Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,873 answers , 20,701 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
502 active unimported users
More ...

Connectedness of $O(3)$ group manifold

+ 4 like - 0 dislike
1053 views

A topological space is said to be connected if it cannot be written as $X=X_1\cup X_2$, where $X_1,X_2$ are both open and $X_1\cap X_2=\emptyset$. Otherwise, X is called disconnected.

Is it wrong to write $$O(3)=SO(3)\cup O(3)^{det=-1}$$ where $O(3)^{det=-1}$ are those elements of $O(3)$ with determinant $=-1$.

EDIT : 1. Should the disconnectedness be understood in terms of non-existence of a continuous path in the manifold that interpolates between these two sets?

  1. Is there a way to show that, starting from identity, by a continuous change of group parameters, along a certain path in the manifold, I can reach all elements of $SO(3)$ but not those of $O(3)^{det=-1}$.
This post imported from StackExchange Mathematics at 2014-10-05 10:06 (UTC), posted by SE-user Roopam Sinha
asked Oct 5, 2014 in Mathematics by Roopam Sinha (25 points) [ no revision ]

3 Answers

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

No, it is not wrong to write that, you're spot on the mark; therefore, your conclusion is right. Your example has an interesting generalisation beyond $O(3)$ and indeed beyone Lie groups as the following is true for all topological groups. For a topological group $\mathfrak{G}$, the "identity component" $\mathfrak{G}_\mathrm{id}$ (i.e. the connected component of the group with the identity in it) is always:

  1. Clopen (closed and open at once), therefore, by the connectedness argument, the whole group $\mathfrak{G}$ is connected if and only if $\mathfrak{G}_\mathrm{id}$ is a proper subset of $\mathfrak{G}$;
  2. A normal subgroup of $\mathfrak{G}$, therefore the connected components of $\mathfrak{G}$ are precisely $\mathfrak{G}_\mathrm{id}$ and its cosets.

See the discussion as Theorem 9.31 on my website here of this situation. Mine is a retelling of this slick little proof that I found a long time ago in

Sagle, A. A. and Walde, R. E., “Introduction to Lie Groups and Lie Algebras“, Academic Press, New York, 1973. §3.3

This is widely known, BTW, but it's a little pearl of a proof, showing how powerful the connectedness argument is. I still enjoy reading it, just like I still like listening to "Walk Like an Egyptian" (for me, they come from about the same time of life!)

In your example, $\mathfrak{G}=O(3)$, the identity component is the smallest Lie group containing $\exp(\mathfrak{g})$, where $\mathfrak{g}=\operatorname{Lie}(\mathfrak{G}) = \mathfrak{so}(3)$; indeed, in this compact case, $\mathfrak{G}_\mathrm{id}=\exp(\mathfrak{g})$ is the whole connected component (in noncompact groups, e.g. $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$, the identity component is strictly bigger than $\exp(\mathfrak{g})$). $\mathfrak{so}(3)$ is of course the Lie algebra of skew-symmetric, real $3\times 3$ matrices and, since $\det(\exp(H)) = \exp(\mathrm{tr}(H))=1$ for any such matrix $H$, we see that $SO(3)$ is the whole of $\mathfrak{G}_\mathrm{id}$. It is a normal subgroup of $O(3)$, and the group of cosets is simply $O(3)/SO(3)\cong\{+1,\,-1\}\cong\mathbb{Z}_2$, which is another way of writing your decomposition.

Answer to edit 1: For manifolds, which are locally Euclidean (locally homeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^N$) path connectedness and connectedness are the same notion. Moreover, path connectedness always implies connectedness (to prove this, assume otherwise and let $\alpha,\,\beta\in\mathbb{X}$ belong to separate connected components $\mathbb{U},\,\mathbb{U}^\sim$ linked by path $\sigma:[0,\,1]\to\mathbb{X}$ where $\mathbb{X}$ is the topological space in question and $\mathbb{X}=\mathbb{U}\bigcup\mathbb{U}^\sim$. By assumption (path connectedness), $\sigma$ is continuous when $[0,\,1]$ has its wonted topology. But $\mathbb{U},\,\mathbb{U}^\sim$ are disjoint, therefore so is $\mathbb{V}=\sigma([0,\,1])\bigcap\mathbb{X}$, so the inverse image $\sigma^{-1}(\mathbb{V})$, namely $[0,\,1]$, must also be the union of disjoint open sets, contradicting the known connectedness of $[0,\,1]$). However, not all connected topological spaces are path connected (look up the weird "topologist's Sine Curve" as a counterexample).

