Lie group structure on the complex projective space












3














There is a famous theorem about when $S^n$ has the structure of a Lie group. What about the complex projective space $mathbb CP^n$? For example, why $mathbb CP^2$ is not a Lie group (without using classification for low dimension compact Lie groups)?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 7




    It is an amusing observation that a polynomial $f$ over $Bbb C$ that does not split into linear factors gives a non-trivial finite field extension $F/Bbb C$, and $Bbb P(F) = Bbb CP^{dim F - 1}$ is then a commutative positive-dimensional Lie group, and so the proofs below give as a corollary the fundamental theorem of algebra.
    – Mike Miller
    Dec 17 at 3:21










  • @MikeMiller: Could I ask what makes it amusing?! (I'm not a mathematician...)
    – Mehrdad
    Dec 17 at 9:02








  • 2




    @Mehrdad I'll let Mike answer for himself, but personally, I think that such a sophisticated and conceptual proof (it involves field extensions, Lie groups, algebraic topology) for such a simple-looking result (any non-constant complex polynomial has a root) is amusing. And it doesn't really use any analysis!
    – Najib Idrissi
    2 days ago








  • 1




    @Mehrdad There are many proofs of FTA, most of which are much faster routes to the actual theorem. This is one that requires the technical input of algebraic topology (or by a different proof, the Lie-theoretic notion of exponential map and some easier algebraic topology) for a concise and fully topological argument.
    – Mike Miller
    yesterday


















3














There is a famous theorem about when $S^n$ has the structure of a Lie group. What about the complex projective space $mathbb CP^n$? For example, why $mathbb CP^2$ is not a Lie group (without using classification for low dimension compact Lie groups)?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 7




    It is an amusing observation that a polynomial $f$ over $Bbb C$ that does not split into linear factors gives a non-trivial finite field extension $F/Bbb C$, and $Bbb P(F) = Bbb CP^{dim F - 1}$ is then a commutative positive-dimensional Lie group, and so the proofs below give as a corollary the fundamental theorem of algebra.
    – Mike Miller
    Dec 17 at 3:21










  • @MikeMiller: Could I ask what makes it amusing?! (I'm not a mathematician...)
    – Mehrdad
    Dec 17 at 9:02








  • 2




    @Mehrdad I'll let Mike answer for himself, but personally, I think that such a sophisticated and conceptual proof (it involves field extensions, Lie groups, algebraic topology) for such a simple-looking result (any non-constant complex polynomial has a root) is amusing. And it doesn't really use any analysis!
    – Najib Idrissi
    2 days ago








  • 1




    @Mehrdad There are many proofs of FTA, most of which are much faster routes to the actual theorem. This is one that requires the technical input of algebraic topology (or by a different proof, the Lie-theoretic notion of exponential map and some easier algebraic topology) for a concise and fully topological argument.
    – Mike Miller
    yesterday
















3












3








3







There is a famous theorem about when $S^n$ has the structure of a Lie group. What about the complex projective space $mathbb CP^n$? For example, why $mathbb CP^2$ is not a Lie group (without using classification for low dimension compact Lie groups)?










share|cite|improve this question















There is a famous theorem about when $S^n$ has the structure of a Lie group. What about the complex projective space $mathbb CP^n$? For example, why $mathbb CP^2$ is not a Lie group (without using classification for low dimension compact Lie groups)?







algebraic-topology lie-groups projective-space






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 17 at 3:22









Eric Wofsey

178k12202330




178k12202330










asked Dec 17 at 2:55









zzy

2,3321419




2,3321419








  • 7




    It is an amusing observation that a polynomial $f$ over $Bbb C$ that does not split into linear factors gives a non-trivial finite field extension $F/Bbb C$, and $Bbb P(F) = Bbb CP^{dim F - 1}$ is then a commutative positive-dimensional Lie group, and so the proofs below give as a corollary the fundamental theorem of algebra.
    – Mike Miller
    Dec 17 at 3:21










  • @MikeMiller: Could I ask what makes it amusing?! (I'm not a mathematician...)
    – Mehrdad
    Dec 17 at 9:02








  • 2




    @Mehrdad I'll let Mike answer for himself, but personally, I think that such a sophisticated and conceptual proof (it involves field extensions, Lie groups, algebraic topology) for such a simple-looking result (any non-constant complex polynomial has a root) is amusing. And it doesn't really use any analysis!
    – Najib Idrissi
    2 days ago








  • 1




    @Mehrdad There are many proofs of FTA, most of which are much faster routes to the actual theorem. This is one that requires the technical input of algebraic topology (or by a different proof, the Lie-theoretic notion of exponential map and some easier algebraic topology) for a concise and fully topological argument.
    – Mike Miller
    yesterday
















