User Tools

Site Tools


math214:final-solution

Final Solution

\gdef\gfrak{\mathfrak g}

First, I have to admit that I stealed some problems from Prof Valentino Tosatti's final problems, with some modifications (problem 1,2,3). Here is his course website and the final with solution.

I will write not below the most concise solution, but some remark and explanations along the way.

Problem 1

1. (15 pt) Let GG be a Lie group, g=TeG\gfrak = T_e G its Lie algebra. Let TGTG be identified with G×gG \times \gfrak by G×gTG,(g,X)(Lg)X G \times \gfrak \to TG, \quad (g, X) \mapsto (L_g)_* X Endow TGTG with the natural induced Lie group structure, ρ:TG×TGTG\rho: TG \times TG \to TG such that if γ1,γ2:(ϵ,ϵ)G\gamma_1, \gamma_2: (-\epsilon, \epsilon) \to G are two curves in GG, then ρ(γ˙1(0),γ˙2(0))=(d/dt)t=0(γ1(t)γ2(t)). \rho(\dot \gamma_1(0), \dot \gamma_2(0)) = (d/dt)|_{t=0} (\gamma_1(t) \gamma_2(t)). Write down the product law of TGTG using identification with G×gG \times \gfrak, i.e. (g,X)(h,Y)=? (g, X) \cdot (h, Y) = ?

Solution: First consider the product of curves getXhetY=ghh1etXhetY, g e^{t X} h e^{t Y} = gh \cdot h^{-1} e^{t X} h e^{t Y}, this is a curve passing through point ghGgh \in G at t=0t=0. We use left-multiplication by (gh)1(gh)^{-1} to pull-back this curve so that it passes through ee at t=0t=0, then take its derivative ddtt=0(h1etXhetY)=Adh1X+Y \frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0} (h^{-1} e^{t X} h e^{t Y}) = Ad_{h^{-1}} X + Y where we used Lebniz rule. If you wish, you can think of this as matrix multiplication, i.e., pretend X,YX, Y as nn by nn matrices and hh as an invertible matrix.

Problem 2

2. (15 pt) Let C\C acts on Cp\{0}×Cq\{0}\C^p \RM \{0\} \times \C^q \RM \{0\} by t(z1,,zp;w1,,wq)(eitz1,,eitzp;etw1,,etwq) t \cdot (z_1, \cdots, z_p; w_1, \cdots, w_q) \mapsto (e^{it} z_1, \cdots, e^{it} z_p; e^t w_1, \cdots, e^t w_q) Show that the action is free, and the quotient is diffeomorphic to S2p1×S2q1S^{2p-1} \times S^{2q-1}.

Solution: See Tosatti's solution above.

Problem 3

3. (20 pt) Let MM be a smooth manifold, \nabla be a connection on TMTM. Recall the torsion is defined as T:TM×TMTM,T(X,Y)=XYYX[X,Y]. T: TM \times TM \to TM, \quad T(X, Y) = \nabla_X Y - \nabla_Y X - [X, Y].

  • (10 pt) Show that the following formula defines a new connection ~XY=XY(1/2)T(X,Y)\widetilde \nabla_X Y = \nabla_X Y - (1/2) T(X, Y) where X,YX, Y are any vector fields.
  • (5 pt) Show that the new connection is torsionless.
  • (5 pt) Let GG be a Lie group. Let \nabla be the flat connection on TGTG where the left-invariant vector fields are flat sections. Compute the torsion of this connection.

Solution: For part 1 and 2, see Tosatti's solution above. For part 3, we first need to recall that the torsion tensor T(,)T(- , -) is C(M)C^\infty(M) linear in both slots, i.e., for whatever vector fields X,YX, Y, and smooth functions f,gf,g, we always have T(fX,gY)=fgT(X,Y) T(fX, gY) = fg T(X, Y) in other words, T(X,Y)pT(X, Y)|_p only depends on the value of the vector fields XpX|_p and YpY|_p pointwise at pp, not depends on how XX and YY varies near pp. This is what it means to be a tensor (see Lee or Nicolascu for the discussion).

Hence, if someone write T(X,Y)=[X,Y]T(X, Y) = -[X, Y] for any vector field XX and YY, then it is automatically wrong, because [fX,gY]fg[X,Y]-[fX, gY] \neq -fg [X, Y].

For a point pGp \in G, to specify that TpT_p is, we only need to ask how TpT_p acts on two basis vectors in TpGT_p G. Let E1,,EnE_1, \cdots, E_n be a set of basis vectors in TeGT_e G, we extend them to be a left-invariant vector fields X1,,XnX_1, \cdots, X_n on GG, then {Xip}\{X_i|_p\} is a basis on TpGT_p G. We have then Tp(Xip,Xjp)=T(Xi,Xj)p=(Xi(Xj)Xj(Xi)[Xi,Xj])p=[Xi,Xj]p. T_p (X_i|_p, X_j|_p) = T(X_i, X_j)|_p = (\nabla_{X_i}(X_j) - \nabla_{X_j}(X_i) - [X_i, X_j] )|_p = - [X_i, X_j]|_p. Here, these Xi(Xj)\nabla_{X_i}(X_j) term vanishes because XjX_j is a flat section with respect to the connection \nabla.

