Reference: $(X,X/G,pi,G)$ is principal $G$-bundle?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












The accepted answer in



Projection map between the Stiefel manifold and the Grassmanian



says




If $G$ is a Lie group and $X$ is a manifold on which $G$ acts freely and properly, then $X/G$ has a natural manifold structure and the projection $Xrightarrow X/G$ is a principal $G$-bundle. In particular, $Xrightarrow X/G$ is a fibre bundle with fibre $G$.




without a reference. I wonder where I can find such a result? Does this hold in the infinite dimensional setting, where $X$ is locally Banach spaces, as well?



(I am already struggling with seemingly different definitions of principal fibre bundle etc. Questions asked/answered by others have been helpful but a source for the result above will be very helpful, too.)







share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    2
    down vote

    favorite












    The accepted answer in



    Projection map between the Stiefel manifold and the Grassmanian



    says




    If $G$ is a Lie group and $X$ is a manifold on which $G$ acts freely and properly, then $X/G$ has a natural manifold structure and the projection $Xrightarrow X/G$ is a principal $G$-bundle. In particular, $Xrightarrow X/G$ is a fibre bundle with fibre $G$.




    without a reference. I wonder where I can find such a result? Does this hold in the infinite dimensional setting, where $X$ is locally Banach spaces, as well?



    (I am already struggling with seemingly different definitions of principal fibre bundle etc. Questions asked/answered by others have been helpful but a source for the result above will be very helpful, too.)







    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite











      The accepted answer in



      Projection map between the Stiefel manifold and the Grassmanian



      says




      If $G$ is a Lie group and $X$ is a manifold on which $G$ acts freely and properly, then $X/G$ has a natural manifold structure and the projection $Xrightarrow X/G$ is a principal $G$-bundle. In particular, $Xrightarrow X/G$ is a fibre bundle with fibre $G$.




      without a reference. I wonder where I can find such a result? Does this hold in the infinite dimensional setting, where $X$ is locally Banach spaces, as well?



      (I am already struggling with seemingly different definitions of principal fibre bundle etc. Questions asked/answered by others have been helpful but a source for the result above will be very helpful, too.)







      share|cite|improve this question














      The accepted answer in



      Projection map between the Stiefel manifold and the Grassmanian



      says




      If $G$ is a Lie group and $X$ is a manifold on which $G$ acts freely and properly, then $X/G$ has a natural manifold structure and the projection $Xrightarrow X/G$ is a principal $G$-bundle. In particular, $Xrightarrow X/G$ is a fibre bundle with fibre $G$.




      without a reference. I wonder where I can find such a result? Does this hold in the infinite dimensional setting, where $X$ is locally Banach spaces, as well?



      (I am already struggling with seemingly different definitions of principal fibre bundle etc. Questions asked/answered by others have been helpful but a source for the result above will be very helpful, too.)









      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Aug 13 at 12:35

























      asked Aug 13 at 10:24









      Jara

      236




      236




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          Yes, the result is true and proved in many differential geometry books. This is definitely in John Lee's Smooth Manifolds book, for instance.



          The Banach manifold case is harder to track down, but is in Bourbaki, Lie Groups and Lie Algebras as Proposition 3.1.5.10. The following is not precisely a translation (I have changed it slightly to make the assumptions more clear), but is close.




          Suppose $G$ is a Banach Lie group and $X$ a Banach manifold on which $G$ acts. Suppose that $G$ acts freely and properly on $X$, and such that if $rho(x): T_eG to T_xX$ is the differential of the action at the point $x$, the image of $rho(x)$ is closed and has some closed complement for all $x$. Then the quotient topology on $X/G$ is Hausdorff, and there is a unique smooth structure on $X/G$ such that $pi: X to X/G$ is a submersion. Furthermore, $X to X/G$ is a principal $G$-bundle.