  • 7




    It is an amusing observation that a polynomial $f$ over $Bbb C$ that does not split into linear factors gives a non-trivial finite field extension $F/Bbb C$, and $Bbb P(F) = Bbb CP^{dim F - 1}$ is then a commutative positive-dimensional Lie group, and so the proofs below give as a corollary the fundamental theorem of algebra.
    – Mike Miller
    Dec 17 at 3:21










  • @MikeMiller: Could I ask what makes it amusing?! (I'm not a mathematician...)
    – Mehrdad
    Dec 17 at 9:02








  • 2




    @Mehrdad I'll let Mike answer for himself, but personally, I think that such a sophisticated and conceptual proof (it involves field extensions, Lie groups, algebraic topology) for such a simple-looking result (any non-constant complex polynomial has a root) is amusing. And it doesn't really use any analysis!
    – Najib Idrissi
    2 days ago








  • 1




    @Mehrdad There are many proofs of FTA, most of which are much faster routes to the actual theorem. This is one that requires the technical input of algebraic topology (or by a different proof, the Lie-theoretic notion of exponential map and some easier algebraic topology) for a concise and fully topological argument.
    – Mike Miller
    yesterday










7




7




It is an amusing observation that a polynomial $f$ over $Bbb C$ that does not split into linear factors gives a non-trivial finite field extension $F/Bbb C$, and $Bbb P(F) = Bbb CP^{dim F - 1}$ is then a commutative positive-dimensional Lie group, and so the proofs below give as a corollary the fundamental theorem of algebra.
– Mike Miller
Dec 17 at 3:21




It is an amusing observation that a polynomial $f$ over $Bbb C$ that does not split into linear factors gives a non-trivial finite field extension $F/Bbb C$, and $Bbb P(F) = Bbb CP^{dim F - 1}$ is then a commutative positive-dimensional Lie group, and so the proofs below give as a corollary the fundamental theorem of algebra.
– Mike Miller
Dec 17 at 3:21












@MikeMiller: Could I ask what makes it amusing?! (I'm not a mathematician...)
– Mehrdad
Dec 17 at 9:02






@MikeMiller: Could I ask what makes it amusing?! (I'm not a mathematician...)
– Mehrdad
Dec 17 at 9:02






2




2




@Mehrdad I'll let Mike answer for himself, but personally, I think that such a sophisticated and conceptual proof (it involves field extensions, Lie groups, algebraic topology) for such a simple-looking result (any non-constant complex polynomial has a root) is amusing. And it doesn't really use any analysis!
– Najib Idrissi
2 days ago






@Mehrdad I'll let Mike answer for himself, but personally, I think that such a sophisticated and conceptual proof (it involves field extensions, Lie groups, algebraic topology) for such a simple-looking result (any non-constant complex polynomial has a root) is amusing. And it doesn't really use any analysis!
– Najib Idrissi
2 days ago






1




1




@Mehrdad There are many proofs of FTA, most of which are much faster routes to the actual theorem. This is one that requires the technical input of algebraic topology (or by a different proof, the Lie-theoretic notion of exponential map and some easier algebraic topology) for a concise and fully topological argument.
– Mike Miller
yesterday






@Mehrdad There are many proofs of FTA, most of which are much faster routes to the actual theorem. This is one that requires the technical input of algebraic topology (or by a different proof, the Lie-theoretic notion of exponential map and some easier algebraic topology) for a concise and fully topological argument.
– Mike Miller
yesterday












4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















6














$mathbb{CP}^n$ has Euler characteristic $n+1$, but a compact (positive-dimensional) Lie group has Euler characteristic $0$, for example by the Lefschetz fixed point theorem.



Alternatively, you can show in various ways that the rational cohomology ring of a compact Lie group must be an exterior algebra on a finite number of odd generators. But $H^{bullet}(mathbb{CP}^n, mathbb{Q})$ is concentrated in even degrees, so doesn't admit odd generators.






share|cite|improve this answer





























    3














    A complex projective space (of positive dimension) never admits a Lie group structure. There are lots of ways to prove this. For instance, the rational cohomology ring of any Lie group is a graded Hopf algebra (the comultiplication coming from the group operation) but the cohomology ring $mathbb{Q}[x]/(x^{n+1})$ of $mathbb{CP}^n$ does not admit a Hopf algebra structure. Indeed, for reasons of degree, $Delta(x)$ would have to be $xotimes 1+1otimes x$ but then $Delta(x^n)=Delta(x)^n=sum_{k=0}^n binom{n}{k} x^kotimes x^{n-k}$ would be nonzero (all the terms except $k=0$ and $k=n$ are nonzero), which is a contradiction.