Problem 4

4.(15 pt) Let π:S3S2\pi: S^3 \to S^2 the Hopf fibration. Let ω\omega be a 2-form on S2S^2 such that [ω]H2(S2)[\omega] \in H^2(S^2) is non-zero.

  • (10 pt) Show that there exists a 1-form αΩ1(S3)\alpha \in \Omega^1(S^3), such that dα=πω. d\alpha = \pi^* \omega.
  • (5 pt) Suppose ω\omega is the volume form on S2S^2 from the round metric, can you give an explicit construction of such an α\alpha on S3S^3, and αdα\alpha \wedge d\alpha is a non-vanishing 3-form on S3S^3?

Solution: part (1) should be easy, since π(ω)\pi^*(\omega) is a closed 2-form in Ω2(S3)\Omega^2(S^3). Since H2(S3)=0H^2(S^3)=0, hence closed 2-form are also exact, that means, there exist some α\alpha such that dα=πωd \alpha = \pi^* \omega.

part (2) is kind of evil, admittedly. If you sit down and take a piece of paper and take coordinates on S2S^2 and S3S^3, you may still not be able to find the answer. The answer is α=(x1dx2x2dx1+x3dx4x4dx3)S3 \alpha = (x_1 dx_2 - x_2 dx_1 + x_3 dx_4 - x_4 d x_3)|_{S^3} where xix_i are coordinate on R4\R^4, and we restrict this one-form to S3S^3.

The reason that I put this problem here is to introduce a few concepts: (… is final exam a good place to introduce new concepts? anyway..)

  • contact structure and symplectic structure. ω\omega is a symplectic two-form on S2S^2, and α\alpha is a contact 1-form on S3S^3. see wiki page and here
  • There is a general story of Kahler quantization or geometric quantization behind the scene. Read about it from John Baez.

And one remark: the word 'non-vanishing' means the 3-form αdα\alpha \wedge d\alpha is non-zero at each point pS3p \in S^3.

Problem 5

5. (10 pt) Let (M,g)(M, g) be a Riemannian manifold, a closed geodesic is a geodesic γ:[0,1]M\gamma: [0, 1] \to M such that γ(0)=γ(1)\gamma(0)=\gamma(1) and γ˙(0)=γ˙(1)\dot \gamma(0) = \dot \gamma(1).

  • (7 pt) Let MM be a genus g1g\geq 1 surface, smooth, compact without boundary, orientable 2-dimensional manifold and gg any smooth Riemannian metric. Is it true that there is always exists a closed geodesic on MM?
  • (3 pt) Let M=S2M = S^2 and gg any smooth Riemannian metric. Is it true that there is always exists a closed geodesic on MM? Try your best to give an argument.

Solution: (a) If a manifold MM has a non-trivial π1(M)\pi_1(M), ie., there exists a loop on MM that cannot shrink to a point, then we can take that loop, shrink it as much as possible, then we get a geodesic. The condition on g1g \geq 1 is to ensure that π1(M)\pi_1(M) is non-trivial.

(b) Of course, you can use google to get '3 geodesic theorem' and the Lyusternik–Fet theorem. But it is more fun to come up with some sketch of idea yourself. Recall, if the metric on S2S^2 is the round metric, then great circles are geodesic, however it is unstable, and a slight perturbation will make it either slip off to the left or to the right. But in general, how to look for the analog of great circle?

The idea is to consider an interval worth of loops, parametrized by s[0,1]s \in [0,1], for example, take various horizontal slices of the S2={x2+y2+z2=1}S^2=\{x^2+y^2+z^2=1\}, where s=0s=0 corresponds to the constant loop at south-pole, s=1s=1 the constant loop at north pole, and s=1/2s=1/2 the equator. Of course, for generic metric, the equator will not be a geodesic. Then, we try to 'pull the rope taut' simultaneously for all the loops, or run the 'curve-shortening-flow' on the free loop space L(S2):=Map(S1,S2)L(S^2):=Map(S^1, S^2). The point is that, there will be some loop that 'hangs' in the middle, and do not shrink to a point.

OK, now what about S3S^3? To learn this subject properly, one can read this book Lectures on Closed Geodesics.

Problem 6

6. (15 pt) Let KR3K \In \R^3 be a knot, that is, a smooth embedded submanifold in R3\R^3 diffeomorphic to S1S^1.

  • (10 pt) Can you construct a geodesically complete metric on M=R3\KM = \R^3 \RM K? i.e. a metric such that for any pMp \in M, vTpMv \in T_p M, the geodesics with initial condition (p,v)(p,v) exists for inifinite long time? Describe your construction explicitly.
  • (5 pt) Assume such metric exists, prove that for any point pMp \in M, there are infinitely many distinct geodesics γ:[0,1]M\gamma: [0,1] \to M with γ(0)=γ(1)=p\gamma(0)=\gamma(1)=p.