          So the main difference in the Banach case is that the orbits should have complemented tangent space. in the Hilbert case, this is just saying the orbits have closed tangent space.






          share|cite|improve this answer
















          • 1




            If you meant John Lee's Introduction to Smooth Manifolds by Lee's book, I do not really think he discusses principal $G$-bundle in the book explicitly. (Well, problem 21-6 would be the desired statement, if one can show this...)
            – user41467
            Aug 13 at 14:45










          • Once you have the slice and that the quotient is a submersion, everything else comes for free: the section allows you to define a local trivialization.
            – Mike Miller
            Aug 13 at 16:26










          • I personally find your answer really helpful and interesting (thank you for that), I believe others too but what I was trying to say was that the OP asked a reference (which you did (Bourbaki)) but I thought it might be helpful also if you could name a widely read? (contemporary?) book like John Lee's book that discusses this explicitly with a proof (which John Lee's book does not seem to).
            – user41467
            Aug 13 at 19:55










          • Sure, I will let someone else take charge on that if they want; I do not really want to look through my books to see what author has the best proof. I mainly know from experience that it is irritating to find the Banach case, and posting that reference was my primary motivation.
            – Mike Miller
            Aug 13 at 20:11










          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',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          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%2f2881222%2freference-x-x-g-pi-g-is-principal-g-bundle%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest






























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          1
          down vote













          Yes, the result is true and proved in many differential geometry books. This is definitely in John Lee's Smooth Manifolds book, for instance.



          The Banach manifold case is harder to track down, but is in Bourbaki, Lie Groups and Lie Algebras as Proposition 3.1.5.10. The following is not precisely a translation (I have changed it slightly to make the assumptions more clear), but is close.




          Suppose $G$ is a Banach Lie group and $X$ a Banach manifold on which $G$ acts. Suppose that $G$ acts freely and properly on $X$, and such that if $rho(x): T_eG to T_xX$ is the differential of the action at the point $x$, the image of $rho(x)$ is closed and has some closed complement for all $x$. Then the quotient topology on $X/G$ is Hausdorff, and there is a unique smooth structure on $X/G$ such that $pi: X to X/G$ is a submersion. Furthermore, $X to X/G$ is a principal $G$-bundle.




          So the main difference in the Banach case is that the orbits should have complemented tangent space. in the Hilbert case, this is just saying the orbits have closed tangent space.






          share|cite|improve this answer
















          • 1




            If you meant John Lee's Introduction to Smooth Manifolds by Lee's book, I do not really think he discusses principal $G$-bundle in the book explicitly. (Well, problem 21-6 would be the desired statement, if one can show this...)
            – user41467
            Aug 13 at 14:45










          • Once you have the slice and that the quotient is a submersion, everything else comes for free: the section allows you to define a local trivialization.
            – Mike Miller
            Aug 13 at 16:26










          • I personally find your answer really helpful and interesting (thank you for that), I believe others too but what I was trying to say was that the OP asked a reference (which you did (Bourbaki)) but I thought it might be helpful also if you could name a widely read? (contemporary?) book like John Lee's book that discusses this explicitly with a proof (which John Lee's book does not seem to).
            – user41467
            Aug 13 at 19:55










          • Sure, I will let someone else take charge on that if they want; I do not really want to look through my books to see what author has the best proof. I mainly know from experience that it is irritating to find the Banach case, and posting that reference was my primary motivation.
            – Mike Miller
            Aug 13 at 20:11














          up vote
          1
          down vote













          Yes, the result is true and proved in many differential geometry books. This is definitely in John Lee's Smooth Manifolds book, for instance.



          The Banach manifold case is harder to track down, but is in Bourbaki, Lie Groups and Lie Algebras as Proposition 3.1.5.10. The following is not precisely a translation (I have changed it slightly to make the assumptions more clear), but is close.




          Suppose $G$ is a Banach Lie group and $X$ a Banach manifold on which $G$ acts. Suppose that $G$ acts freely and properly on $X$, and such that if $rho(x): T_eG to T_xX$ is the differential of the action at the point $x$, the image of $rho(x)$ is closed and has some closed complement for all $x$. Then the quotient topology on $X/G$ is Hausdorff, and there is a unique smooth structure on $X/G$ such that $pi: X to X/G$ is a submersion. Furthermore, $X to X/G$ is a principal $G$-bundle.