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • Can you talk a bit about the Hopf structure on the cohomology ring? The "standard" way I've seen to get a Hopf algebra out of a Lie group is to consider the universal enveloping algebra of its Lie algebra, but this is obviously coarser. Are the two related in any way?
      – Ashwin Trisal
      Dec 17 at 3:48






    • 1




      It's very simple: if $G$ is a topological group, the multiplication $mu:Gtimes Gto G$ gives a map $mu^*: H^*(G)to H^*(Gtimes G)cong H^*(G)otimes H^*(G)$ (here cohomology is with coefficients in a field to get the latter isomorphism), and the group axioms for $mu$ say exactly that $mu^*$ is the comultiplication of a Hopf algebra structure on $H^*(G)$. I don't know of any connection to the universal enveloping algebra (there may be one but it would have to be fairly indirect).
      – Eric Wofsey
      Dec 17 at 3:54










    • $H^*(G;mathbb{Q})$ is the universal enveloping algebra of the Lie algebra given by $pi_*(Omega G) otimes_mathbb{Z} mathbb{Q}$ (with Whitehead product, which is trivial here). But of course the Lie algebra involved isn't $mathfrak{g} = T_e G$...
      – Najib Idrissi
      2 days ago












    • @Najib: I think you want $H_{bullet}(Omega G, mathbb{Q})$ there.
      – Qiaochu Yuan
      2 days ago



















    2














    $pi_2(mathbb{C}P^n)$ is $mathbb{Z}$ and $pi_2(G)$ is trivial where $G$ is a connected Lie group.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_projective_space#Homotopy_groups



    https://mathoverflow.net/questions/8957/homotopy-groups-of-lie-groups






    share|cite|improve this answer





























      2














      You can actually generalise everything in the question to show that $mathbb{C}P^n$ ($1leq n<infty$) cannot even admit a Hopf structure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-space). And one way to see this is to demonstrate the existence of a non-trivial Whitehead product in $pi_*mathbb{C}P^n$. I'll point out that you already have fantastic answers, and most of them can be generalised directly to cover this case. This answer is only supposed to add another perspective.



      Recall the quotient map $gamma_n:S^{2n+1}rightarrow mathbb{C}P^n$ and the fact that it induces isomorphisms on $pi_*$ for $*>2$. In particular $gamma_{n*}:pi_{4n+1}S^{2n+1}xrightarrow{cong}pi_{4n+1}mathbb{C}P^n$ is an isomorphism that takes the Whitehead square $omega_{2n+1}=[iota_{2n+1},iota_{2n+1}]inpi_{4n+1}S^{2n+1}$ to the Whitehead product



      $$gamma_{n*}omega_{2n+1}=[gamma_n,gamma_n]inpi_{4n+1}mathbb{C}P^n.$$



      It is classical fact related to the Hopf invariant one problem that for odd $k$, $omega_k$ vanishes exactly when $k=1,3$ or $7$. Therefore, since $gamma_{n*}$ is an isomorphism, $[gamma_n,gamma_n]$ is non-zero in $pi_{4n+1}mathbb{C}P^n$ as long as $nneq 1,3$. Now $mathbb{C}P^1cong S^2$ is not an $H$-space exactly because of Adam's solution to the Hopf invariant one problem (and more in line with the current trail of thought, $[iota_2,iota_2]=-2etainpi_3S^2$).



      Therefore we single out $mathbb{C}P^3$ as the interesting case for which this line of reasoning does not apply. In fact all Whitehead products vanish in $mathbb{C}P^3$ (Stasheff: "On homotopy Abelian H-spaces") and $Omega mathbb{C}P^3$ is homotopy commutative. I assure you still that $mathbb{C}P^3$ is not an $H$-space, since either Qiaochu's or Eric's answers for compact Lie groups apply more or less verbatim to finite H-spaces.






      share|cite|improve this answer





















        Your Answer





        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
        return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
        StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
        StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
        });
        });
        }, "mathjax-editing");

        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "69"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: true,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: 10,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });














        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3043483%2flie-group-structure-on-the-complex-projective-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes








        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        6














        $mathbb{CP}^n$ has Euler characteristic $n+1$, but a compact (positive-dimensional) Lie group has Euler characteristic $0$, for example by the Lefschetz fixed point theorem.



        Alternatively, you can show in various ways that the rational cohomology ring of a compact Lie group must be an exterior algebra on a finite number of odd generators. But $H^{bullet}(mathbb{CP}^n, mathbb{Q})$ is concentrated in even degrees, so doesn't admit odd generators.






        share|cite|improve this answer


























          6














          $mathbb{CP}^n$ has Euler characteristic $n+1$, but a compact (positive-dimensional) Lie group has Euler characteristic $0$, for example by the Lefschetz fixed point theorem.