Solution: One can make the metric blow-up near the knot KK, so that the distance to the knot will be \infty. How to make that happen? Consider how to put a metric on the open interval (0,1)(0, 1) to make the metric complete? We can write g=f(x)dx2 g = f(x) dx^2 for some smooth function f(x)>0f(x) > 0 on (0,1)(0,1), and we want to make sure 01/2f(x)dx=,1/21f(x)dx=\int_0^{1/2} \sqrt{f(x)} dx = \infty, \quad \int_{1/2}^1 \sqrt{f(x)} dx = \infty Then, if you recall that 0ϵ(1/x)dx=\int_0^\epsilon (1/x) dx = \infty, then you can cook up some f(x)f(x) so that f(x)1/x2f(x) \sim 1/x^2 near x=0x=0 and f(x)1/(1x)2f(x) \sim 1/(1-x)^2 near x=1x=1. (Of course, to feel safe, you can let f(x)1/xpf(x) \sim 1/|x|^p for p>2p > 2 near x=0x=0).

part (2) again is about π1(R3\K)\pi_1(\R^3 \RM K) being non-trivial. Similar to problem 5 part (a).

Problem 7

7. (10 pt) Let G=SU(2)G = SU(2). Let L\nabla^{L} (resp. R\nabla^{R}) be the flat connection on TGTG, where the flat sections are left (resp. right)-invariant vector fields. Prove that there is no 1-parameter family of flat connections (t)\nabla^{(t)} connecting L\nabla^{L} and R\nabla^{R}, i.e. (0)=L\nabla^{(0)} = \nabla^{L} and (1)=R\nabla^{(1)} = \nabla^{R}

Solution: Let's consider a general Lie group GG first. Given an element ETeG=:gE \in T_e G =: \gfrak, then we can locally extend EE to flat section XX in a open neighborhood of ee, using parallel transport. If furthermore GG is simply connected, then we can get global flat sections XX extending EE. By replacing GG with its universal cover, we may assume GG is simply connected. Then, we have

Lemma: If GG is simply connected, then we have a bijection of sets \{ \z{Flat connections on TGTG} \} \leftrightarrow \{ \z{ trivializations Φ:TGG×g\Phi: TG \to G \times \gfrak , such that Φ\Phi on TeGT_e G is the identity map. \} Both space has natural topology (for example, the space of flat section induce topology from the space of all connections) and this above bijection is actually a homeomorphism.

Then, finding a path connecting left and right flat connection L\nabla^L and R\nabla^R is equivalent to finding a path Φt\Phi_t between left and right trivializations ΦL\Phi^L and ΦR\Phi^R of TGTG. Consider the 'difference' of two trivializations: ΦtΦ01:G×gG×g \Phi_t \circ \Phi_0^{-1}: G \times \gfrak \to G \times \gfrak that fixes the GG slot, and is linear on the g\gfrak slot. Hence we get a family of maps φt:GGL(g) \varphi_t: G \to GL(\gfrak) such that φ0\varphi_0 is the constant map GG to IdGL(g)Id \in GL(\gfrak), and φ1:GGL(g)\varphi_1: G \to GL(\gfrak) is the adjoint representation Ad:GGL(g)Ad: G \to GL(\gfrak). Then the question boils down to: is the adjoint representation homotopic to the constant map?

We claim that, in the case G=SU(2)G = SU(2) (or more generally compact semi-simple Lie group), there is a non-trivial ω3Ω3(GL(g))\omega_3 \in \Omega^3( GL(\gfrak)) , such that φ1(ω3)\varphi_1^*(\omega_3) is the Cartan 3-form (up to a constant) (see Nicolascu page 280, Prop 7.4.21, or Homework 12). Since the cohomology class of [φt(ω3)][\varphi_t^*(\omega_3)] should be invariant, hence [φt(ω3)]0[\varphi_t^*(\omega_3) ] \neq 0 in H3(SU(2))H^3(SU(2)), which contradict with φ0\varphi_0 being a constant map. Thus, the map Ad:GGL(g)Ad: G \to GL(\gfrak) is not homotopic to a constant map.

The form ω3\omega_3 on GL(RN)GL(\R^N) can be defined as following ω3:=tr(g1dgg1dgg1dg). \omega_3 := tr( g^{-1} dg \wedge g^{-1} dg \wedge g^{-1} dg).


Some of you tried to construct a linear interpolation of connections t=tL+(1t)R\nabla_t = t \nabla^L + (1-t) \nabla^R, and find that it is not flat for t(0,1)t \in (0,1). That is only circusmstancial evidence that there are no path within flat connections between L\nabla^L and R\nabla^R, but not a proof.

Afterwords

This final has some challenging problems, e.g. problem 4-b, 5-b, 7. Hence it is OK if you find it hard, or cannot do all the problems. I hope this final is thought-provoking enough. And I also hope this class serves as a beginning as a journey to the wonderful subject. Eventually, what matters is the discussion, the examples, the intuitions and the guesses (and of course theorems and proofs).

math214/final-solution.txt · Last modified: 2020/05/17 16:23 by pzhou