where φ(n) = [1. n]. Now, over A
0
,
we can choose a section σ: A
0
→o
2n+1
by the rule
σ ◦ φ(n) =
(1. n)
\
where \
2
= 1 +[n
1
[
2
+ +[n
n
[
2
0. It follows that
φ
∗
(Ω
−
1
2
) = (σ ◦ φ)
∗
(Ω) =
ı
2
d
n
k
\
∧ d
¯ n
k
\
=
ı
2
dn
k
∧d ¯ n
k
\
2
+ (n
k
d ¯ n
k
− ¯ n
k
dn
k
) ∧
d\
\
3
=
ı
2
\
2
δ
jk
− ¯ n
j
n
k
\
4
dn
j
∧ d ¯ n
k
.
I leave it to the reader to check that the quotient metric (i.e., the one for which the
submersion o
2n+1
→CP
n
is Riemannian) is given by the formula
o
−
1
2
=
\
2
δ
jk
− ¯ n
j
n
k
\
4
dn
j
◦d ¯ n
k
.
In particular, it follows that the functions n
k
are holomorphic functions with respect to
the induced almost complex structure, verifying directly that the pair (Ω
−
1
2
. o
−
1
2
) is indeed
a K¨ ahler structure on CP
n
. Up to a normalizing constant, this is the usual formula for the
FubiniStudy K¨ ahler structure on CP
n
in an aﬃne chart.
L.8.9 138
Of course, the FubiniStudy metric induces a K¨ ahler structure on every complex sub
manifold of CP
n
. However, we can just as easily see how this arises from the reduction
procedure: If 1(.
0
. . . . . .
n
) is a nonzero homogeneous polynomial of degree d, then the
set
˜
`
P
= 1
−1
(0) ⊂ C
n+1
is a complex subvariety of C
n+1
that is invariant under the o
1
action since, by homogeneity, we have
1(c
ıθ
.) = c
ıdθ
1(.).
It is easy to show that if the variety
˜
`
P
has no singularity other than 0 ∈ C
n+1
, then the
K¨ ahler reduction of the K¨ ahler structure that it inherits from the standard structure on
C
n+1
is just the K¨ ahler structure on the corresponding projectivized variety `
P
⊂ CP
n
that is induced by restriction of the FubiniStudy structure.
“Example”: Flat Bundles over Compact Riemann Surfaces. The following
is not really an example of the theory as we have developed it since it will deal with
“inﬁnite dimensional manifolds”, however it is suggestive and the formal calculations yield
an interesting result. (For a review of the terminology used in this and the next example,
see the Appendix.)
Let G be a Lie group with Lie algebra g, and let '. ` be a positive deﬁnite, Adinvariant
inner product on g. (For example, if G = SU(n), we could take 'r. n` = −tr(rn).)
Let Σ be a connected compact Riemann surface. Then there is a star operation
∗: /
1
(Σ) →/
1
(Σ) that satisﬁes ∗
2
= −id, and α∧∗α ≥ 0 for all 1forms α on Σ.
Let 1 be a principal right Gbundle over Σ, and let Ad(1) = 1
Ad
g denote the
vector bundle over ` associated to the adjoint representation Ad: G → Aut(g). Let
Aut(1) denote the group of automorphisms of 1, also known as the gauge group of 1.
Let A(1) denote the space of connections on 1. Then it is well known that A(1)
is an aﬃne space modeled on the vector space /
1
Ad(1)
, which consists of the 1forms
on ` with values in Ad(1). Thus, in particular, for every ¹ ∈ A(1), we have a natural
isomorphism
T
A
A(1) = /
1
Ad(1)
.
I now want to deﬁne a “K¨ ahler” structure on A(1). In order to do this, I will deﬁne
the metric g and the 2form Ω.
First, for α ∈ T
A
A(1), I deﬁne
g(α) =
Σ
'α. ∗α`.
(I extend the operator ∗ in the obvious way to /
1
Ad(1)
.) It is clear that g(α) ≥ 0 with
equality if and only if α = 0. Thus, g deﬁnes a “Riemannian metric” on A(1). Since g is
“translation invariant”, it “follows” that g is “ﬂat”.
Second, I deﬁne Ω by the rule:
Ω(α. β) =
Σ
'α. β`.
L.8.10 139
Since Ω(α. β) = g(α. ∗β), it follows that Ω is actually nondegenerate. Moreover, because
Ω too is “translation invariant”, it “must” be “parallel” with respect to g.
Thus, (Ω. g) is a “ﬂat K¨ ahler” structure on A(1). Now, I claim that both Ω and g
are invariant under the natural right action of Aut(1) on A(1). To see this, note that an
element φ ∈ Aut(1) determines a map ϕ: 1 →G by the rule j ϕ(j) = φ(j) and that this
ϕ satisﬁes the identity ϕ(j o) = o
−1
ϕ(j)o. In terms of ϕ, the action of Aut(1) on A(1)
is given by the classical formula
¹ φ = φ
∗
(¹) = ϕ
∗
(ω
G
) + Ad
ϕ
−1
(¹).
From this, it follows easily that Ω and g are Aut(1)invariant.
Now, I want to compute the momentum mappping µ. The Lie algebra of Aut(1),
namely aut(1), can be naturally identiﬁed with /
0
Ad(1)
, the space of sections of the
bundle Ad(1). I leave to the reader the task of showing that the induced map from
aut(1) to vector ﬁelds on A(1) is given by d
A
: /
0
Ad(1)
→/
1
Ad(1)
. Thus, in order
to construct the momentum mapping, we must ﬁnd, for each 1 ∈ /
0
Ad(1)
, a function
ρ(1) on A so that the 1form dρ(1) is given by
dρ(1)(α) = d
A
1 Ω(α) =
Σ
'd
A
1. α` = −
Σ
'1. d
A
α`.
However, this is easy. We just set
ρ(1)(¹) = −
Σ
'1. 1
A
`
and the reader can easily check that
d
dt
t=0
(ρ(1)(¹ + tα)) = −
Σ
'1. d
A
α`
as desired. Finally, using the natural isomorphism
aut(1)
∗
=
/
0
Ad(1)
∗
= /
2
Ad(1)
.
we see that (up to sign) the formula for the momentum mapping simply becomes
µ(¹) = 1
A
= d¹+
1
2
[¹. ¹].
Now, can we do reduction? What we need is a clean value of µ. As a reasonable ﬁrst
guess, let’s try 0. Thus, µ
−1
(0) consists exactly of the ﬂat connections on 1 and the reduced
space M
0
should be the ﬂat connections modulo gauge equivalence, i.e., µ
−1
(0)´Aut(1).
How can we tell whether 0 is a clean value? One way to know this would be to know
that 0 is a regular value. We have already seen that µ
(¹)(α) = d
A
α, so we are asking
L.8.11 140
whether the map d
A
: /
1
Ad(1)
→ /
2
Ad(1)
is surjective for any ﬂat connection ¹.
Now, because ¹ is ﬂat, the sequence
0 −→/
0
Ad(1)
d
A
−→/
1
Ad(1)
d
A
−→/
2
Ad(1)
−→0
forms a complex and the usual Hodge theory pairing shows that H
2
(Σ. d
A
) is the dual
space of H
0
(Σ. d
A
). Thus, µ
(¹) is surjective if and only if H
0
(Σ. d
A
) = 0. Now, an
element 1 ∈ /
0
Ad(1)
that satisﬁes d
A
1 = 0 exponentiates to a 1parameter family
of automorphisms of 1 that commute with the parallel transport of ¹. I leave to the
reader to show that H
0
(Σ. d
A
) = 0 is equivalent to the condition that the holonomy group
H
A
(j) ⊂ G has a centralizer of positive dimension in G for some (and hence every) point
of 1. For example, for G = SU(2), this would be equivalent to saying that the holonomy
groups H
A
(j) were each contained in an o
1
⊂ G.
Let us let
˜
M
∗
⊂ µ
−1
(0) denote the (open) subset consisting of those ﬂat connections
whose holonomy groups have at most discrete centralizers in G. If G is compact, of course,
this implies that these centralizers are ﬁnite. Then it “follows” that M
∗
0
=
˜
M
∗
´Aut(1)
is a K¨ahler manifold wherever it is a manifold. (In general, at the connections where the
centralizer of the holonomy is trivial, one expects the quotient to be a manifold.)
Since the space of ﬂat connections on 1 modulo gauge equivalence is wellknown to
be identiﬁable as the space 1
π
1
(Σ. :). G
= Hom
π
1
(Σ. :). G
´G of equivalence classes of
representation of π
1
(Σ) into G, our discussion leads us to believe that this space (which is
ﬁnite dimensional) should have a natural K¨ ahler structure on it. This is indeed the case,
and the geometry of this K¨ ahler metric is the subject of current interest.
HyperK¨ahler Manifolds.
In this section, we will generalize the K¨ ahler reduction procedure to the case of man
ifolds with holonomy Sp(:), the socalled hyperK¨ ahler case.
Quaternion Hermitian Linear Algebra. We begin with some linear algebra over
the ring H of quaternions. For our purposes, H can be identiﬁed with the vector space of
dimension 4 over R of matrices of the form
r =
r
0
+ı r
1
r
2
+ ı r
3
−r
2
+ı r
3
r
0
−ı r
1
def
= r
0
1 + r
1
i + r
2
, + r
3
/.
(We are identifying the 2by2 identity matrix with 1 in this representation.) It is easy to
see that H is closed under matrix multiplication. If we deﬁne ¯ r = r
0
− r
1
i − r
2
, − r
3
/,
then we easily get rn = ¯ n¯ r and
r¯ r =
(r
0
)
2
+ (r
1
)
2
+ (r
2
)
2
+ (r
3
)
2
1 = det(r) 1
def
= [r[
2
1.
It follows that every nonzero element of H has a multiplicative inverse. Note that the
space of quaternions of unit norm, o
3
deﬁned by [r[ = 1, is simply SU(2).
L.8.12 141
Much of the linear algebra that works for the complex numbers can be generalized
to the quaternions. However, some care must be taken since H is not commutative. In
the following exposition, it turns out to be most convenient to deﬁne vector spaces over H
as right vector spaces instead of left vector spaces. Thus, the standard Hvector space of
Hdimension n is H
n
(thought of as columns of quaternions of height n) where the action
of the scalars on the right is given by
¸
r
1
.
.
.
r
n
c =
¸
¸
r
1
c
.
.
.
r
n
c
.
With this convention, a quaternion linear map ¹: H
n
→H
m
, i.e., an additive map satisfying
¹(· c) = ¹(·) c, can be represented by an :byn matrix of quaternions acting via matrix
multiplication on the left.
Let H: H
n
H
n
→H be the “quaternion Hermitian” inner product given by
H(.. n) =
t
¯ .n = ¯ .
1
n
1
+ + ¯ .
n
n
n
.