          So the main difference in the Banach case is that the orbits should have complemented tangent space. in the Hilbert case, this is just saying the orbits have closed tangent space.






          share|cite|improve this answer
















          • 1




            If you meant John Lee's Introduction to Smooth Manifolds by Lee's book, I do not really think he discusses principal $G$-bundle in the book explicitly. (Well, problem 21-6 would be the desired statement, if one can show this...)
            – user41467
            Aug 13 at 14:45










          • Once you have the slice and that the quotient is a submersion, everything else comes for free: the section allows you to define a local trivialization.
            – Mike Miller
            Aug 13 at 16:26










          • I personally find your answer really helpful and interesting (thank you for that), I believe others too but what I was trying to say was that the OP asked a reference (which you did (Bourbaki)) but I thought it might be helpful also if you could name a widely read? (contemporary?) book like John Lee's book that discusses this explicitly with a proof (which John Lee's book does not seem to).
            – user41467
            Aug 13 at 19:55










          • Sure, I will let someone else take charge on that if they want; I do not really want to look through my books to see what author has the best proof. I mainly know from experience that it is irritating to find the Banach case, and posting that reference was my primary motivation.
            – Mike Miller
            Aug 13 at 20:11












          up vote
          1
          down vote










          up vote
          1
          down vote









          Yes, the result is true and proved in many differential geometry books. This is definitely in John Lee's Smooth Manifolds book, for instance.



          The Banach manifold case is harder to track down, but is in Bourbaki, Lie Groups and Lie Algebras as Proposition 3.1.5.10. The following is not precisely a translation (I have changed it slightly to make the assumptions more clear), but is close.




          Suppose $G$ is a Banach Lie group and $X$ a Banach manifold on which $G$ acts. Suppose that $G$ acts freely and properly on $X$, and such that if $rho(x): T_eG to T_xX$ is the differential of the action at the point $x$, the image of $rho(x)$ is closed and has some closed complement for all $x$. Then the quotient topology on $X/G$ is Hausdorff, and there is a unique smooth structure on $X/G$ such that $pi: X to X/G$ is a submersion. Furthermore, $X to X/G$ is a principal $G$-bundle.




          So the main difference in the Banach case is that the orbits should have complemented tangent space. in the Hilbert case, this is just saying the orbits have closed tangent space.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          Yes, the result is true and proved in many differential geometry books. This is definitely in John Lee's Smooth Manifolds book, for instance.



          The Banach manifold case is harder to track down, but is in Bourbaki, Lie Groups and Lie Algebras as Proposition 3.1.5.10. The following is not precisely a translation (I have changed it slightly to make the assumptions more clear), but is close.




          Suppose $G$ is a Banach Lie group and $X$ a Banach manifold on which $G$ acts. Suppose that $G$ acts freely and properly on $X$, and such that if $rho(x): T_eG to T_xX$ is the differential of the action at the point $x$, the image of $rho(x)$ is closed and has some closed complement for all $x$. Then the quotient topology on $X/G$ is Hausdorff, and there is a unique smooth structure on $X/G$ such that $pi: X to X/G$ is a submersion. Furthermore, $X to X/G$ is a principal $G$-bundle.




          So the main difference in the Banach case is that the orbits should have complemented tangent space. in the Hilbert case, this is just saying the orbits have closed tangent space.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Aug 13 at 13:30









          Mike Miller

          34k365129




          34k365129







          • 1




            If you meant John Lee's Introduction to Smooth Manifolds by Lee's book, I do not really think he discusses principal $G$-bundle in the book explicitly. (Well, problem 21-6 would be the desired statement, if one can show this...)
            – user41467
            Aug 13 at 14:45










          • Once you have the slice and that the quotient is a submersion, everything else comes for free: the section allows you to define a local trivialization.
            – Mike Miller
            Aug 13 at 16:26