          Alternatively, you can show in various ways that the rational cohomology ring of a compact Lie group must be an exterior algebra on a finite number of odd generators. But $H^{bullet}(mathbb{CP}^n, mathbb{Q})$ is concentrated in even degrees, so doesn't admit odd generators.






          share|cite|improve this answer
























            6












            6








            6






            $mathbb{CP}^n$ has Euler characteristic $n+1$, but a compact (positive-dimensional) Lie group has Euler characteristic $0$, for example by the Lefschetz fixed point theorem.



            Alternatively, you can show in various ways that the rational cohomology ring of a compact Lie group must be an exterior algebra on a finite number of odd generators. But $H^{bullet}(mathbb{CP}^n, mathbb{Q})$ is concentrated in even degrees, so doesn't admit odd generators.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            $mathbb{CP}^n$ has Euler characteristic $n+1$, but a compact (positive-dimensional) Lie group has Euler characteristic $0$, for example by the Lefschetz fixed point theorem.



            Alternatively, you can show in various ways that the rational cohomology ring of a compact Lie group must be an exterior algebra on a finite number of odd generators. But $H^{bullet}(mathbb{CP}^n, mathbb{Q})$ is concentrated in even degrees, so doesn't admit odd generators.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Dec 17 at 3:15









            Qiaochu Yuan

            276k32580918




            276k32580918























                3














                A complex projective space (of positive dimension) never admits a Lie group structure. There are lots of ways to prove this. For instance, the rational cohomology ring of any Lie group is a graded Hopf algebra (the comultiplication coming from the group operation) but the cohomology ring $mathbb{Q}[x]/(x^{n+1})$ of $mathbb{CP}^n$ does not admit a Hopf algebra structure. Indeed, for reasons of degree, $Delta(x)$ would have to be $xotimes 1+1otimes x$ but then $Delta(x^n)=Delta(x)^n=sum_{k=0}^n binom{n}{k} x^kotimes x^{n-k}$ would be nonzero (all the terms except $k=0$ and $k=n$ are nonzero), which is a contradiction.






                share|cite|improve this answer























                • Can you talk a bit about the Hopf structure on the cohomology ring? The "standard" way I've seen to get a Hopf algebra out of a Lie group is to consider the universal enveloping algebra of its Lie algebra, but this is obviously coarser. Are the two related in any way?
                  – Ashwin Trisal
                  Dec 17 at 3:48






                • 1




                  It's very simple: if $G$ is a topological group, the multiplication $mu:Gtimes Gto G$ gives a map $mu^*: H^*(G)to H^*(Gtimes G)cong H^*(G)otimes H^*(G)$ (here cohomology is with coefficients in a field to get the latter isomorphism), and the group axioms for $mu$ say exactly that $mu^*$ is the comultiplication of a Hopf algebra structure on $H^*(G)$. I don't know of any connection to the universal enveloping algebra (there may be one but it would have to be fairly indirect).
                  – Eric Wofsey
                  Dec 17 at 3:54










                • $H^*(G;mathbb{Q})$ is the universal enveloping algebra of the Lie algebra given by $pi_*(Omega G) otimes_mathbb{Z} mathbb{Q}$ (with Whitehead product, which is trivial here). But of course the Lie algebra involved isn't $mathfrak{g} = T_e G$...
                  – Najib Idrissi
                  2 days ago












                • @Najib: I think you want $H_{bullet}(Omega G, mathbb{Q})$ there.
                  – Qiaochu Yuan
                  2 days ago
















                3














                A complex projective space (of positive dimension) never admits a Lie group structure. There are lots of ways to prove this. For instance, the rational cohomology ring of any Lie group is a graded Hopf algebra (the comultiplication coming from the group operation) but the cohomology ring $mathbb{Q}[x]/(x^{n+1})$ of $mathbb{CP}^n$ does not admit a Hopf algebra structure. Indeed, for reasons of degree, $Delta(x)$ would have to be $xotimes 1+1otimes x$ but then $Delta(x^n)=Delta(x)^n=sum_{k=0}^n binom{n}{k} x^kotimes x^{n-k}$ would be nonzero (all the terms except $k=0$ and $k=n$ are nonzero), which is a contradiction.






                share|cite|improve this answer























                • Can you talk a bit about the Hopf structure on the cohomology ring? The "standard" way I've seen to get a Hopf algebra out of a Lie group is to consider the universal enveloping algebra of its Lie algebra, but this is obviously coarser. Are the two related in any way?
                  – Ashwin Trisal
                  Dec 17 at 3:48