Then by our conventions, we have
H(. c. n) = ¯ c H(.. n) and H(.. nc) = H(.. n) c.
We also have H(.. n) = H(n. .), just as before.
We deﬁne Sp(n) ⊂ GL(n. H) to be the group of Hlinear transformations of H
n
that
preserve H, i.e., H(¹.. ¹n) = H(.. n) for all .. n ∈ H
n
. It is easy to see that
Sp(n) =
¸
¹ ∈ GL(n. H) [
t
¯
¹¹ = 1
n
¸
.
I leave as an exercise for the reader to show that Sp(n) is a compact Lie group of
dimension 2n
2
+ n. Also, it is not diﬃcult to show that Sp(n) is connected and acts
irreducibly on H
n
. (see the Exercises)
Now H can be split into one real and three imaginary parts as
H(.. n) = '.. n` + Ω
1
(.. n) i + Ω
2
(.. n) , + Ω
3
(.. n) /.
It is clear from the relations above that '. ` is symmetric and positive deﬁnite and that
each of the Ω
a
is skewsymmetric. Moreover, we have the following identities:
'.. n` = Ω
1
(.. ni) = Ω
2
(.. n ,) = Ω
3
(.. n/)
and
Ω
2
(.. ni) = Ω
3
(.. n)
Ω
3
(.. n,) = Ω
1
(.. n)
Ω
1
(.. n/) = Ω
2
(.. n).
L.8.13 142
Proposition 1: The subgroup of GL(4n. R) that ﬁxes the three 2forms (Ω
1
. Ω
2
. Ω
3
) is
equal to Sp(n).
Proof: Let G ⊂ GL(4n. R) be the subgroup that ﬁxes each of the Ω
a
. Clearly we have
Sp(n) ⊂ G.
Now, from the ﬁrst of the identities above, it follows that each of the forms Ω
a
is
nondegenerate. Then, from the second set of these identities, it follows that the subgroup
G must also ﬁx the linear transformations of R
4n
that represent multiplication on the right
by i, ,, and /. Of course, this, by deﬁnition, implies that G is a subgroup of GL(n. H).
Returning to the ﬁrst of the identities, it also follows that G must preserve the inner
product deﬁned by '. `. Finally, since we have now seen that G must preserve all of the
components of H, it follows that G must preserve H as well. However, this was the very
deﬁnition of Sp(n).
Proposition 1 motivates the way we will want to deﬁne HyperK¨ ahler structures on
manifolds: as triples of 2forms that satisfy certain conditions. Here is the linear algebra
deﬁnition on which the manifold deﬁnition will be based.
Deﬁnition 5: Let \ be a vector space over R. A hyperK¨ ahler structure on \ is a choice of
a triple of nondegenerate 2forms (Ω
1
. Ω
2
. Ω
3
) that satisfy the following properties: First,
the linear maps 1
i
, 1
j
that are deﬁned by the equations
Ω
2
(·. 1
i
n) = Ω
3
(·. n) Ω
1
(·. 1
j
n) = −Ω
3
(·. n)
satisfy
1
i
2
=
1
j
2
= −id and skewcommute, i.e., 1
i
1
j
= −1
j
1
i
. Second, if we set
1
k
= −1
i
1
j
, then
Ω
1
(·. 1
i
n) = Ω
2
(·. 1
j
n) = Ω
3
(·. 1
k
n) = '·. n`
where '. ` (which is deﬁned by these equations) is a positive deﬁnite symmetric bilinear
form on \ . The inner product '. ` is called the associated metric on \ .
This may seem to be a rather cumbersome deﬁnition (and I admit that it is), but it is
suﬃcient to prove the following Proposition (which I leave as an exercise for the reader).
Proposition 2: If (Ω
1
. Ω
2
. Ω
3
) is a hyperK¨ ahler structure on a real vector space \ , then
dim(\ ) = 4n for some n and, moreover, there is an Rlinear isomorphism of \ with H
n
that identiﬁes the hyperK¨ ahler structure on \ with the standard one on H
n
.
We are now ready for the analogs of Deﬁnitions 3 and 4:
Deﬁnition 6: If ` is a manifold of dimension 4n, an almost hyperK¨ ahler structure on
` is a triple (Ω
1
. Ω
2
. Ω
3
) of 2forms on ` that have the property that they induce a
hyperK¨ ahler structure on each tangent space T
m
`.
Deﬁnition 7: An almost hyperK¨ ahler structure (Ω
1
. Ω
2
. Ω
3
) on a manifold `
4n
is a
hyperK¨ ahler structure on ` if each of the forms Ω
a
is closed.
L.8.14 143
At ﬁrst glance, Deﬁnition 7 may seem surprising. After all, it appears to place no
conditions on the almost complex structures 1
i
, 1
j
, and 1
k
that are deﬁned on ` by the
almost hyperK¨ ahler structure on ` and one would surely want these to be integrable if
the analogy with K¨ ahler geometry is to be kept up. The nice result is that the integrability
of these structures comes for free:
Theorem 4: For an almost hyperK¨ ahler structure (Ω
1
. Ω
2
. Ω
3
) on a manifold `
4n
, the
following are equivalent:
(1) dΩ
1
= dΩ
2
= dΩ
3
= 0.
(2) Each of the 2forms Ω
a
is parallel with respect to the LeviCivita connection of the
associated metric.
(3) Each of the almost complex structures 1
i
, 1
j
, and 1
k
are integrable.
Proof: (Idea) The proof of Theorem 4 is much like the proof of Theorem 2. One shows
by local calculations in Gauss normal coordinates at any point on ` that the covariant
derivatives of the forms Ω
a
with respect to the LeviCivita connection of the associated
metric can be expressed in terms of the coeﬃcients of their exterior derivatives and vice
versa. Similarly, one shows that the formulas for the Nijnhuis tensors of the three almost
complex structures on ` can be expressed in terms of the covariant derivatives of the
three 2forms and viceversa. This is a rather formidable linear algebra problem, but it is
nothing more. I will not do the computation here.
Note that Theorem 4 implies that the holonomy H of the associated metric of a
hyperK¨ ahler structure on `
4n
must be a subgroup of Sp(n). If H is a proper subgroup
of Sp(n), then by Theorem 1, the associated metric must be locally a product metric. Now,
as is easy to verify, the only products from Berger’s List that can appear as subgroups
of Sp(n) are products of the form
¦c¦
n
0
Sp(n
1
) Sp(n
k
)
where ¦c¦
n
0
⊂ Sp(n
0
) is just the identity subgroup and n = n
0
+ + n
k
. Thus, it
follows that a hyperK¨ ahler structure can be decomposed locally into a product of the ‘ﬂat’
example with hyperK¨ ahler structures whose holonomy is the full Sp(n
i
). (If ` is simply
connected and the associated metric is complete, then the de Rham Splitting Theorem
asserts that ` can be globally written as a product of such metrics.) This motivates our
calling a hyperK¨ ahler structure on `
4n
irreducible if its holonomy is equal to Sp(n).
The reader may be wondering just how common these hyperK¨ ahler structures are
(aside from the ﬂat ones of course). The answer is that they are not so easy to come by. The
ﬁrst known nonﬂat example was the EguchiHanson metric (often called a “gravitational
instanton”) on T
∗
CP
1
. The ﬁrst known irreducible example in dimensions greater than 4
was discovered by Eugenio Calabi, who, working independently from Eguchi and Hanson,
constructed an irreducible hyperK¨ ahler structure on T
∗
CP
n
for each n that happened to
L.8.15 144
agree with the EguchiHanson metric for n = 1. (We will see Calabi’s examples a little
further on.)
The ﬁrst known compact example was furnished by Yau’s solution of the Calabi Con
jecture:
Example: K3 Surfaces. A 13 surface is a compact simply connected 2dimensional
complex manifold o with trivial canonical bundle. What this latter condition means is that
there is nowherevanishing holomorphic 2form Υ on o. An example of such a surface is a
smooth algebraic surface of degree 4 in CP
3
.
A fundamental result of Siu [Si] is that every 13 surface is K¨ahler, i.e., that there
exists a 2form Ω on o so that the hermitian structure (Ω. J) on o is actually K¨ ahler.
Moreover, Yau’s solution of the Calabi Conjecture implies that Ω can be chosen so that Υ
is parallel with respect to the LeviCivita connection of the associated metric.
Multiplying Υ by an appropriate constant, we can arrange that 2 Ω
2
= Υ∧Υ. Since
Ω∧Υ = 0 and Υ∧Υ = 0, it easily follows (see the Exercises) that if we write Ω = Ω
1
and
Υ = Ω
2
−ı Ω
3
, then the triple (Ω
1
. Ω
2
. Ω
3
) deﬁnes a hyperK¨ ahler structure on o.
For a long time, the 13 surfaces were the only known compact manifolds with hy
perK¨ ahler structures. In fact, a “proof” was published showing that there were no other
compact ones. However, this turned out not to be correct.
Example: Let `
4n
be a simply connected, compact complex manifold (of complex
dimension 2n) with a holomorphic symplectic form Υ. Then Υ
n
is a nonvanishing holo
morphic volume form, and hence the canonical bundle of ` is trivial. If ` has a K¨ ahler
structure that is compatible with its complex structure, then, by Yau’s solution of the
Calabi Conjecture, there is a K¨ahler metric o on ` for which the volume form Υ
n
is
parallel. This implies that the holonomy of o is a subgroup of SU(2n). However, this in
turn implies that o is Ricciﬂat and hence, by a Bochner vanishing argument, that every
holomorphic form on ` is parallel with respect to o. Thus, Υ is also parallel with respect
to o and hence the holonomy is a subgroup of Sp(n). If ` can be constructed in such a
way that it cannot be written as a nontrivial product of complex submanifolds, then the
holonomy of o must act irreducibly on C
2n
and hence must equal Sp(n).
Fujita was the ﬁrst to construct a simply connected, compact complex 4manifold that
carried a holomorphic 2form and that could not be written nontrivially as a product. This
work is written up in detail in a survey article by [Bea].
HyperK¨ahler Reduction. I am now ready to describe another method of construct
ing hyperK¨ ahler structures, known as hyperK¨ ahler reduction. This method ﬁrst appeared
in a famous paper by Hitchin, Karlhede, Lindstr¨ om, and Roˇcek, [HKLR].
Theorem 5: Suppose that (Ω
1
. Ω
2
. Ω
3
) is a hyperK¨ ahler structure on ` and that there
is a left action λ: G` →` that is Poisson with respect to each of the three symplectic
forms Ω
a
. Let
j = (j
1
. j
2
. j
3
): ` →g
∗
⊕g
∗
⊕g
∗
L.8.16 145
be a Gequivariant momentum mapping. Suppose that 0 ∈ g
∗
⊕g
∗
⊕g
∗
is a clean value for j
and that the quotient `
0
= G`j
−1
(0) has a smooth structure for which the projection
π
0
: j
−1
(0) → `
0
is a smooth submersion. Then there is a unique hyperK¨ ahler structure
(Ω
0
1
. Ω
0
2
. Ω
0
3
) on `
0
with the property that π
∗
0
(Ω
0
a
) is the pull back of Ω
a
to j
−1
(0) ⊂ `
for each o = 1, 2, or 3.
