Talk:Maurer–Cartan form

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated C-class, Low-priority)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
C Class
Low Priority
 Field:  Geometry

Who is Maurer?[edit]

Who is Maurer in the Maurer-Cartan form? --romanm (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

If G is embedded n GL(n)[edit]

We know that . Quoting from the article, "If G is embedded in GL(n), then ."

This definition confused me for a while. As one would correctly assume, the first is really , left multiplication by . However, the in is not , but rather a (local) function , where is the dimension of . Thus is essentially the identity map , since in this case takes any point in (viewed in ) to itself (now viewed in ).

If we were to interpret (incorrectly, as I had) the second also as , then would denote a map , in which case the composite , evaluated at the point , would be a map from (unless ).

You can regard it as a formal identity in Rn x n, so that g = (xij) and dg = (dxij). This is useful for concrete calculations. More formally, g-1 is , and dg is the identity map of the tangent space. Silly rabbit 23:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

A Simpler Characterization of the Cartan-Maurer Form[edit]

A much simpler way of describing (and understanding) the Cartan-Maurer form should be incorporated into the article. The group quotient () extends to a quotient operation on the tangent spaces through its differential map . This is the algebraic generalization of the Cartan-Maurer Form; which is the special case of this operation restricted to tangent vectors .

This should also address the issue raised by the previous comment. If the product operation is similarly extended to a tangent space operation by , then an invariant field is characterized by , and the application of the Cartan-Maurer form to it by


These characterizations apply independently of any question of an embedding into GL(n), though they reduce to the corresponding matrix operations in GL(n), when an embedding exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I agree that the statement in the article is awkward, and I suppose I assume some responsibility for it. I will see what I can do to make it more palatable. Silly rabbit 14:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I think I know why I had introduced the Maurer-Cartan form in this strange fashion. At the time, I was working on a circle of articles dealing with integrability conditions and Cartan connections. From this point of view, it was desirable to have a version of the MC form which imitated the definition of a Cartan connection by using the right action rather than the left action. I suppose I never came around to finishing off my revisions here, and the article now needs some rather significant organizational changes. Silly rabbit 15:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


By the definition of the differential, if and are arbitrary vector fields then


What is the sense of here? If were a real-valued 1-form then it would be OK, because would be a real-valued function and X acts on real-valued functions. But is now a -valued function. How acts X on it? (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added an explanation. The bottom line is that you can still calculate the Lie derivative of a function with values in a fixed vector space. Hopefully this addresses your question satisfactorily. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thank you (really, it was trivial). (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

1/2 is missing?[edit]

--刻意(Kèyì) 00:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean that there is 1/2 in the formula but not in There is no contradiction: by the definition of bracket of Lie algebra-valued forms, (I elaborated on that definition a little and added a link to it in the Properties section). Jaan Vajakas (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

These equations are OK. I suppose I mean the equation

by duality yields


the equation (2) is missing a constant 1/2 on the right. But this probably depends on the definition of wedge product of Differential forms.--刻意(Kèyì) 12:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You are right. If we do not require j < k then there should be a coefficient 1/2 by the usual definition of wedge product in differential geometry. Now I fixed it. Jaan Vajakas (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Hah hah. See also Talk:Connection form#Factors of two This is an endemic problem that one must be careful about. (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Examples needed[edit]

This stackexchange post discusses a good example of the Mauer-Cartan form: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)