                • 1




                  It's very simple: if $G$ is a topological group, the multiplication $mu:Gtimes Gto G$ gives a map $mu^*: H^*(G)to H^*(Gtimes G)cong H^*(G)otimes H^*(G)$ (here cohomology is with coefficients in a field to get the latter isomorphism), and the group axioms for $mu$ say exactly that $mu^*$ is the comultiplication of a Hopf algebra structure on $H^*(G)$. I don't know of any connection to the universal enveloping algebra (there may be one but it would have to be fairly indirect).
                  – Eric Wofsey
                  Dec 17 at 3:54










                • $H^*(G;mathbb{Q})$ is the universal enveloping algebra of the Lie algebra given by $pi_*(Omega G) otimes_mathbb{Z} mathbb{Q}$ (with Whitehead product, which is trivial here). But of course the Lie algebra involved isn't $mathfrak{g} = T_e G$...
                  – Najib Idrissi
                  2 days ago












                • @Najib: I think you want $H_{bullet}(Omega G, mathbb{Q})$ there.
                  – Qiaochu Yuan
                  2 days ago














                3












                3








                3






                A complex projective space (of positive dimension) never admits a Lie group structure. There are lots of ways to prove this. For instance, the rational cohomology ring of any Lie group is a graded Hopf algebra (the comultiplication coming from the group operation) but the cohomology ring $mathbb{Q}[x]/(x^{n+1})$ of $mathbb{CP}^n$ does not admit a Hopf algebra structure. Indeed, for reasons of degree, $Delta(x)$ would have to be $xotimes 1+1otimes x$ but then $Delta(x^n)=Delta(x)^n=sum_{k=0}^n binom{n}{k} x^kotimes x^{n-k}$ would be nonzero (all the terms except $k=0$ and $k=n$ are nonzero), which is a contradiction.






                share|cite|improve this answer














                A complex projective space (of positive dimension) never admits a Lie group structure. There are lots of ways to prove this. For instance, the rational cohomology ring of any Lie group is a graded Hopf algebra (the comultiplication coming from the group operation) but the cohomology ring $mathbb{Q}[x]/(x^{n+1})$ of $mathbb{CP}^n$ does not admit a Hopf algebra structure. Indeed, for reasons of degree, $Delta(x)$ would have to be $xotimes 1+1otimes x$ but then $Delta(x^n)=Delta(x)^n=sum_{k=0}^n binom{n}{k} x^kotimes x^{n-k}$ would be nonzero (all the terms except $k=0$ and $k=n$ are nonzero), which is a contradiction.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Dec 17 at 4:04

























                answered Dec 17 at 3:19









                Eric Wofsey

                178k12202330




                178k12202330












                • Can you talk a bit about the Hopf structure on the cohomology ring? The "standard" way I've seen to get a Hopf algebra out of a Lie group is to consider the universal enveloping algebra of its Lie algebra, but this is obviously coarser. Are the two related in any way?
                  – Ashwin Trisal
                  Dec 17 at 3:48






                • 1




                  It's very simple: if $G$ is a topological group, the multiplication $mu:Gtimes Gto G$ gives a map $mu^*: H^*(G)to H^*(Gtimes G)cong H^*(G)otimes H^*(G)$ (here cohomology is with coefficients in a field to get the latter isomorphism), and the group axioms for $mu$ say exactly that $mu^*$ is the comultiplication of a Hopf algebra structure on $H^*(G)$. I don't know of any connection to the universal enveloping algebra (there may be one but it would have to be fairly indirect).
                  – Eric Wofsey
                  Dec 17 at 3:54










                • $H^*(G;mathbb{Q})$ is the universal enveloping algebra of the Lie algebra given by $pi_*(Omega G) otimes_mathbb{Z} mathbb{Q}$ (with Whitehead product, which is trivial here). But of course the Lie algebra involved isn't $mathfrak{g} = T_e G$...
                  – Najib Idrissi
                  2 days ago












                • @Najib: I think you want $H_{bullet}(Omega G, mathbb{Q})$ there.
                  – Qiaochu Yuan
                  2 days ago


















                • Can you talk a bit about the Hopf structure on the cohomology ring? The "standard" way I've seen to get a Hopf algebra out of a Lie group is to consider the universal enveloping algebra of its Lie algebra, but this is obviously coarser. Are the two related in any way?
                  – Ashwin Trisal
                  Dec 17 at 3:48