Proof: Assume the hypotheses of the Theorem. Let
˜
Ω
0
a
be the pullback of Ω
a
to j
−1
(0) ⊂
`. It is clear that each of the forms
˜
Ω
0
a
is a closed, Ginvariant 2form on j
−1
(0).
I ﬁrst want to show that each of these can be written as a pullback of a 2form on
`
0
, i.e., that each is semibasic for π
0
. To do this, I need to characterize T
m
j
−1
(0) in an
appropriate fashion. Now, the assumption that 0 be a clean value for j implies j
−1
(0) is
a smooth submanifold of ` and that for : ∈ j
−1
(0) any · ∈ T
m
` lies in T
m
j
−1
(0) if
and only if Ω
a
·. λ
∗
(r)(:)
= 0 for all r ∈ g and all three values of o. Thus,
T
m
j
−1
(0) = ¦· ∈ T
m
` '·. ni` = '·. n,` = '·. n/` = 0. for all n ∈ T
m
G:¦.
Also, by Gequivariance, G: ⊂ j
−1
(0) and hence T
m
G: ⊂ T
m
j
−1
(0). It follows that
· ∈ T
m
G: implies that · is in the null space of each of the forms
˜
Ω
0
a
. Thus, each of the
forms
˜
Ω
0
a
is semibasic for π
0
, as we wished to show. This, combined with Ginvariance,
implies that there exist unique forms Ω
0
a
on `
0
that satisfy π
∗
0
(Ω
0
a
) =
˜
Ω
0
a
. Since π
0
is a
submersion, the three 2forms Ω
0
a
are closed.
To complete the proof, it suﬃces to show that the triple (Ω
0
1
. Ω
0
2
. Ω
0
3
) actually deﬁnes
an almost hyperK¨ ahler structure on `
0
, for then we can apply Theorem 4.
We do this as follows: Use the associated metric '. ` to deﬁne an orthogonal splitting
T
m
j
−1
(0) = T
m
G:⊕H
m
.
By the hypotheses of the theorem, the ﬁbers of π
0
are the Gorbits in j
−1
(0) and, for
each : ∈ j
−1
(0), the kernel of the diﬀerential π
0
(:) is T
m
G:. Thus, π
0
(:) induces an
isomorphism from H
m
to T
π
0
(m)
`
0
and, under this isomorphism, the restriction of the
form
˜
Ω
0
a
to H
m
is identiﬁed with Ω
0
a
.
Thus, it suﬃces to show that the forms (
˜
Ω
0
1
.
˜
Ω
0
2
.
˜
Ω
0
3
) deﬁne a hyperK¨ ahler structure
when restricted to H
m
. By Proposition 2, to do this, it would suﬃce to show that H
m
is
stable under the actions of 1
i
, 1
j
, and 1
k
. However, by deﬁnition, H
m
is the subspace
of T
m
` that is orthogonal to the Hlinear subspace
T
m
G:
H ⊂ T
m
`. Since the
orthogonal complement of an Hlinear subspace of T
m
` is also an Hlinear subspace, we
are done.
Note that the proof also shows that the dimension of the reduced space `
0
is equal to
dim`−4 dim(G´G
m
), since, at each point : ∈ j
−1
(0), the space T
m
G: is perpendicular
to 1
i
T
m
G:
⊕1
j
T
m
G:
⊕1
k
T
m
G:
and this latter direct sum is orthogonal.
Unfortunately, it frequently happens that 0 is not a clean value of j, in which case,
Theorem 5 cannot be applied to the action. Moreover, there does not appear to be any
simple way to perform hyperK¨ ahler reduction at the general clean value of j in g
∗
⊕g
∗
⊕g
∗
L.8.17 146
(in marked contrast to the K¨ahler case). In fact, for the general clean value ξ ∈ g
∗
⊕g
∗
⊕g
∗
of j, the quotient space `
ξ
= G
ξ
`j
−1
(ξ) need not even have its dimension be divisible
by 4. (See the Exercises for a cautionary example.)
However, if [g. g]
⊥
⊂ g
∗
denotes the annihilator of [g. g] in g, then the points ξ ∈ [g. g]
⊥
are the ﬁxed points of the coadjoint action of G. It is then possible to perform hyperK¨ ahler
reduction at any clean value ξ = (ξ
1
. ξ
2
. ξ
3
) ∈ [g. g]
⊥
⊕[g. g]
⊥
⊕ [g. g]
⊥
since, in this case,
we again have G
ξ
= G, and so the argument in the proof above that H
m
⊂ T
m
j
−1
(ξ)
is a quaternionic subspace for each : ∈ T
m
j
−1
(ξ) is still valid. Of course, this is not
really much of a generalization, since reduction at such a ξ is simply reduction at 0 for the
modiﬁed (but still Gequivariant) momentum mapping j
ξ
= j −ξ.
Example: One of the simplest things to do is take ` = H
n
and let G ⊂ Sp(n)
be a closed subgroup. It is not diﬃcult to show (see the Exercises) that the standard
hyperK¨ ahler structure on H
n
has its three 2forms given by
i Ω
1
+ , Ω
2
+/ Ω
3
=
1
2
t
d¯ c ∧ dc
where c : H
n
→H
n
is the identity, thought of as a H
n
valued function on H
n
. Using this
formula, it is easy to show that the standard left action of Sp(n) on H
n
is Poisson, with
momentum mapping j : H
n
→sp(n) ⊕sp(n) ⊕sp(n) given by the formula*
j(c) =
1
2
c i
t
¯ c. c ,
t
¯ c. c /
t
¯ c
.
Note that 0 is not a clean value of j with respect to the full action of Sp(n). However, the
situation can be very diﬀerent for a closed subgroup G ⊂ Sp(n): Let π
g
: sp(n) →g be the
orthogonal projection relative to the ¹dinvariant inner product on sp(n). The momentum
mapping for the action of G on H
n
is then given by
j
G
(c) =
1
2
π
g
(c i
t
¯ c). π
g
(c ,
t
¯ c). π
g
(c /
t
¯ c)
.
Since G is compact, there is an orthogonal direct sum g = z ⊕[g. g], where z is the tangent
algebra to the center of G. Thus, there will be a hyperK¨ ahler reduction for each clean
value of j
G
that lies in z⊕z⊕z.
Let us now consider a very simple example: Let o
1
⊂ Sp(n) act diagonally on H
n
by
the action
c
iθ
¸
¸
c
1
.
.
.
c
n
=
¸
¸
c
iθ
c
1
.
.
.
c
iθ
c
n
.
* Here, I am identifying sp(n) with sp(n)
∗
via the positive deﬁnite, ¹dinvariant sym
metric bilinear pairing deﬁned by 'o. /` = −
1
2
tr(o/ + /o). (Because of the noncommuta
tivity of H, we do not have tr(o/) = tr(/o) for all o. / ∈ sp(n).)
L.8.18 147
Then it is not diﬃcult to see that the momentum mappping can be identiﬁed with the
map
j(c) =
t
¯ c i c.
The reduced space `
p
for any j = 0 is easily seen to be complex analytically equivalent to
T
∗
CP
n−1
, and the induced hyperK¨ ahler structure is the one found by Calabi. In particular,
for n = 2, we recover the EguchiHansen metric.
In the Exercises, there are other examples for you to try.
The method of hyperK¨ ahler reduction has a wide variety of applications. Many of the
interesting moduli spaces for YangMills theory turn out to have hyperK¨ ahler structures
because of this reduction procedure. For example, as Atiyah and Hitchin [AH] show, the
space of magnetic monopoles of “charge” / on R
3
turns out to have a natural hyperK¨ ahler
structure that is derived by methods extremely similar to the example presented earlier of
a K¨ ahler structure on the moduli space of ﬂat connections over a Riemann surface.
Peter Kronheimer [Kr] has used the method of hyperK¨ ahler reduction to construct,
for each quotient manifold Σ of o
3
, an asymptotically locally Euclidean (ALE) Ricciﬂat
selfdual Einstein metric on a 4manifold `
Σ
whose boundary at inﬁnity is Σ. He then
went on to prove that all such metrics on 4manifolds arise in this way.
Finally, it should also be mentioned that the case of metrics on manifolds `
4n
with
holonomy Sp(n) Sp(1) can also be treated by the method of reduction. I don’t have time
to go into this here, but the reader can ﬁnd a complete account in [GL].
L.8.19 148
Exercise Set 8:
Recent Applications of Reduction
1. Show that the following two deﬁnitions of compatibility between an almost complex
structure J and a metric o on `
2n
are equivalent
(i) (o. J) are compatible if o(·) = o(J·) for all · ∈ T`.
(ii) (o. J) are compatible if Ω(·. n) = 'J·. n` deﬁnes a (skewsymmetric) 2form on `.
2. A NonIntegrable Almost Complex Structure. Let J be an almost complex
structure on `. Let /
1,0
⊂ C ⊗/
1
(`) denote the space of Cvalued 1forms on ` that
satisfy α(J·) = ı α(·) for all · ∈ T`.
(i) Show that if we deﬁne /
0,1
(`) ⊂ C⊗/
1
(`) to be the space of Cvalued 1forms on
` that satisfy α(J·) = −ı α(·) for all · ∈ T`, then /
0,1
(`) = /
1,0
(`) and that
/
1,0
(`) ∩ /
0,1
(`) = ¦0¦.
(ii) Show that if J is an integrable almost complex structure, then, for any α ∈ /
1,0
(`),
the 2form dα is (at least locally) in the ideal generated by /
1,0
(`). (Hint: Show
that, if . : l →C
n
is a holomorphic coordinate chart, then, on l, the space /
1,0
(l)
is spanned by the forms d.
1
. . . . . d.
n
. Now consider the exterior derivative of any
linear combination of the d.
i
.)
It is a celebrated result of Newlander and Nirenberg that this condition is suﬃcient
for J to be integrable.
(iii) Show that there is an almost complex structure on C
2
for which /
1,0
(C
2
) is spanned
by the 1forms
ω
1
= d.
1
− ¯ .
1
d¯ .
2
ω
2
= d.
2
and that this almost complex structure is not integrable.
3. Let U(2) act diagonally on C
2n
, thought of as n 2 copies of C
2
(the action on
each factor is the standard one and the K¨ ahler structure on each factor is the standard
one). Regarding C
2n
as the space of 2byn matrices with complex entries, show that
the momentum mapping in this case is (up to a constant factor) given by j(.) = ı .
t
¯ ..
