Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf sheaves simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 20th 2011

    following a suggestion by Zoran, I have created a stub (nothing more) for Kuiper’s theorem

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeApr 20th 2011

    Looks good – being precise :)

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 20th 2011

    while we are at it: what is the center of U()=Ωlim nBU(n)U(\infty) = \Omega {\lim_\to}_n B U(n)?

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeApr 20th 2011

    I have no idea. Mike, Todd ?

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeApr 20th 2011

    You need to specify the topology to say it is contractible. The strength of the theorem is that it is contractible in several topologies, none of which I can recall at the moment.

    And I would define U(oo) as lim U(n), but the inclusion maps don’t preserve the centre, so I’m not sure about Urs’ question.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeApr 20th 2011

    The original paper proved that it was contractible in the operator topology. Atiyah and Segal note in their paper on twisted K-theory that there is an easy proof of contractibility in the weak topology. One major difference in the topologies is that with the operator topology then it is a CW complex but with the weak topology then it isn’t even an ANR (something that annoys me intensely).

    I would also define U()U(\infty) as limU(n)\lim U(n) and I believe that its centre is trivial: any AU()A \in U(\infty) must be in some U(n)U(n), but then there is an element in U(2n)U(2n) which rotates the first nn directions to the last nn directions and which therefore maps (A,I n)(A,I_n) to (I n,A)(I_n,A), hence if AA is in the centre it must be the identity.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 21st 2011

    Thanks, Andrew. Somebody should add that to the entry.

    About the center: that’s what I was thinking, too, but I thought I must be missing something. Maybe not.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorjim_stasheff
    • CommentTimeApr 21st 2011
    there is an element in
    U(2n) which rotates the first
    n directions to the last
    n directions and which therefore maps
    (A,I n) to
    (I n,A), hence
    U(oo) is homotopy commutative, the first step on the way to being an infinite loop space
    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeAug 16th 2017

    I’ve updated Kuiper’s theorem slightly to point out that in fact most of the various topologies on U(H)U(H) weaker than the norm topology agree. This is due to Espinoza-Uribe, which an earlier partial contribution by Schottenloher. So it seems that Andrew’s complaint in #6 was probably directed at B(H)B(H) or GL(H)GL(H), since the weak operator and strong operator topologies agree on U(H)U(H), but not on GL(H)GL(H).

    I’ve also edited unitary group to add this reference, and I found that the page claimed that U(H)U(H) was the maximal compact subgroup of GL(H)GL(H) even in the infinite-dimensional setting (!). So I definitely fixed that.

    A note to myself to add later: U(H)U(H) is a Banach Lie group in the norm topology, but not a Lie group in the strong topology; conversely, the left regular representation of a compact topological group with Haar measure is not continuous in the norm topology, but is continuous in the strong topology.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 20th 2021
    • (edited Sep 20th 2021)

    I have

    added more original references (such as Illusie and Dixmier & Duady);

    added hyperlinks to the actual definitions of all the topologies involved;

    re-organized the statement of the proof to first talk about U()U(\mathcal{H}) (as all the references do) and only mention GL()GL(\mathcal{H}) afterwards (instead of the other way around)

    In the process of adding comments in the references-section on who proved which aspect, I incrementally ended up replacing essentially all lines the entry used to have on this (some of which I found were confusing in their terminology). So now I have ended up with essentially a complete rewrite of the entry (short as it may be), even though this wasn’t my intention, originally. If you want to double-check that I didn’t erase anything that should be kept, compare to rev 5.

    (The line about which topologies make U()U(\mathcal{H}) a CW complex or ANR or not should better be discussed at U(ℋ), not here.)

    diff, v12, current