                • 1




                  It's very simple: if $G$ is a topological group, the multiplication $mu:Gtimes Gto G$ gives a map $mu^*: H^*(G)to H^*(Gtimes G)cong H^*(G)otimes H^*(G)$ (here cohomology is with coefficients in a field to get the latter isomorphism), and the group axioms for $mu$ say exactly that $mu^*$ is the comultiplication of a Hopf algebra structure on $H^*(G)$. I don't know of any connection to the universal enveloping algebra (there may be one but it would have to be fairly indirect).
                  – Eric Wofsey
                  Dec 17 at 3:54










                • $H^*(G;mathbb{Q})$ is the universal enveloping algebra of the Lie algebra given by $pi_*(Omega G) otimes_mathbb{Z} mathbb{Q}$ (with Whitehead product, which is trivial here). But of course the Lie algebra involved isn't $mathfrak{g} = T_e G$...
                  – Najib Idrissi
                  2 days ago












                • @Najib: I think you want $H_{bullet}(Omega G, mathbb{Q})$ there.
                  – Qiaochu Yuan
                  2 days ago
















                Can you talk a bit about the Hopf structure on the cohomology ring? The "standard" way I've seen to get a Hopf algebra out of a Lie group is to consider the universal enveloping algebra of its Lie algebra, but this is obviously coarser. Are the two related in any way?
                – Ashwin Trisal
                Dec 17 at 3:48




                Can you talk a bit about the Hopf structure on the cohomology ring? The "standard" way I've seen to get a Hopf algebra out of a Lie group is to consider the universal enveloping algebra of its Lie algebra, but this is obviously coarser. Are the two related in any way?
                – Ashwin Trisal
                Dec 17 at 3:48




                1




                1




                It's very simple: if $G$ is a topological group, the multiplication $mu:Gtimes Gto G$ gives a map $mu^*: H^*(G)to H^*(Gtimes G)cong H^*(G)otimes H^*(G)$ (here cohomology is with coefficients in a field to get the latter isomorphism), and the group axioms for $mu$ say exactly that $mu^*$ is the comultiplication of a Hopf algebra structure on $H^*(G)$. I don't know of any connection to the universal enveloping algebra (there may be one but it would have to be fairly indirect).
                – Eric Wofsey
                Dec 17 at 3:54




                It's very simple: if $G$ is a topological group, the multiplication $mu:Gtimes Gto G$ gives a map $mu^*: H^*(G)to H^*(Gtimes G)cong H^*(G)otimes H^*(G)$ (here cohomology is with coefficients in a field to get the latter isomorphism), and the group axioms for $mu$ say exactly that $mu^*$ is the comultiplication of a Hopf algebra structure on $H^*(G)$. I don't know of any connection to the universal enveloping algebra (there may be one but it would have to be fairly indirect).
                – Eric Wofsey
                Dec 17 at 3:54












                $H^*(G;mathbb{Q})$ is the universal enveloping algebra of the Lie algebra given by $pi_*(Omega G) otimes_mathbb{Z} mathbb{Q}$ (with Whitehead product, which is trivial here). But of course the Lie algebra involved isn't $mathfrak{g} = T_e G$...
                – Najib Idrissi
                2 days ago






                $H^*(G;mathbb{Q})$ is the universal enveloping algebra of the Lie algebra given by $pi_*(Omega G) otimes_mathbb{Z} mathbb{Q}$ (with Whitehead product, which is trivial here). But of course the Lie algebra involved isn't $mathfrak{g} = T_e G$...
                – Najib Idrissi
                2 days ago














                @Najib: I think you want $H_{bullet}(Omega G, mathbb{Q})$ there.
                – Qiaochu Yuan
                2 days ago




                @Najib: I think you want $H_{bullet}(Omega G, mathbb{Q})$ there.
                – Qiaochu Yuan
                2 days ago











                2














                $pi_2(mathbb{C}P^n)$ is $mathbb{Z}$ and $pi_2(G)$ is trivial where $G$ is a connected Lie group.



                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_projective_space#Homotopy_groups



                https://mathoverflow.net/questions/8957/homotopy-groups-of-lie-groups






                share|cite|improve this answer


























                  2














                  $pi_2(mathbb{C}P^n)$ is $mathbb{Z}$ and $pi_2(G)$ is trivial where $G$ is a connected Lie group.



                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_projective_space#Homotopy_groups



                  https://mathoverflow.net/questions/8957/homotopy-groups-of-lie-groups






                  share|cite|improve this answer
























                    2












                    2








                    2






                    $pi_2(mathbb{C}P^n)$ is $mathbb{Z}$ and $pi_2(G)$ is trivial where $G$ is a connected Lie group.