(As usual, identify u(2) with u(2)
∗
by using the nondegenerate bilinear pairing 'r. n` =
−tr(rn).) Note that ξ
0
= ı 1
2
∈ u(2) is a ﬁxed point of the coadjoint action and describe
K¨ ahler reduction at ξ
0
. On the other hand, if ξ ∈ u(2) has eigenvalues ıλ
1
and ıλ
2
where λ
1
λ
2
0, show that, even though ξ is a clean value of j and G
ξ
⊂ U(2) acts
freely on j
−1
(ξ), the metric o
ξ
deﬁned on the quotient `
ξ
so that π
ξ
: j
−1
(ξ) →`
ξ
is a
Riemannian submersion is not compatible with Ω
ξ
.
E.8.1 149
4. Examine the coadjoint orbits of G = SL(2. R) and show that Gξ carries a Ginvariant
Riemannian metric if and only if G
ξ
is compact. Classify the coadjoint orbits of G =
SL(3. R) and show that none of them carry a Ginvariant Riemannian metric. In particular,
none of them carry a Ginvariant K¨ ahler metric.
5. The point of this problem is to examine the coadjoint orbits of the compact group U(n)
and to construct, on each one, the K¨ ahler metric compatible with the canonical symplectic
structure. As usual, we identitfy u(n) with u(n)
∗
via the ¹dinvariant positive deﬁnite
symmetric bilinear form 'r. n` = −tr(rn). Thus, ξ ∈ u(n) is to be regarded as the linear
functional r → 'ξ. r`. This allows us to identify the adjoint and coadjoint representa
tions. Of course, since U(n) is a matrix group Ad(o)(r) = oro
−1
= or
t
¯o for o ∈ U(n)
and r ∈ u(n). Recall that every skewHermitian matrix ξ can be diagonalized by a unitary
transformation. Consequently, each (co)adjoint orbit is the orbit of a unique matrix of the
form
ξ =
¸
¸
¸
ı ξ
1
0 0
0 ı ξ
2
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 0 ı ξ
n
. ξ
1
≥ ξ
2
≥ ≥ ξ
n
.
Fix ξ and let n
1
. . . . . n
d
≥ 1 be the multiplicities of the eigenvalues (i.e., n
1
+ +n
d
= n
and ξ
j
= ξ
k
if and only if, for some :, we have n
1
+ + n
r
≤ , ≤ / < n
1
+ + n
r+1
).
Then U(n)
ξ
= U(n
1
) U(n
2
) U(n
d
) (i.e., the obvious block diagonal subgroup).
Let ω = o
−1
do = (ω
j
¯
k
) be the canonical leftinvariant form on U(n) and let π
ξ
:
U(n) →U(n)´U(n)
ξ
= U(n)ξ be the canonical projection. Show that the formulae
π
∗
ξ
(Ω
ξ
) =
ı
2
¸
k>j
2(ξ
j
−ξ
k
) ω
k¯
∧ ω
k¯
and π
∗
ξ
(/
ξ
) =
¸
k>j
2(ξ
j
−ξ
k
) ω
k¯
◦ω
k¯
deﬁne the symplectic form Ω
ξ
and a compatible K¨ ahler metric /
ξ
on the orbit l(n)ξ. (In
fact, this /
ξ
is the only U(n)invariant, Ω
ξ
compatible metric on l(n)ξ.)
Remark: If you know about roots and weights, it is not hard to generalize this
construction so that it works for the coadjoint orbits of any compact Lie group. The same
uniqueness result is true as well: If G is compact and ξ ∈ g
∗
is any element, there is a
unique Ginvariant K¨ ahler metric /
ξ
on Gξ that is compatible with Ω
ξ
.
6. Let ` = C
n
1
⊕C
n
2
` ¦(0. 0)¦. Let G = o
1
act on ` by the action
c
ıθ
(.
1
. .
2
) =
c
ıd
1
θ
.
1
. c
ıd
2
θ
.
2
where d
1
and d
2
are relatively prime integers. Let ` have the standard ﬂat K¨ ahler
structure. Compute the momentum mapping j and the K¨ ahler structures on the reduced
spaces. How do the relative signs of d
1
and d
2
aﬀect the answer? What interpretation can
you give to these spaces?
E.8.2 150
7. Go back to the the example of the “K¨ ahler structure” on the space A(1) of connections
on a principal right Gbundle 1 over a connected compact Riemann surface Σ. Assume
that G = o
1
and identify g with R in the natural way. Thus, 1
A
is a welldeﬁned 2form on
Σ and the cohomology class [1
A
] ∈ H
2
dR
(Σ. R) is independent of the choice of ¹. Assume
that [1
A
] = 0. Then, in this case, µ
−1
(0) is empty so the construction we made in the
example in the Lecture is vacuous. Here is how we can still get some information.
Fix any nonvanishing 2form Ψ on Σ so that [Ψ] = [1
A
]. Show that even though µ has
no regular values, Ψ is a nontrivial clean value of µ. Show also that, for any ¹ ∈ µ
−1
(Ψ),
the stabilizer G
A
⊂ Aut(1) is a discrete (and hence ﬁnite) subgroup of o
1
. Describe, as
fully as you can, the reduced space M
Ψ
and its K¨ ahler structure. (Here, you will need to
keep in mind that Ψ is a ﬁxed point of the coadjoint action of Aut(1), so that reduction
away from 0 makes sense.)
8. Verify that Sp(n) is a connected Lie group of dimension 2n
2
+ n. (Hint: You will
probably want to study the function 1(¹) =
t
¯
¹¹ = 1
n
.) Show that Sp(n) acts transitively
on the unit sphere o
4n−1
⊂ H
n
deﬁned by the relation H(r. r) = 1. (Hint: First show
that, by acting by diagonal matrices in Sp(n), you can move any element of H
n
into the
subspace R
n
. Then note that Sp(n) contains SO(n).) By analysing the stabilizer subgroup
in Sp(n) of an element of o
4n−1
, show that there is a ﬁbration
Sp(n−1) → Sp(n)
↓
o
4n−1
and use this to conclude by induction that Sp(n) is connected and simply connected for
all n.
9. Prove Proposition 2. (Hint: First show how the maps 1
i
, 1
j
, and 1
k
deﬁne the
structure of a right Hmodule on \ . Then show that \ has a basis /
1
. . . . . /
n
over H and
use this to construct an Hlinear isomorphism of \ with H
n
. If you pick the basis /
a
carefully, you will be done at this point. Warning: You must use the positive deﬁniteness
of '. `!)
10. Show that if (Ω
1
. Ω
2
. Ω
3
) is a hyperK¨ ahler structure on a real vector space \ , with as
sociated deﬁned maps 1
i
, 1
j
, and 1
k
and metric '. `, then (Ω
1
. 1
i
) is a complex Hermitian
structure on \ with associated metric '. `. Moreover, the Cvalued 2form Υ = Ω
2
−ı Ω
3
is
Clinear, i.e., Υ(1
i
·. n) = ı Υ(·. n) for all ·. n ∈ \ . Show that Υ is nondegenerate on \
and hence that Υ deﬁnes a (complex) symplectic structure on \ (considered as a complex
vector space).
E.8.3 151
11. Let Sp(1) · SU(2) act on H
n
diagonally (i.e., as componentwise left multiplication n
copies of H). Compute the momentum mapping j : H
n
→sp(1) ⊕sp(1) ⊕sp(1) and show
that for all n ≥ 4, the map j is surjective and that, for generic ξ ∈ sp(1) ⊕sp(1) ⊕ sp(1),
we have G
ξ
= ¦±1¦. In particular, for nearly all nonzero regular values of j, the quotient
space `
ξ
= G
ξ
`j
−1
(ξ) has dimension 4n−9. Consequently, this quotient space is not even
K¨ ahler. (Hint: You may ﬁnd it useful to recall that sp(1) = ImH · R
3
and that the
(co)adjoint action is identiﬁable with SO(3) acting by rotations on R
3
. In fact, you might
want to note that it is possible to identify sp(1) ⊕sp(1) ⊕sp(1) with R
9
· `
3,3
(R) in such
a way that
j(jc
1
¯ n. . jc
n
¯ n) = 1(j)j(c
1
. . c
n
)1(n)
−1
where 1 : Sp(1) → SO(3) is a covering homomorphism. Once this has been proved, you
can use facts about matrix multiplication to simplify your computations.) Now, again,
assuming that n ≥ 4, compute j
−1
(0), show that, once the origin in H
n
is removed, 0 is
a regular value of j and that Sp(1) acts freely on j
−1
(0). Can you describe the quotient
space? (You may ﬁnd it helpful to note that SO(n) ⊂ Sp(n) is the commuting subgroup
of Sp(1) embedded diagonally into Sp(n). What good is knowing this?)
12. Apply the hyperK¨ ahler reduction procedure to H
2
with G = o
1
acting by the rule
c
iθ
c
1
c
2
=
c
imθ
c
1
c
inθ
c
2
.
where : and n are relatively prime integers. Determine which values of j are clean and
describe the resulting complex surfaces and their hyperK¨ahler structures.
E.8.4 152
Lecture 9:
The Gromov School of Symplectic Geometry
In this lecture, I want to describe some of the remarkable new information we have
about symplectic manifolds owing to the inﬂuence of the ideas of Mikhail Gromov. The
basic reference for much of this material is Gromov’s remarkable book Partial Diﬀerential
Relations.
The fundamental idea of studying complex structures “tamed by” a given symplectic
structure was developed by Gromov in a remarkable paper Pseudoholomorphic Curves on
Almost Complex Manifolds and has proved extraordinarily fruitful. In the latter part of
this lecture, I will try to introduce the reader to this theory.
Soft Techniques in Symplectic Manifolds
Symplectic Immersions and Embeddings. Before beginning on the topic of
symplectic immersions, let me recall how the theory of immersions in the ordinary sense
goes.
Recall that the Whitney Immersion Theorem (in the weak form) asserts that any
smooth nmanifold ` has an immersion into R
2n
. This result is proved by ﬁrst immersing
` into some R
N
for · 0 and then using Sard’s Theorem to show that if · 2n,
one can ﬁnd a vector n ∈ R
N
so that n is not tangent to 1(`) at any point. Then the
projection of 1(`) onto a hyperplane orthogonal to n is still an immersion, but now into
R
N−1
.
This result is not the best possible. Whitney himself showed that one could always im
merse `
n
into R
2n−1
, although “general position” arguments are not suﬃcient to do this.
This raises the question of determining what the best possible immersion or embedding
dimension is.
One topological obstruction to immersing `
n
into R
n+k
can be described as follows:
If 1: ` → R
n+k
is an immersion, then the trivial bundle 1
∗
(TR
n+k
) = ` R
n+k
can
be split into a direct sum 1
∗
(TR
n+k
) = T` ⊕ ν
f
where ν
f
is the normal bundle of the
immersion 1. Thus, if there is no bundle ν of rank / over ` so that T` ⊕ ν is trivial,
then there can be no immersion of ` into R
n+k
.