          • I personally find your answer really helpful and interesting (thank you for that), I believe others too but what I was trying to say was that the OP asked a reference (which you did (Bourbaki)) but I thought it might be helpful also if you could name a widely read? (contemporary?) book like John Lee's book that discusses this explicitly with a proof (which John Lee's book does not seem to).
            – user41467
            Aug 13 at 19:55










          • Sure, I will let someone else take charge on that if they want; I do not really want to look through my books to see what author has the best proof. I mainly know from experience that it is irritating to find the Banach case, and posting that reference was my primary motivation.
            – Mike Miller
            Aug 13 at 20:11












          • 1




            If you meant John Lee's Introduction to Smooth Manifolds by Lee's book, I do not really think he discusses principal $G$-bundle in the book explicitly. (Well, problem 21-6 would be the desired statement, if one can show this...)
            – user41467
            Aug 13 at 14:45










          • Once you have the slice and that the quotient is a submersion, everything else comes for free: the section allows you to define a local trivialization.
            – Mike Miller
            Aug 13 at 16:26










          • I personally find your answer really helpful and interesting (thank you for that), I believe others too but what I was trying to say was that the OP asked a reference (which you did (Bourbaki)) but I thought it might be helpful also if you could name a widely read? (contemporary?) book like John Lee's book that discusses this explicitly with a proof (which John Lee's book does not seem to).
            – user41467
            Aug 13 at 19:55










          • Sure, I will let someone else take charge on that if they want; I do not really want to look through my books to see what author has the best proof. I mainly know from experience that it is irritating to find the Banach case, and posting that reference was my primary motivation.
            – Mike Miller
            Aug 13 at 20:11







          1




          1




          If you meant John Lee's Introduction to Smooth Manifolds by Lee's book, I do not really think he discusses principal $G$-bundle in the book explicitly. (Well, problem 21-6 would be the desired statement, if one can show this...)
          – user41467
          Aug 13 at 14:45




          If you meant John Lee's Introduction to Smooth Manifolds by Lee's book, I do not really think he discusses principal $G$-bundle in the book explicitly. (Well, problem 21-6 would be the desired statement, if one can show this...)
          – user41467
          Aug 13 at 14:45












          Once you have the slice and that the quotient is a submersion, everything else comes for free: the section allows you to define a local trivialization.
          – Mike Miller
          Aug 13 at 16:26




          Once you have the slice and that the quotient is a submersion, everything else comes for free: the section allows you to define a local trivialization.
          – Mike Miller
          Aug 13 at 16:26












          I personally find your answer really helpful and interesting (thank you for that), I believe others too but what I was trying to say was that the OP asked a reference (which you did (Bourbaki)) but I thought it might be helpful also if you could name a widely read? (contemporary?) book like John Lee's book that discusses this explicitly with a proof (which John Lee's book does not seem to).
          – user41467
          Aug 13 at 19:55




          I personally find your answer really helpful and interesting (thank you for that), I believe others too but what I was trying to say was that the OP asked a reference (which you did (Bourbaki)) but I thought it might be helpful also if you could name a widely read? (contemporary?) book like John Lee's book that discusses this explicitly with a proof (which John Lee's book does not seem to).
          – user41467
          Aug 13 at 19:55












          Sure, I will let someone else take charge on that if they want; I do not really want to look through my books to see what author has the best proof. I mainly know from experience that it is irritating to find the Banach case, and posting that reference was my primary motivation.
          – Mike Miller
          Aug 13 at 20:11




          Sure, I will let someone else take charge on that if they want; I do not really want to look through my books to see what author has the best proof. I mainly know from experience that it is irritating to find the Banach case, and posting that reference was my primary motivation.
          – Mike Miller
          Aug 13 at 20:11












           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


























           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2881222%2freference-x-x-g-pi-g-is-principal-g-bundle%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest













































































          這個網誌中的熱門文章

          How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

          Mutual Information Always Non-negative

          Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?