                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_projective_space#Homotopy_groups



                    https://mathoverflow.net/questions/8957/homotopy-groups-of-lie-groups






                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    $pi_2(mathbb{C}P^n)$ is $mathbb{Z}$ and $pi_2(G)$ is trivial where $G$ is a connected Lie group.



                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_projective_space#Homotopy_groups



                    https://mathoverflow.net/questions/8957/homotopy-groups-of-lie-groups







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered Dec 17 at 3:17









                    Tsemo Aristide

                    55.3k11444




                    55.3k11444























                        2














                        You can actually generalise everything in the question to show that $mathbb{C}P^n$ ($1leq n<infty$) cannot even admit a Hopf structure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-space). And one way to see this is to demonstrate the existence of a non-trivial Whitehead product in $pi_*mathbb{C}P^n$. I'll point out that you already have fantastic answers, and most of them can be generalised directly to cover this case. This answer is only supposed to add another perspective.



                        Recall the quotient map $gamma_n:S^{2n+1}rightarrow mathbb{C}P^n$ and the fact that it induces isomorphisms on $pi_*$ for $*>2$. In particular $gamma_{n*}:pi_{4n+1}S^{2n+1}xrightarrow{cong}pi_{4n+1}mathbb{C}P^n$ is an isomorphism that takes the Whitehead square $omega_{2n+1}=[iota_{2n+1},iota_{2n+1}]inpi_{4n+1}S^{2n+1}$ to the Whitehead product



                        $$gamma_{n*}omega_{2n+1}=[gamma_n,gamma_n]inpi_{4n+1}mathbb{C}P^n.$$



                        It is classical fact related to the Hopf invariant one problem that for odd $k$, $omega_k$ vanishes exactly when $k=1,3$ or $7$. Therefore, since $gamma_{n*}$ is an isomorphism, $[gamma_n,gamma_n]$ is non-zero in $pi_{4n+1}mathbb{C}P^n$ as long as $nneq 1,3$. Now $mathbb{C}P^1cong S^2$ is not an $H$-space exactly because of Adam's solution to the Hopf invariant one problem (and more in line with the current trail of thought, $[iota_2,iota_2]=-2etainpi_3S^2$).



                        Therefore we single out $mathbb{C}P^3$ as the interesting case for which this line of reasoning does not apply. In fact all Whitehead products vanish in $mathbb{C}P^3$ (Stasheff: "On homotopy Abelian H-spaces") and $Omega mathbb{C}P^3$ is homotopy commutative. I assure you still that $mathbb{C}P^3$ is not an $H$-space, since either Qiaochu's or Eric's answers for compact Lie groups apply more or less verbatim to finite H-spaces.






                        share|cite|improve this answer


























                          2














                          You can actually generalise everything in the question to show that $mathbb{C}P^n$ ($1leq n<infty$) cannot even admit a Hopf structure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-space). And one way to see this is to demonstrate the existence of a non-trivial Whitehead product in $pi_*mathbb{C}P^n$. I'll point out that you already have fantastic answers, and most of them can be generalised directly to cover this case. This answer is only supposed to add another perspective.



                          Recall the quotient map $gamma_n:S^{2n+1}rightarrow mathbb{C}P^n$ and the fact that it induces isomorphisms on $pi_*$ for $*>2$. In particular $gamma_{n*}:pi_{4n+1}S^{2n+1}xrightarrow{cong}pi_{4n+1}mathbb{C}P^n$ is an isomorphism that takes the Whitehead square $omega_{2n+1}=[iota_{2n+1},iota_{2n+1}]inpi_{4n+1}S^{2n+1}$ to the Whitehead product



                          $$gamma_{n*}omega_{2n+1}=[gamma_n,gamma_n]inpi_{4n+1}mathbb{C}P^n.$$



                          It is classical fact related to the Hopf invariant one problem that for odd $k$, $omega_k$ vanishes exactly when $k=1,3$ or $7$. Therefore, since $gamma_{n*}$ is an isomorphism, $[gamma_n,gamma_n]$ is non-zero in $pi_{4n+1}mathbb{C}P^n$ as long as $nneq 1,3$. Now $mathbb{C}P^1cong S^2$ is not an $H$-space exactly because of Adam's solution to the Hopf invariant one problem (and more in line with the current trail of thought, $[iota_2,iota_2]=-2etainpi_3S^2$).



                          Therefore we single out $mathbb{C}P^3$ as the interesting case for which this line of reasoning does not apply. In fact all Whitehead products vanish in $mathbb{C}P^3$ (Stasheff: "On homotopy Abelian H-spaces") and $Omega mathbb{C}P^3$ is homotopy commutative. I assure you still that $mathbb{C}P^3$ is not an $H$-space, since either Qiaochu's or Eric's answers for compact Lie groups apply more or less verbatim to finite H-spaces.