The remarkable fact is that this topological necessary condition is almost suﬃcient. In
fact, we have the following result of Hirsch and Smale for the general immersion problem.
Theorem 1: Let ` and · be connected smooth manifolds and suppose either that `
is noncompact or else that dim(`) < dim(·). Let 1: ` →· be a continuous map, and
suppose that there is a vector bundle ν over ` so that 1
∗
(T·) = T` ⊕ ν. Then 1 is
homotopic to an immersion of ` into ·
Theorem 1 can be interpreted as an example of what Gromov calls the /principle,
which I now want to describe.
L.9.1 153
The /Principle. Let π: \ → A be a surjective submersion. A section of π is, by
deﬁnition, a map σ: A → \ which satisﬁes π ◦ σ = id
X
. Let J
k
(A. \ ) denote the space
of /jets of sections of \ , and let π
k
: J
k
(A. \ ) → A denote the basepoint or “source”
projection. Given any section : of π, there is an associated section ,
k
(:) of π
k
which is
deﬁned by letting ,
k
(:)(r) be the /jet of : at r ∈ A. A section σ of π
k
is said to be
holonomic if σ = ,
k
(:) for some section : of π.
A partial diﬀerential relation of order / for π is a subset 1 ⊂ J
k
(A. \ ). A section :
of π is said to satisfy 1 if ,
k
(:)(A) ⊂ 1. We can now make the following deﬁnition:
Deﬁnition 1: A partial diﬀerential relation 1 ⊂ J
k
(A. \ ) satisﬁes the /principle if, for
every section σ of π
k
which satisﬁes σ(A) ⊂ 1, there is a oneparameter family of sections
σ
t
(0 ≤ t ≤ 1) of π
k
which satisfy the conditions that σ
t
(A) ⊂ 1 for all t, that σ
0
= σ,
and that σ
1
is holonomic.
Very roughly speaking, a partial diﬀerential relation satisﬁes the /principle if, when
ever the “topological” conditions for a solution to exist are satisﬁed, then a solution exists.
For example, if A = ` and \ = ` ·, where dim(·) ≥ dim(`), then there is
an (open) subset 1 = Imm(`. ·) ⊂ J
1
(`. ` ·) which consists of the 1jets of graphs
of (local) immersions of ` into ·. What the HirschSmale immersion theory says is that
Imm(`. ·) satisﬁes the /principle if either dim ` = dim · and ` has no compact
component or else dim ` < dim ·.
Of course, the /principle does not hold for every relation 1. The real question
is how to determine when the /principle holds for a given 1. Gromov has developed
several extremely general methods for proving that the /principle holds for various partial
diﬀerential relations 1 which arise in geometry. These methods include his theory of
topological sheaves and techniques like his method of convex integration. They generally
work in situations where the local solutions of a given partial diﬀerential relation 1 are
easy to come by and it is mainly a question of “patching together” local solutions which
are fairly “ﬂexible”.
Gromov calls this collection of techniques “soft” to distinguish them from the “hard”
techniques, such as elliptic theory, which come from analysis and deal with situations where
the local solutions are somewhat “rigid”.
Here is a sample of some of the results which Gromov obtains by these methods:
Theorem 2: Let A
2n
be a smooth manifold and let \ ⊂ Λ
2
T
∗
(`)
denote the open
subbundle consisting of nondegenerate 2forms ω ∈ T
x
A. Let 7
1
(A. \ ) ⊂ J
1
(A. \ )
denote the space of 1jets of closed nondegenerate 2forms on A. Then, if A has no
compact component, 7
1
(A. \ ) satisﬁes the /principle.
In particular, Theorem 2 implies that a noncompact, connected A has a symplectic
structure if and only if it has an almost symplectic structure.
Note that this result is deﬁnitely not true for compact manifolds. We have already seen
several examples, e.g., o
1
o
3
, which have almost symplectic structures but no symplectic
structures because they do not satisfy the cohomology ring obstruction. Gromov has asked
the following:
L.9.2 154
Question : If A
2n
is compact and connected and satisﬁes the condition that there exists
an element n ∈ H
2
dR
(A. R) which satisﬁes n
n
= 0, does 7
1
(A. \ ) satisfy the /principle?
The next result I want to describe is Gromov’s theorem on symplectic immersions.
This theorem is an example of a sort of “restricted /principle” in that it is only required
to apply to sections σ which satisfy speciﬁed cohomological conditions.
First, let me make a few deﬁnitions: Let (A. Ξ) and (Y. Ψ) be two connected symplectic
manifolds. Let S(A. Y ) ⊂ J
1
(A. A Y ) denote the space of 1jets of graphs of (local)
symplectic maps 1: A → Y . i.e., (local) maps 1: A → Y which satisfy 1
∗
(Ψ) = Ξ. Let
τ: S(A. Y ) →Y be the obvious “target projection”.
Theorem 3: If either A is noncompact, or dim(A) < dim(Y ), then any section σ of
S(A. Y ) for which the induced map : = τ ◦σ: A →Y satisﬁes the cohomological condition
:
∗
([Ψ]) = [Ξ] is homotopic to a holonomic section of S(A. Y ).
This result can be also stated as follows: Suppose that either A is noncompact or else
that dim(A) < dim(Y ). Let φ: A →Y be a smooth map which satisﬁes the cohomological
condition φ
∗
[Ψ]
= [Ξ]. Suppose that there exists a bundle map 1: TA →φ
∗
(TY ) which
is symplectic in the obvious sense. Then φ is homotopic to a symplectic immersion.
As an application of Theorem 3, we can now prove the following result of Narasimham
and Ramanan.
Corollary : Any compact symplectic manifold (`. Ω) for which the cohomology class
[Ω] is integral admits a symplectic immersion into (CP
N
. Ω
N
) for some · n.
Proof: Since the cohomology class [Ω] is integral, there exists a smooth map φ: ` →CP
N
for some · suﬃciently large so that φ
∗
[Ω
N
]
= [Ω]. Then, choosing · n, we can
arrange that there also exists a symplectic bundle map 1: T` → 1
∗
(TCP
N
) (see the
Exercises). Now apply Theorem 3.
As a ﬁnal example along these lines, let me state Gromov’s embedding result. Here,
the reader should be thinking of the diﬀerence between the Whitney Immersion Theorems
and the Whitney Embedding Theorems: One needs slightly more room to embed than to
immerse.
Theorem 4: Suppose that (A. Ξ) and (Y. Ψ) are connected symplectic manifolds and
that either A is noncompact and dim(A) < dim(Y ) or else that dim(A) < dim(Y ) − 2.
Suppose that there exists a smooth embedding φ: A → Y and that the induced map on
bundles φ
: TA →φ
∗
(TY ) is homotopic through a 1parameter family of injective bundle
maps ϕ
t
: TA → φ
∗
(TY ) (with ϕ
0
= φ
) to a symplectic bundle map ϕ
1
: TA → φ
∗
(TY ).
Then φ is isotopic to a symplectic embedding ϕ: A →Y .
This result is actually the best possible, for, as Gromov has shown using “hard” tech
niques (see below), there are counterexamples if one leaves out the dimensional restrictions.
Note by the way that, because Theorem 4 deals with embeddings rather than immersions,
it not straightforward to place it in the framework of the /principle.
L.9.3 155
Blowing Up in the Symplectic Category. We have already seen in Lecture 6 that
certain operations on smooth manifolds cannot be carried out in the symplectic category.
For example, one cannot form connected sums in the symplectic category.
However, certain of the operations from the geometry of complex manifolds can be car
ried out. Gromov has shown how to deﬁne the operation of “blowing up” in the symplectic
category.
Recall how one “blows up” the origin in C
n
. To avoid triviality, let me assume that
n 1. Consider the subvariety
A = ¦(·. [n]) ∈ C
n
CP
n−1
[ · ∈ [n]¦ ⊂ C
n
CP
n−1
.
It is easy to see that A is a smooth embedded submanifold of the product and that the
projection π: A → C
n
is a biholomorphism away from the “exceptional point” 0 ∈ C
n
.
Moreover, if Ω
0
and Φ are the standard K¨ ahler 2forms on C
n
and CP
n−1
respectively,
then, for each c 0, the 2form Ω
= Ω
0
+cΦ is a K¨ahler 2form on A.
Now, Gromov realized that this can be generalized to a “blow up” construction for
any point j on any symplectic manifold (`
2n
. Ω). Here is how this goes:
First, choose a neighborhood l of j on which there exists a local chart .: l → C
n
which is symplectic, i.e., satisﬁes .
∗
(Ω
0
) = Ω, and satisﬁes .(j) = 0. Suppose that the ball
1
2δ
(0) in C
n
of radius 2δ centered on 0 lies inside .(l). Since π: π
−1
1
∗
2δ
(0)
→ 1
∗
2δ
(0)
is a diﬀeomorphism, there exists a closed 2form
˜
Φ on 1
∗
2δ
(0) so that π
∗
(
˜
Φ) = Φ. Since
H
2
dR
1
∗
2δ
(0)
= 0, there exists a 1form ϕ on 1
∗
2δ
(0) so that dϕ = Φ.
Now consider the family of symplectic forms Ω
0
+c dϕ on 1
∗
2δ
(0). By using a homotopy
argument exactly like the one used to Prove Theorem 1 in Lecture 6, it easily follows that
for all t 0 suﬃciently small, there exists an open annulus ¹(δ − ε. δ + ε) and a one
parameter family of diﬀeomorphisms φ
t
: ¹(δ −ε. δ + ε) →1
∗
2δ
(0) so that
φ
∗
t
(Ω
0
) = Ω
0
+ t dϕ.
It follows that we can set
ˆ
` = π
−1
1
∗
δ+ε
(0)
∪
ψ
t
` ` .
−1
φ
t
1
∗
δ−ε
(0)
where
ψ
t
: π
−1
¹(δ −ε. δ +ε)
→` ` .
−1
φ
t
¹(δ −ε. δ + ε)
is given by ψ
t
= .
−1
◦ φ
t
◦ π. Since ψ
t
identiﬁes the symplectic structure Ω
t
with Ω
0
on
the annulus “overlap”, it follows that
ˆ
` is symplectic. This is Gromov’s symplectic blow
up procedure. Note that it can be eﬀected in such a way that the symplectic structure on
``¦j¦ is not disturbed outside of an arbitrarily small ball around j. Note also that there
is a parameter involved, and that the symplectic structure is certainly not unique.
This is only describes a simple case. However, Gromov has shown how any compact
symplectic submanifold o
2k
of `
2n
can be blown up to become a symplectic “hypersurface”
ˆ
o in a new symplectic manifold
ˆ
` which has the property that ` ` o is diﬀeomorphic to
ˆ
` `
ˆ
o.
L.9.4 156
The basic idea is the same as what we have already done: First, one mimics the
topological operations which would be performed if one were blowing up a complex sub
manifold of a complex manifold. Thus, the submanifold o gets “replaced” by the complex
projectivization
ˆ
o = P·
S
of a complex normal bundle. Second, one shows how to deﬁne
a symplectic structure on the resulting smooth manifold which can be made to agree with
the old structure outside of an arbitrarily small neighborhood of the blow up.
