Possible isometry groups of open manifoldsNon existence of a parametrically compatible metric to a complete geodesible vector field on $mathbbR^2setminusp,q$Testing for Riemannian IsometryCan every Lie group be realized as the full isometry group of a Riemannian manifold?Is every topological (resp. Lie-) group the isometrygroup of a metric space (resp. Riemannian manifold)?Is the group of isometries of a homogeneous Riemannian manifold maximal?Isometry group of a compact hyperbolic surfaceRays on non-compact complete Riemannian manifoldsClosed Semi-Riemannian manifolds with non-compact isometry groupConnectedness of isometry group of closed Kaehler manifoldsIsometry group with non-abelian $pi_0$Large isometry groups of Kaehler manifolds

Possible isometry groups of open manifolds


Non existence of a parametrically compatible metric to a complete geodesible vector field on $mathbbR^2setminusp,q$Testing for Riemannian IsometryCan every Lie group be realized as the full isometry group of a Riemannian manifold?Is every topological (resp. Lie-) group the isometrygroup of a metric space (resp. Riemannian manifold)?Is the group of isometries of a homogeneous Riemannian manifold maximal?Isometry group of a compact hyperbolic surfaceRays on non-compact complete Riemannian manifoldsClosed Semi-Riemannian manifolds with non-compact isometry groupConnectedness of isometry group of closed Kaehler manifoldsIsometry group with non-abelian $pi_0$Large isometry groups of Kaehler manifolds













13












$begingroup$


Consider a non-compact manifold $M$.



Does there always exist a Riemannian metric on $M$ such that the isometry group is non-compact?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$
















    13












    $begingroup$


    Consider a non-compact manifold $M$.



    Does there always exist a Riemannian metric on $M$ such that the isometry group is non-compact?










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      13












      13








      13


      3



      $begingroup$


      Consider a non-compact manifold $M$.



      Does there always exist a Riemannian metric on $M$ such that the isometry group is non-compact?










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Consider a non-compact manifold $M$.



      Does there always exist a Riemannian metric on $M$ such that the isometry group is non-compact?







      dg.differential-geometry riemannian-geometry isometry-groups






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Jul 14 at 11:23









      Francois Ziegler

      21.2k3 gold badges79 silver badges124 bronze badges




      21.2k3 gold badges79 silver badges124 bronze badges










      asked Jul 13 at 21:38









      o ro r

      1685 bronze badges




      1685 bronze badges




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          13












          $begingroup$

          Let $M$ be the triply punctured 2-sphere (i.e. $M=S^2-p_1, p_2, p_3)$); one can also take any noncompact connected surface of finite topological type as long as $chi(M)<0$ but the proof is a bit more involved.



          Suppose that $g$ is a Riemannian metric on $M$. To simplify matters, I consider only orientation-preserving isometries.



          Then $mathrmIsom(M,g)< mathrmConf(M,g)$. I claim that $mathrmConf(M,g)$, the group of conformal automorphisms of $(M,g)$, is finite. The mapping class group of $M$ (the group of self-diffeomorphisms of $M$ modulo isotopy) is finite (isomorphic to the dihedral group of order $6$); hence, it suffices to prove that if $f: (M,g)to (M,g)$ is a conformal automorphism isotopic to the identity then $f=mathrmid$. This is quite standard (most likely, you will find it in Farb-Margalit's book on the mapping class group).



          Note that $f$ is isotopic to the identity if and only if it induces an inner automorphism of $pi_1(M)$.



          By the uniformization theorem, $(M,g)$ is conformal to the quotient of the hyperbolic plane $H^2$ by a discrete group of isometries $Gamma$ (isomorphic to $F_2$, the free group on two generators). The map $f$ then lifts to an isometry $F$ of $H^2$ (a linear-fractional transformation in, say, the Poincare disk model of $H^2$) which commutes with every element of $Gamma$ (since $f$ induces an inner automorphism of $pi_1(M)cong Gamma$). In particular, $F$ acts on the boundary circle $S^1$ of $H^2$ fixing fixed points of all elements of $Gamma$. Since $Gamma$ is free of rank 2, the set of fixed points of its nontrivial elements is infinite. Hence, $F$ fixes at least three points of $S^1$. Hence (being a linear-fractional transformation), $F=mathrmid$; thus, $f=mathrmid$.



          To conclude, every Riemannian metric on $M$ has finite group of isometries.



          Edit: I can prove the same claim for each noncompact complete hyperbolic $n$-manifold of finite volume, but a proof is more difficult.