                          share|cite|improve this answer
























                            2












                            2








                            2






                            You can actually generalise everything in the question to show that $mathbb{C}P^n$ ($1leq n<infty$) cannot even admit a Hopf structure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-space). And one way to see this is to demonstrate the existence of a non-trivial Whitehead product in $pi_*mathbb{C}P^n$. I'll point out that you already have fantastic answers, and most of them can be generalised directly to cover this case. This answer is only supposed to add another perspective.



                            Recall the quotient map $gamma_n:S^{2n+1}rightarrow mathbb{C}P^n$ and the fact that it induces isomorphisms on $pi_*$ for $*>2$. In particular $gamma_{n*}:pi_{4n+1}S^{2n+1}xrightarrow{cong}pi_{4n+1}mathbb{C}P^n$ is an isomorphism that takes the Whitehead square $omega_{2n+1}=[iota_{2n+1},iota_{2n+1}]inpi_{4n+1}S^{2n+1}$ to the Whitehead product



                            $$gamma_{n*}omega_{2n+1}=[gamma_n,gamma_n]inpi_{4n+1}mathbb{C}P^n.$$



                            It is classical fact related to the Hopf invariant one problem that for odd $k$, $omega_k$ vanishes exactly when $k=1,3$ or $7$. Therefore, since $gamma_{n*}$ is an isomorphism, $[gamma_n,gamma_n]$ is non-zero in $pi_{4n+1}mathbb{C}P^n$ as long as $nneq 1,3$. Now $mathbb{C}P^1cong S^2$ is not an $H$-space exactly because of Adam's solution to the Hopf invariant one problem (and more in line with the current trail of thought, $[iota_2,iota_2]=-2etainpi_3S^2$).



                            Therefore we single out $mathbb{C}P^3$ as the interesting case for which this line of reasoning does not apply. In fact all Whitehead products vanish in $mathbb{C}P^3$ (Stasheff: "On homotopy Abelian H-spaces") and $Omega mathbb{C}P^3$ is homotopy commutative. I assure you still that $mathbb{C}P^3$ is not an $H$-space, since either Qiaochu's or Eric's answers for compact Lie groups apply more or less verbatim to finite H-spaces.






                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            You can actually generalise everything in the question to show that $mathbb{C}P^n$ ($1leq n<infty$) cannot even admit a Hopf structure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-space). And one way to see this is to demonstrate the existence of a non-trivial Whitehead product in $pi_*mathbb{C}P^n$. I'll point out that you already have fantastic answers, and most of them can be generalised directly to cover this case. This answer is only supposed to add another perspective.



                            Recall the quotient map $gamma_n:S^{2n+1}rightarrow mathbb{C}P^n$ and the fact that it induces isomorphisms on $pi_*$ for $*>2$. In particular $gamma_{n*}:pi_{4n+1}S^{2n+1}xrightarrow{cong}pi_{4n+1}mathbb{C}P^n$ is an isomorphism that takes the Whitehead square $omega_{2n+1}=[iota_{2n+1},iota_{2n+1}]inpi_{4n+1}S^{2n+1}$ to the Whitehead product



                            $$gamma_{n*}omega_{2n+1}=[gamma_n,gamma_n]inpi_{4n+1}mathbb{C}P^n.$$



                            It is classical fact related to the Hopf invariant one problem that for odd $k$, $omega_k$ vanishes exactly when $k=1,3$ or $7$. Therefore, since $gamma_{n*}$ is an isomorphism, $[gamma_n,gamma_n]$ is non-zero in $pi_{4n+1}mathbb{C}P^n$ as long as $nneq 1,3$. Now $mathbb{C}P^1cong S^2$ is not an $H$-space exactly because of Adam's solution to the Hopf invariant one problem (and more in line with the current trail of thought, $[iota_2,iota_2]=-2etainpi_3S^2$).



                            Therefore we single out $mathbb{C}P^3$ as the interesting case for which this line of reasoning does not apply. In fact all Whitehead products vanish in $mathbb{C}P^3$ (Stasheff: "On homotopy Abelian H-spaces") and $Omega mathbb{C}P^3$ is homotopy commutative. I assure you still that $mathbb{C}P^3$ is not an $H$-space, since either Qiaochu's or Eric's answers for compact Lie groups apply more or less verbatim to finite H-spaces.







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered 2 days ago









                            Tyrone

                            4,33011225




                            4,33011225






























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded




















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                                Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                                Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3043483%2flie-group-structure-on-the-complex-projective-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

                                Alcedinidae

                                Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]