The details in the general case are somewhat more complicated than the case of
blowing up a single point, and Dusa McDuﬀ ([McDuﬀ 1984]) has written out a careful
construction. She has also used the method of blow ups to produce an example of a simply
connected compact symplectic manifold which has no K¨ ahler structure.
Hard Techniques in Symplectic Manifolds.
(Pseudo) holomorphic curves. I begin with a fundamental deﬁnition.
Deﬁnition 2: Let `
2n
be a smooth manifold and let J: T` → T` be an almost
complex structure on `. For any Riemann surface Σ, we say that a map 1: Σ → ` is
Jholomorphic if 1
(ı ·) = J1
(·) for all · ∈ TΣ.
Often, when J is clear from context, I will simply say “1 is holomorphic”. Several
authors use the terminology “almost holomorphic” or “pseudoholomorphic” for this con
cept, reserving the word “holomorphic” for use only when the almost complex structure
on ` is integrable to an actual complex structure. This distinction does not seem to be
particularly useful, so I will not maintain it.
It is instructive to see what this looks like in local coordinates. Let . = r+ı n be a local
holomorphic coordinate on Σ and let n: l →R
2n
be a local coordinate on `. Then there
exists a matrix J(n) of functions on n(l) ⊂ R
2n
which satisﬁes n
(J·) = J
n(j)
n
(·) for
all · ∈ T
p
l. This matrix of functions satisﬁes the relation J
2
= −1
2n
. Now, if 1: Σ → `
is holomorphic and carries the domain of the .coordinate into l, then 1 = n◦ 1 is easily
seen to satisfy the ﬁrst order system of partial diﬀerential equations
∂1
∂n
= J(1)
∂1
∂r
.
Since J
2
= −1
2n
, it follows that this is a ﬁrstorder, elliptic, determined system of partial
diﬀerential equations for 1. In fact, the “principal symbol” of these equations is the same
as that for the CauchyRiemann equations. Assuming that J is suﬃciently regular (C
∞
is
suﬃcient and we will always have this) there are plenty of local solutions. What is at issue
is the nature of the global solutions.
A parametrized holomorphic curve in ` is a holomorphic map 1: Σ →`. Sometimes
we will want to consider unparametrized holomorphic curves in `, namely equivalence
classes [Σ. 1] of holomorphic curves in ` where (Σ
1
. 1
1
) is equivalent to (Σ
2
. 1
2
) if there
exists a holomorphic map φ: Σ
1
→Σ
2
satisfying 1
1
= 1
2
◦ φ.
L.9.5 157
We are going to be particularly interested in the space of holomorphic curves in `.
Here are some properties that hold in the case of holomorphic curves in actual complex
manifolds and it would be nice to know if they also hold for holomorphic curves in almost
complex manifolds.
Local Finite Dimensionality. If Σ is a compact Riemann surface, and 1: Σ →`
is a holomorphic curve, it is reasonable to ask what the space of “nearby” holomorphic
curves looks like. Because the equations which determine these mappings are elliptic and
because Σ is compact, it follows without too much diﬃculty that the space of nearby
holomorphic curves is ﬁnite dimensional. (We do not, in general know that it is a smooth
manifold!)
Intersections. A pair of distinct complex curves in a complex surface always inter
sect at isolated points and with positive “multiplicity.” This follows from complex analytic
geometry. This result is extremely useful because it allows us to derive information about
actual numbers of intersection points of holomorphic curves by applying topological inter
section formulas. (Usually, these topological intersection formulas only count the number
of signed intersections, but if the surfaces can only intersect positively, then the topological
intersection numbers (counted with multiplicity) are the actual intersection numbers.)
K¨ ahler Area Bounds. If ` happens to be a K¨ ahler manifold, with K¨ ahler form
Ω, then the area of the image of a holomorphic curve 1: Σ →` is given by the formula
Area
1(Σ)
=
Σ
1
∗
(Ω).
In particular, since Ω is closed, the right hand side of this equation depends only on the
homotopy class of 1 as a map into `. Thus, if (Σ
t
. 1
t
) is a continuous oneparameter
family of closed holomorphic curves in a K¨ahler manifold, then they all have the same
area. This is a powerful constraint on how the images can behave, as we shall see.
Now the ﬁrst two of these properties go through without change in the case of almost
complex manifolds.
In the case of local ﬁniteness, this is purely an elliptic theory result. Studying the
linearization of the equations at a solution will even allow one to predict, using the Atiyah
Singer Index Theorem, an upper bound for the local dimension of the moduli space and,
in some cases, will allow us to conclude that the moduli space near a given closed curve is
actually a smooth manifold (see below).
As for pairs of complex curves in an almost complex surface, Gromov has shown that
they do indeed only intersect in isolated points and with positive multiplicity (unless they
have a common component, of course). Both Gromov and Dusa McDuﬀ have used this
fact to study the geometry of symplectic 4manifolds.
The third property is only valid for K¨ ahler manifolds, but it is highly desirable. The
behaviour of holomorphic curves in compact K¨ ahler manifolds is well understood in a large
part because of this area bound. This motivated Gromov to investigate ways of generalizing
this property.
L.9.6 158
Symplectic Tamings. Following Gromov, we make the following deﬁnition.
Deﬁnition 3: A symplectic form Ω on ` tames an almost complex structure J if it is
Jpositive, i.e., if it satisﬁes Ω(·. J·) 0 for all nonzero tangent vectors · ∈ T`.
The reader should be thinking of K¨ ahler geometry. In that case, the symplectic form
Ω and the complex structure J satisfy Ω(·. J·) = '·. ·` 0. Of course, this generalizes to
the case of an arbitrary almost K¨ ahler structure.
Now, if ` is compact and Ω tames J, then for any Riemannian metric o on ` (not
necessarily compatible with either J or Ω) there is a constant C 0 so that
[· ∧ J·[ ≤ C Ω(·. J·)
where [·∧J·[ represents the area in T
p
` of the parallelogram spanned by · and J· in T
p
`
(see the Exercises). In particular, it follows that, for any holomorphic curve 1: Σ → `,
we have the inequality
Area
1(Σ)
≤ C
Σ
1
∗
(Ω).
Just as in the K¨ahler case, the integral on the right hand side depends only on the homotopy
class of 1. Thus, if an almost complex structure can be tamed, it follows that, in any metric
on `, there is a uniform upper bound on the areas of the curves in any continuous family
of compact holomorphic curves in `.
Example: Let ·
C
3
denote the complex Heisenberg group. Thus, ·
C
3
is the complex Lie
group of matrices of the form
o =
¸
1 r .
0 1 n
0 0 1
.
Let Γ ⊂ ·
C
3
be the subgroup all of whose entries belong to the ring of Gaussian integers
Z[ı].
Let ` = ·
C
3
´Γ. Then ` is a compact complex 3manifold. I claim that the complex
structure on ` cannot be tamed by any symplectic form.
To see this, consider the rightinvariant 1form
do o
−1
=
¸
0 ω
1
ω
3
0 0 ω
2
0 0 0
.
Since they are rightinvariant, it follows that the complex 1forms ω
1
. ω
2
. ω
3
are also well
deﬁned on `. Deﬁne the metric G on ` to be the quadratic form
G = ω
1
◦ ω
1
+ ω
2
◦ ω
2
+ ω
3
◦ ω
3
.
L.9.7 159
Now consider the holomorphic curve Y : C →·
C
3
deﬁned by
Y (n) =
¸
1 0 0
0 1 n
0 0 1
.
Let ψ: C →` be the composition. It is clear that ψ is doubly periodic and hence deﬁnes
an embedding of a complex torus into `. It is clear that the Garea of this torus is 1.
Now ·
C
3
acts holomorphically on ` on the left (not by Gisometries, of course). We
can consider what happens to the area of the torus ψ(C) under the action of this group.
Speciﬁcally, for r ∈ C, let ψ
x
denote ψ acted on by left multiplication by the matrix
¸
1 r 0
0 1 0
0 0 1
.
Then, as the reader can easily check, we have
ψ
∗
x
(G) =
1 +[r[
2
)
dn
2
.
Thus, the Garea of the torus ψ
x
(C) goes oﬀ to inﬁnity as r tends to inﬁnity. Obviously,
there can be no taming of the complex manifold `. (In particular, ` cannot carry a
K¨ ahler structure compatible with its complex structure.)
Gromov’s Compactness Theorem. In this section, I want to discuss Gromov’s
approach to compactifying the connected components of the space of unparametrized holo
morphic curves in `.
Example: Before looking at the general case, let us look at what happens in a very
familiar case: The case of algebraic curves in CP
2
with its standard FubiniStudy metric
and symplectic form Ω (normalized so as to give the lines in CP
2
an area of 1).
Since this is a K¨ ahler metric, we know that the area of a connected oneparameter
family of holomorphic curves (Σ
t
. 1
t
) in CP
2
is constant and is equal to an integer d =
Σ
t
1
∗
t
(Ω), called the degree. To make matters as simple as possible, let me consider the
curves degree by degree.
d = 0. In this case, the “curves” are just the constant maps and (in the unparametrized
case) clearly constitute a copy of CP
2
itself. Note that this is already compact.
d = 1. In this case, the only possibility is that each Σ
t
is just CP
1
and the holo
morphic map 1
t
must be just a biholomorphism onto a line in CP
2
. Of course, the space
of lines in CP
2
is compact, just being a copy of the dual CP
2
. Thus, the space M
1
of
unparametrized holomorphic curves in CP
2
is compact. Note, however, that the space H
1
of holomorphic maps 1: CP
1
→ CP
2
of degree 1 is not compact. In fact, the ﬁbers of the
natural map H
1
→M
1
are copies of Aut(CP
1
) = PSL(2. C).
L.9.8 160
d = 2. This is the ﬁrst really interesting case. Here again, degree 2 (connected,
parametrized) curves in CP
2
consist of rational curves, and the images 1: CP
1
→ CP
2
are of two kinds: the smooth conics and the double covers of lines. However, not only is
this space not compact, the corresponding space of unparametrized curves is not compact
either, for it is fairly clear that one can approach a pair of intersecting lines as closely as
one wishes.
In fact, the reader may want to contemplate the oneparameter family of hyperbolas
rn = λ
2
as λ →0. If we choose the parametrization
1
λ
(t) = [t. λt
2
. λ] = [1. r. n].
then the pullback Φ
λ
= 1
∗
λ
(Ω) is an area form on CP
1
whose total integral is 2, but (and the
reader should check this), as λ →0, the form Φ
λ
accumulates equally at the points t = 0
and t = ∞ and goes to zero everywhere else. (See the Exercises for a further discussion.)