          In general, the question can be reformulated in purely topological terms: Which smooth noncompact connected manifolds admit smooth proper actions of noncompact Lie groups? I suspect, this was studied in 1960s...






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Counterexample: Represent $M$ as the open disk in $mathbb R^2$ with two smaller closed disks omitted, and consider the vector field $partial_x$ restricted to $M$. Then apply the construction of my answer. I think that your answer is correct, if you also ask for a complete Riemannian metric on $M$.
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Michor
            Jul 14 at 8:55






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @PeterMichor: I am not using completeness of the metric $g$: Uniformization theorem does not require it. As for your example of a vector field, it will be "incomplete" and will not define an $R$-action. I think you will have this problem in general. The proof that I wrote is quite standard in hyperbolic geometry.
            $endgroup$
            – Misha
            Jul 14 at 8:58











          • $begingroup$
            Aha. Now I am confused. I think that my construction goes through in this case. I gave an argument for making the vector field complete by multiplying it with a function (for example $1/|X|^2_g$ with respect to a complete auxiliary metric $g$.
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Michor
            Jul 14 at 9:04







          • 2




            $begingroup$
            @Ian Agol: I know: In the answer I said that I am restricting to orientation preserving maps to simplify the discussion.
            $endgroup$
            – Misha
            Jul 15 at 3:09






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @AliTaghavi: $chi$ is the alternating sum of Betti numbers assuming that they are all finite, like in our case. Otherwise, $chi$ is undefined.
            $endgroup$
            – Misha
            Jul 17 at 2:58


















          9












          $begingroup$

          The answer is sometimes yes:



          If $M$ admits a complete vector field $X$, such that
          its flow
          $operatornameFl^X: mathbb Rtimes M to M$ is a proper action, then there exists a Riemannian metric which is invariant under the flow, by the following



          Theorem. If M is a proper G-manifold, then there is a G-invariant Riemann metric on M.



          which is due to Palais if I remember correctly. A proof of this theorem can be found in 6.30 of Topics in Differential Geometry. AMS, 2008.



          Finally, the isometry group then contains a non-compact 1-parameter group (this is not enough: it might be dense) which moves each point towards infinity for $ttoinfty$. So the isometry group cannot be compact (in the compact-open topology).



          The existence of such a vector field is a nontrivial condition, since then $M$ is the total space of real line bundle, as pointed out by Misha Kapovich. This is actually proved in 29.21 of 1.



          See his answer for an example where the answer is no.



          ADDED:



          The converse is also true: If the (connected component of the) isometry group is not compact, it contains a closed 1-parameter group whose generating vector field then has proper flow.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            If I look at the vector field $ypartial_x - xpartial_y$ then it should be complete on $Bbb R^2-0$, where it has no zeros. But I think the flow is not proper, as for any point $x$ we have $varphi_X^2pi n(x)=x$. Is that correct?
            $endgroup$
            – o r
            Jul 14 at 7:53










          • $begingroup$
            True, one needs a vectorfield without periodic orbit.
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Michor
            Jul 14 at 8:11






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            If you have a proper $R$-action then $M$ is diffeomorphic to the total space of an $R$-bundle; of course, many noncompact manifolds do not admit such.
            $endgroup$
            – Misha
            Jul 14 at 9:05










          • $begingroup$
            But the $mathbb R$-bundle is over a non-Hausdorff space, in general. In particular, in the 3 punctured sphere: Where 1 orbit becomes two, the two cannot be separated. See www.mat.univie.ac.at/~michor/vect-mf.pdf
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Michor
            Jul 14 at 9:36











          • $begingroup$
            Proper actions have Hausdorff quotient spaces. What you explained nicely in your linked note is that given an incomplete vector field on a manifold, you can extend it to a complete vector field on a (potentially) non-Hausdorff manifold. What happens in the 3-holed sphere example is that the quotient is obviously non-Hausdorff and, hence, you cannot get a proper $R$-action (even though, individual trajectories are proper, of course). What you have here is a variation on the standard example of a non-proper $R$-action on the punctured affine plane, given by $(t, (x,y))mapsto (e^tx, e^-ty)$.
            $endgroup$
            – Misha
            Jul 14 at 10:35













          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "504"
          ;
          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%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f336073%2fpossible-isometry-groups-of-open-manifolds%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          13












          $begingroup$

          Let $M$ be the triply punctured 2-sphere (i.e. $M=S^2-p_1, p_2, p_3)$); one can also take any noncompact connected surface of finite topological type as long as $chi(M)<0$ but the proof is a bit more involved.



          Suppose that $g$ is a Riemannian metric on $M$. To simplify matters, I consider only orientation-preserving isometries.