Answer to Edit 2. We have actually already done this above, because every matrix in $SO(3)$ can be written as a $\exp(H)$, where $H\in\mathfrak{so}(3)$, so you can take your path to be $\sigma:[0,\,1]\to SO(3);\;\sigma(\tau) = e^{\tau\,H}$. To prove that every $SO(3)$ matrix can be written in this was from first principles, simply witness that $\gamma\in SO(3)$ is normal, i.e. commutes with its Hermitian transpose and thus always has a diagonalisation with orthonormal eigenvectors, so $\exists U\ni\,\gamma=U\,\Lambda\,U^\dagger$, where $\Lambda$ is the diagonal matrix of eigenvalues, none of which are nought ($SO(3)$ is a group). Thus, you can always define $\log\gamma = H = U\,\log\Lambda\,U^\dagger$, and you are done.

Note that this does not work for $O(3)$, because now $H$, even though definable as $H = \log \gamma$, $H$ now has diagonal elements if $\gamma\not\in SO(3)$, so $H\not\in\mathfrak{so}(3)$ and you can't find a path through $O(3)$'s charts, because $\mathfrak{so}(3)$ is the Lie algebra of $O(3)$ as well.

This post imported from StackExchange Mathematics at 2014-10-05 10:06 (UTC), posted by SE-user WetSavannaAnimal aka Rod Vance
answered Oct 5, 2014 by WetSavannaAnimal (485 points) [ no revision ]
The question I asked is wrong as pointed out by Red Act, I think. I will modify the question.

This post imported from StackExchange Mathematics at 2014-10-05 10:06 (UTC), posted by SE-user Roopam Sinha
@Roopam I've modified my answer

This post imported from StackExchange Mathematics at 2014-10-05 10:06 (UTC), posted by SE-user WetSavannaAnimal aka Rod Vance
+ 1 like - 0 dislike

Here is a very easy mathematical proof that $O(n,\mathbb{R})$ i.e set of all $n\times n$ real orthogonal matrices is disconnected.

Standard Result 1: $ f: M_n(\mathbb{R})\to \mathbb{R}$ given by $f(A)=\det A$ is continuous map.

Standard Result 2: $f:A\to B$ continuous map, if $A$ is connected or $X\subseteq A$ is connected then $f(A)$ is connected and also $f(X)$ is connected in $B$

Now consider $O(n,\mathbb{R})\subseteq M_n(\mathbb{R})$ and suppose it is connected set. so by $\det$ map from $M_n(\mathbb{R})\to \mathbb{R}$ image set must be connected in $\mathbb{R}$, but what is the image set under $\det$ map of $O(n,\mathbb{R})$? it is just $\{+1,-1\}$ which is a disconnected set so we get a contradiction.

This post imported from StackExchange Mathematics at 2014-10-05 10:06 (UTC), posted by SE-user Une Femme Douce
answered Oct 5, 2014 by Une Femme Douce (-10 points) [ no revision ]
+ 0 like - 0 dislike

A topological space is connected if it cannot be written as $X=X_1\cup X_2$, where $X_1,X_2$ are both open and $X_1\cap X_2=\emptyset$. But you've just written $O(3)$ as a union, and

$$SO(3)\cap O(3)^{det=-1} =\emptyset\ ,$$

so $O(3)$ is not a connected topological space, due to that overlooked word "cannot" in the definition.

This post imported from StackExchange Mathematics at 2014-10-05 10:06 (UTC), posted by SE-user Red Act
answered Oct 5, 2014 by Red Act (10 points) [ no revision ]
You are right. I had something else in mind. I will modify the post.

This post imported from StackExchange Mathematics at 2014-10-05 10:06 (UTC), posted by SE-user Roopam Sinha

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsOv$\varnothing$rflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...