Now, if we go ahead and add in the pairs of lines, then this “completed” moduli
space is indeed compact. It is just the space of nonzero quadratic forms in three variables
(irreducible or not) up to constant multiples. It is well known that this forms a CP
5
.
In fact, a further analysis of low degree mappings indicates that the following phe
nomena are typical: If one takes a sequence (Σ
k
. 1
k
) of smooth holomorphic curves in CP
2
,
then after reparametrizing and passing to a subsequence, one can arrange that the holo
morphic curves have the property that, at a ﬁnite number of points j
α
k
∈ Σ, the induced
metric 1
∗
k
(Ω) on the surface goes to inﬁnity and the integral of the induced area form on
a neighborhood of each of these points approaches an integer while along a ﬁnite number
of loops γ
i
, the induced metric goes to zero.
The ﬁrst type of phenomenon is called “bubbling”, for what is happening is that
a small 2sphere is inﬂating and “breaking oﬀ” from the surface and covering a line in
CP
2
. The second type of phenomenon is called “vanishing cycles”, a loop in the surface
is literally contracting to a point. It turns out that the limiting object in CP
2
is a union
of algebraic curves whose total degree is the same as that of the members of the varying
family.
Thus, for CP
2
, the moduli space M
d
of unparametrized curves of degree d has a
compactiﬁcation M
d
where the extra points represent decomposable or degenerate curves
with “cusps”.
Other instances of this “bubbling” phenomena have been discovered. Sacks and Uh
lenbeck showed that when one wants to study the question of representing elements of
π
2
(A) (where A is a Riemannian manifold) by harmonic or minimal surfaces, one has
to deal with the possibility of pieces of the surface “bubbling oﬀ” in exactly the fashion
described above.
More recently, this sort of phenomenon has been used in “reverse” by Taubes to
construct solutions to the (anti)self dual YangMills equations over compact 4manifolds.
With all of this evidence of good compactiﬁcations of moduli spaces in other problems,
Gromov had the idea of trying to compactify the connected components of the “moduli
L.9.9 161
space” M of holomorphic curves in a general almost complex manifold `. Since one would
certainly expect the area function to be continuous on each compactiﬁed component, it
follows that there is not much hope of ﬁnding a good compactiﬁcation of the components
of M in a case where the area function is not bounded on the components of M (as in the
case of the Heisenberg example above).
However, it is still possible that one might be able to produce such a compactiﬁcation
if one can get an area bound on the curves in each component. Gromov’s insight was
that having the area bound was enough to furnish a priori estimates on the derivatives of
curves with an area bound, at least away from a ﬁnite number of points.
With all of this in mind, I can now very roughly state Gromov’s Compactiﬁcation
Theorem:
Theorem 5: Let ` be a compact almost complex manifold with almost complex structure
J and suppose that Ω tames J. Then every component M
α
of the moduli space M of
connected unparametrized holomorphic curves in ` can be compactiﬁed to a space M
α
by adding a set of “cusp” curves, where a cusp curve is essentially a ﬁnite union of (possibly)
singular holomorphic curves in ` which is obtained as a limit of a sequence of connected
curves in M
α
by “pinching loops” and “bubbling”.
For the precise deﬁnition of “cusp curve” consult [Gr 1], [Wo], or [Pa]. The method
that Gromov uses to prove his compactness theorem is basically a generalization of the
Schwarz Lemma. This allows him to get control of the supnorm of the ﬁrst derivatives of
a holomorphic curve in ` terms of the 1
2
1
norm (i.e., area norm) at least in regions where
the area form stays bounded.
Unfortunately, although the ideas are intuitively compelling, the actual details are
nontrivial. However, there are, by now, several good sources, from diﬀerent viewpoints,
for proofs of Gromov’s Compactiﬁcation Theorem. The articles [M 4] and [Wo] listed in
the Bibliography are very readable accounts and are highly recommended. I hear that the
(unpublished) [Pa] is also an excellent account which is closer in spirit to Gromov’s original
ideas of how the proof should go. Finally, there is the quite recent [Ye], which generalizes
this compactiﬁcation theorem to the case of curves with boundary.
Actually, the most fruitful applications of these ideas have been in the situation when,
for various reasons, it turns out that there cannot be any cusp curves, so that, by Gromov’s
compactness theorem, the moduli space is already compact. Here is a case where this
happens.
Proposition 1: Suppose that (`. J) is a compact, almost complex manifold and that
Ω is a 2form which tames J. Suppose that there exists a nonconstant holomorphic
curve 1: o
2
→ `, and suppose that there is a number ¹ 0 so that
S
2
1
∗
(Ω) ≥ ¹ for
all nonconstant holomorphic maps 1: o
2
→ `. Then for any 1 < 2¹, the set M
B
of
unparametrized holomorphic curves 1(o
2
) ⊂ ` which satisfy
S
2
1
∗
(Ω) = 1 is compact.
L.9.10 162
Proof: (Idea) If the space M
B
were not compact, then a point of the compactiﬁcation
would would correspond a union of cusp curves which would contain at least two distinct
nonconstant holomorphic maps of o
2
into `. Of course, this would imply that the limiting
value of the integral of Ω over this curve would be at least 2¹ 1, a contradiction.
An example of this phenomenon is when the taming form Ω represents an integral
class in cohomology. Then the presence of any holomorphic rational curves at all implies
that there is a compact moduli space at some level.
Applications. It is reasonable to ask how the Compactness Theorem can be applied
in symplectic geometry.
To do this, what one typically does is ﬁrst ﬁx a symplectic manifold (`. Ω) and then
considers the space J(Ω) of almost complex structures on ` which Ω tames. We already
know from Lecture 5 that J(Ω) is not empty. We even know that the space K(Ω) ⊂ J(Ω)
of Ωcompatible almost complex structures is nonempty. Moreover, it is not hard to show
that these spaces are contractible (see the Exercises).
Thus, any invariant of the almost complex structures J ∈ J(Ω) or of the almost
K¨ ahler structures J ∈ K(Ω) which is constant under homotopy through such structures is
an invariant of the underlying symplectic manifold (`. Ω).
This idea is extremely powerful. Gromov has used it to construct many new invariants
of symplectic manifolds. He has then gone on to use these invariants to detect features of
symplectic manifolds which are not presently accessible by any other means.
Here is a sample of some of the applications of Gromov’s work on holomorphic curves.
Unfortunately, I will not have time to discuss the proofs of any of these results.
Theorem 6: (Gromov) If there is a symplectic embedding of 1
2n
(:) ⊂ R
2n
into
1
2
(1) R
2n−2
, then : ≤ 1.
One corollary of Theorem 6 is that any diﬀeomorphism of a symplectic manifold which
is a C
0
limit of symplectomorphisms is itself a symplectomorphism.
Theorem 7: (Gromov) If Ω is a symplectic structure on CP
2
and there exists an
embedded Ωsymplectic sphere o ⊂ CP
2
, then Ω is equivalent to the standard symplectic
structure.
The next two theorems depend on the notion of asymptotic ﬂatness: We say that
a noncompact symplectic manifold `
2n
is asymptotically ﬂat if there is a compact set
1
1
⊂ `
2n
and a compact set 1
2
⊂ R
2n
so that ` ` 1
1
is symplectomorphic to R
2n
` 1
2
(with the standard symplectic structure on R
2n
).
Theorem 8: (McDuff) Suppose that `
4
is a noncompact symplectic manifold which
is asymptotically ﬂat. Then `
4
is symplectomorphic to R
4
with a ﬁnite number of points
blown up.
L.9.11 163
Theorem 9: (McDuff, Floer, Eliashberg) Suppose that `
2n
is asymptotically
ﬂat and contains no symplectic 2spheres. Then `
2n
is diﬀeomorphic to R
2n
.
It is not known whether one might replace “diﬀeomorphic” with “symplectomorphic”
in this theorem for n 2.
Epilogue
I hope that this Lecture has intrigued you as to the possibilities of applying the ideas
of Gromov in modern geometry. Let me close by quoting from Gromov’s survey paper on
symplectic geometry in the Proceedings of the 1986 ICM:
Diﬀerential forms (of any degree) taming partial diﬀerential equations pro
vide a major (if not the only) source of integrodiﬀerential inequalities needed for
a priori estimates and vanishing theorems. These forms are deﬁned on spaces of
jets (of solutions of equations) and they are often (e.g., in BochnerWeitzenbock
formulas) exact and invariant under pertinent (inﬁnitesimal) symmetry groups.
Similarly, convex (in an appropriate sense) functions on spaces of jets are re
sponsible for the maximum principles. A great part of hard analysis of PDE will
become redundant when the algebraic and geometric structure of taming forms
and corresponding convex functions is clariﬁed. (From the PDE point of view,
symplectic geometry appears as a taming device on the space of 0jets of solutions
of the CauchyRiemann equation.)
L.9.12 164
Exercise Set 9:
The Gromov School of Symplectic Geometry
1. Use the fact that an orientable 3manifold `
3
is parallelizable (i.e., its tangent bundle
is trivial) and Theorem 1 to show that a compact 3manifold can always be immersed in
R
4
and a 3manifold with no compact component can always be immersed in R
3
.
2. Show that Theorem 2 does, in fact imply that any connected noncompact symplectic
manifold which has an almost complex structure has a symplectic structure. (Hint: Show
that the natural projection 7
1
(A. \ ) →\ has contractible ﬁbers (in fact, 7
1
(A. \ ) is an
aﬃne bundle over \ , and then use this to show that a nondegenerate 2form on A can
be homotoped to a closed nondegenerate 2form on A.)
3. Show that the hypothesis in Theorem 3 that A either be noncompact or that dim(A) <
dim(Y ) is essential.
4. Show that if 1 is a symplectic bundle over a compact manifold `
2n
whose rank is
2n + 2/ for some / 0, then there exists a symplectic splitting 1 = 1 ⊕ T where T is
a trivial symplectic bundle over ` of rank /. (Hint: Use transversality to pick a non
vanishing section of 1. Now what?)
Show also that, if 1 is a symplectic bundle over a compact manifold `
2n
, then there
exists another symplectic bundle 1
over ` so that 1 ⊕ 1
is trivial. (Hint: Mimic the
proof for complex bundles.)
Finally, use these results to complete the proof of the Corollary to Theorem 3.
5. Show that if a symplectic manifold ` is simply connected, then the symplectic blow
up
ˆ
` of ` along a symplectic submanifold o of ` is also simply connected. (Hint: Any
loop in
ˆ
` can be deformed into a loop which misses
ˆ
o. Now what?)
6. Prove, as stated in the text, that if ` is compact and Ω tames J, then for any
Riemannian metric o on ` (not necessarily compatible with either J or Ω) there is a
constant C 0 so that
[· ∧ J·[ ≤ C Ω(·. J·)
where [·∧J·[ represents the area in T
p
` of the parallelogram spanned by · and J· in T
p
`.
E.9.1 165
7. First Order Equations and Holomorphic Curves. The point of this problem is
to show how elliptic quasilinear determined PDE for two functions of two unknowns can
be reformulated as a problem in holomorphic curves in an almost complex manifold.
Suppose that π: \
4
→A
2
is a smooth submersion from a 4manifold onto a 2manifold.
Suppose also that 1 ⊂ J
1
(A. \ ) is smooth submanifold of dimension 6 which has the
property that it locally represents an elliptic, quasilinear pair of ﬁrst order PDE for
sections : of π. Show that there exists a unique almost complex structure on \ so that
a section : of π is a solution of 1 if and only if its graph in \ is an (unparametrized)
holomorphic curve in \ .
(Hint: The hypotheses on the relation 1 are equivalent to the following conditions.
For every point · ∈ \ , there are coordinates r. n. 1. o on a neighborhood of · in \ with
the property that r and n are local coordinates on a neighborhood of π(·) and so that a
local section : of the form 1 = 1(r. n), o = G(r. n) is a solution of 1 if and only if they
satisfy a pair of equations of the form
¹
1
1
x
+ 1
1
1
y
+ C
1
o
x
+ 1
1
o
y
+ 1
1
= 0
¹
2
1
x
+ 1
2
1
y
+ C
2
o
x
+ 1
2
o
y
+ 1
2
= 0
where the ¹
1
. . . . . 1
2
are speciﬁc functions of (r. n. 1. o). The ellipticity condition is equiv
alent to the assumption that
det
¹
1
ξ + 1
1
η C
1
ξ + 1
1
η
¹
2
ξ + 1
2
η C
2
ξ + 1
2
η
0
for all (ξ. η) = (0. 0).)
Show that the problem of isometrically embedding a metric o of positive Gauss cur
vature on a surface Σ into R
3
can be turned into a problem of ﬁnding a holomorphic
section of an almost complex bundle π: \ → Σ. Do this by showing that the bundle \
whose sections are the quadratic forms which have positive otrace and which satisfy the
algebraic condition imposed by the Gauss equation on quadratic forms which are second
fundamental forms for isometric embeddings of o is a smooth rank 2 disk bundle over Σ
and that the Codazzi equations then reduce to a pair of elliptic ﬁrst order quasilinear
PDE for sections of this bundle.
Show that, if Σ is topologically o
2
, then the topological selfintersection number of
a global section of V is −4. Conclude, using the fact that distinct holomorphic curves in
\ must have positive intersection number, that (up to sign) there cannot be more that
one second fundamental form on Σ which satisﬁes both the Gauss and Codazzi equations.
Thus, conclude that a closed surface of positive Gauss curvature in R
3
is rigid.
This approach to isometric embedding of surfaces has been extensively studied by
Labourie [La].
E.9.2 166
8. Prove, as claimed in the text that, for the map 1
λ
: CP
1
→CP
2
given by the rule
1
λ
(t) = [t. λt
2
. λ] = [1. r. n].
the pullback of the FubiniStudy metric accumulates at the points t = 0 and t = ∞ and
goes to zero everywhere else. What would have happened if, instead we had used the map
o
λ
(t) = [t. t
2
. λ
2
] = [1. r. n]?
Is there a contradiction here?
9. Verify the claim made in the text that, for a symplectic manifold (`. Ω), the spaces
K(Ω) and J(Ω) of Ωcompatible and Ωtame almost complex structures on ` are indeed
contractible. (Hint: Fix an element J
0
∈ K(Ω), with associated inner product '. `
0
and
show that, for any J ∈ J(Ω), we can write J = J
0
(o + ¹) where o is symmetric and
positive deﬁnite with respect to '. `
0
and ¹ is antisymmetric. Now what?)
10. The point of this exercise is to get a look at the pseudoholomorphic curves of a non
integrable almost complex structure. Let A
4
= C ∆ = ¦(n. .) ∈ C
2
[.[ < 1¦, and give
A
4
the almost complex structure for which the complex valued 1forms α = dn+¯ . d ¯ n and
β = d. are a basis for the (1. 0)forms. Verify that this does indeed deﬁne a nonintegrable
almost complex structure on the 4manifold A. Show that the pseudoholomorphic curves
in A can be described explicitly as follows: If ` is a Riemann surface and φ: `
2
→A is
a pseudoholomorphic mapping, then one of the following is true: Either φ
∗
(β) = 0 and
there exists a holomorphic function / on ` and a constant .
0
so that
φ =
/ − ¯ .
0
¯
/. .
0
.
or else there exists a nonconstant holomorphic function o on ` which satisﬁes [o[ < 1,
a meromorphic function 1 on ` so that 1 do and 1o do are holomorphic 1forms without
periods on `, and a constant n
0
so that
φ(j) =
n
0
+
p
p
0
( 1 do −1o do ). o(j)
where the integral is taken to be taken over any path from some basepoint j
0
to j in `.
(Hint: It is obvious that you must take o = φ
∗
(.), but it is not completely obvious
where 1 will be found. However, if o is not a constant function, then it will clearly be
holomorphic, now consider the “function”
1 =
φ
∗
(α)
1 −[o[
2
do
and show that it must be meromorphic, with poles at worst along the zeroes of do.)
E.9.3 167
Bibliography
[A] V. I. Arnol’d, Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, Second Edition,
SpringerVerlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1989.
[AH] M. F. Atiyah and N. Hitchin, The Geometry and Dynamics of Magnetic
Monopoles, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1988.
[Bea] A. Beauville, Vari´et´es K¨ ahleriennes dont la premi`ere classe de Chern est nulle,
J. Diﬀerential Geom. 18 (1983), 755–782.
[Ber] M. Berger, Sur les groupes d’holonomie homog`ene des vari´et´es a connexion aﬃne
et des vari´et´es Riemanniennes, Bull. Soc. Math. France 83 (1955), 279–330.
[Bes] A. Besse, Einstein Manifolds, SpringerVerlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1987.
[Ch] S.S. Chern, On a generalization of K¨ ahler geometry, in Algebraic Geometry and
Topology: A Symposium in Honor of S. Lefshetz, Princeton University Press, 1957,
103–121.
[FGG] M. Fernandez, M. Gotay, and A. Gray, Fourdimensional parallelizable symplec
tic and complex manifolds, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 103 (1988), 1209–1212.
[Fo] A. T. Fomenko, Symplectic Geometry, Gordon and Breach, New York, 1988.
[GL] K. Galicki and H.B. Lawson, Quaternionic Reduction and quaternionic orbifolds,
Math. Ann. 282 (1988), 1–21.
[GG] M. Golubitsky and V. Guillemin , Stable Mappings and their Singularities, Grad
uate Texts in Mathematics 14, SpringerVerlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1973.
[Gr 1] M. Gromov, Pseudoholomorphic curves on almost complex manifolds, Inventiones
Mathematicae 82 (1985), 307–347.
[Gr 2] M. Gromov, Partial Diﬀerential Relations, Ergebnisse der Math., SpringerVerlag,
Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1986.
[Gr 3] M. Gromov, Soft and hard symplectic geometry, Proceedings of the ICM at Berkeley,
1986, 1987, vol. 1, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 81–98.
[GS 1] V. Guillemin and S. Sternberg, Geometric Asymptotics, Mathematical Surveys
14, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1977.
[GS 2] V. Guillemin and S. Sternberg, Symplectic Techniques in Physics, Cambridge
University, Cambridge and New York, 1984.
[GS 3] V. Guillemin and S. Sternberg, Variations on a Theme of Kepler, Colloquium
Publications 42, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1990.
[Ha] R. Hamilton, The inverse function theorem of Nash and Moser, Bulletin of the
AMS 7 (1982), 65–222.
Bib.1 168
[He] S. Helgason, Diﬀerential Geometry, Lie Groups, and Symmetric Spaces, Academic
Press, Princeton, 1978.
[Hi] N. Hitchin, Metrics on moduli spaces, in Contemporary Mathematics 58 (1986),
Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 157–178.
[HKLR] N. Hitchin, A. Karlhede, U. Lindstr¨ om, and M. Roˇ cek, HyperK¨ ahler metrics
and supersymmetry, Comm. Math. Phys. 108 (1987), 535–589.
[Ki] F. Kirwan, Cohomology of Quotients in Symplectic and Algebraic Geometry, Math
ematical Notes 31, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1984.
[KN] S. Kobayashi and K. Nomizu, Foundations of Diﬀerential Geometry, vols. I and II,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1963.
[Kr] P. Kronheimer, The construction of ALE spaces as hyperK¨ ahler quotients, J. Dif
ferential Geometry 29 (1989), 665683.
[La] F. Labourie, Immersions isom´etriques elliptiques et courbes pseudoholomorphes, J.
Diﬀerential Geometry 30 (1989), 395424.
[M 1] D. McDuff, Symplectic diﬀeomorphisms and the ﬂux homomorphism, Inventiones
Mathematicae 77 (1984), 353–366.
[M 2] D. McDuff, Examples of simplyconnected symplectic nonK¨ ahlerian manifolds,
J. Diﬀerential Geom. 20 (1984), 267–277.
[M 3] D. McDuff, Examples of symplectic structures, Inventiones Mathematicae 89 (1987),
13–36.
[M 4] D. McDuff, Symplectic 4manifolds, Proceedings of the ICM at Kyoto, 1990, to
appear
[M 5] D. McDuff, Elliptic methods in symplectic geometry, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 23
(1990), 311–358.
[MS] J. Milnor and J. Stasheff, Characteristic Classes, Annals of Math. Studies 76,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1974.
[Mo] J. Moser, On the volume element on manifolds, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 120
(1965), 280–296.
[Pa] P. Pansu, Pseudoholomorphic curves in symplectic manifolds, preprint,
´
Ecole Poly
technique, Palaiseau, 1986.
[Po] I. Postnikov, Groupes et alg`ebras de Lie, (French translation of the Russian original),
´
Editions Mir, Moscow 1985.
[Sa] S. Salamon, Riemannian geometry and holonomy groups, Pitman Research Notes in
Math. no. 201, Longman scientiﬁc & Technical, Essex, 1989.
[Si] Y. T. Siu, Every K3 surface is K¨ ahler, Inventiones Math. 73 (1983), 139–150.
Bib.2 169
[SS] I. Singer and S. Sternberg, The inﬁnite groups of Lie and Cartan, I (The transitive
groups), Journal d’Analyse 15 (1965).
[Wa] F. Warner, Foundations of Diﬀerentiable Manifolds and Lie Groups, Springer
Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1983.
[We] A. Weinstein, Lectures on Symplectic Manifolds, Regional Conference Series in
Mathematics 29, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1976.
[Wo] J. Wolfson, Gromov’s compactness of pseudoholomorphic curves and symplectic
geometry, J. Diﬀerential Geom. 28 (1988), 383–405.
[Ye] R. Ye, Gromov’s compactness theorem for pseudoholomorphic curves, Transactions
of the AMS , to appear.
Bib.3 170
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.