          Then $mathrmIsom(M,g)< mathrmConf(M,g)$. I claim that $mathrmConf(M,g)$, the group of conformal automorphisms of $(M,g)$, is finite. The mapping class group of $M$ (the group of self-diffeomorphisms of $M$ modulo isotopy) is finite (isomorphic to the dihedral group of order $6$); hence, it suffices to prove that if $f: (M,g)to (M,g)$ is a conformal automorphism isotopic to the identity then $f=mathrmid$. This is quite standard (most likely, you will find it in Farb-Margalit's book on the mapping class group).



          Note that $f$ is isotopic to the identity if and only if it induces an inner automorphism of $pi_1(M)$.



          By the uniformization theorem, $(M,g)$ is conformal to the quotient of the hyperbolic plane $H^2$ by a discrete group of isometries $Gamma$ (isomorphic to $F_2$, the free group on two generators). The map $f$ then lifts to an isometry $F$ of $H^2$ (a linear-fractional transformation in, say, the Poincare disk model of $H^2$) which commutes with every element of $Gamma$ (since $f$ induces an inner automorphism of $pi_1(M)cong Gamma$). In particular, $F$ acts on the boundary circle $S^1$ of $H^2$ fixing fixed points of all elements of $Gamma$. Since $Gamma$ is free of rank 2, the set of fixed points of its nontrivial elements is infinite. Hence, $F$ fixes at least three points of $S^1$. Hence (being a linear-fractional transformation), $F=mathrmid$; thus, $f=mathrmid$.



          To conclude, every Riemannian metric on $M$ has finite group of isometries.



          Edit: I can prove the same claim for each noncompact complete hyperbolic $n$-manifold of finite volume, but a proof is more difficult.



          In general, the question can be reformulated in purely topological terms: Which smooth noncompact connected manifolds admit smooth proper actions of noncompact Lie groups? I suspect, this was studied in 1960s...






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Counterexample: Represent $M$ as the open disk in $mathbb R^2$ with two smaller closed disks omitted, and consider the vector field $partial_x$ restricted to $M$. Then apply the construction of my answer. I think that your answer is correct, if you also ask for a complete Riemannian metric on $M$.
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Michor
            Jul 14 at 8:55






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @PeterMichor: I am not using completeness of the metric $g$: Uniformization theorem does not require it. As for your example of a vector field, it will be "incomplete" and will not define an $R$-action. I think you will have this problem in general. The proof that I wrote is quite standard in hyperbolic geometry.
            $endgroup$
            – Misha
            Jul 14 at 8:58











          • $begingroup$
            Aha. Now I am confused. I think that my construction goes through in this case. I gave an argument for making the vector field complete by multiplying it with a function (for example $1/|X|^2_g$ with respect to a complete auxiliary metric $g$.
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Michor
            Jul 14 at 9:04







          • 2




            $begingroup$
            @Ian Agol: I know: In the answer I said that I am restricting to orientation preserving maps to simplify the discussion.
            $endgroup$
            – Misha
            Jul 15 at 3:09






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @AliTaghavi: $chi$ is the alternating sum of Betti numbers assuming that they are all finite, like in our case. Otherwise, $chi$ is undefined.
            $endgroup$
            – Misha
            Jul 17 at 2:58















          13












          $begingroup$

          Let $M$ be the triply punctured 2-sphere (i.e. $M=S^2-p_1, p_2, p_3)$); one can also take any noncompact connected surface of finite topological type as long as $chi(M)<0$ but the proof is a bit more involved.



          Suppose that $g$ is a Riemannian metric on $M$. To simplify matters, I consider only orientation-preserving isometries.



          Then $mathrmIsom(M,g)< mathrmConf(M,g)$. I claim that $mathrmConf(M,g)$, the group of conformal automorphisms of $(M,g)$, is finite. The mapping class group of $M$ (the group of self-diffeomorphisms of $M$ modulo isotopy) is finite (isomorphic to the dihedral group of order $6$); hence, it suffices to prove that if $f: (M,g)to (M,g)$ is a conformal automorphism isotopic to the identity then $f=mathrmid$. This is quite standard (most likely, you will find it in Farb-Margalit's book on the mapping class group).



          Note that $f$ is isotopic to the identity if and only if it induces an inner automorphism of $pi_1(M)$.



          By the uniformization theorem, $(M,g)$ is conformal to the quotient of the hyperbolic plane $H^2$ by a discrete group of isometries $Gamma$ (isomorphic to $F_2$, the free group on two generators). The map $f$ then lifts to an isometry $F$ of $H^2$ (a linear-fractional transformation in, say, the Poincare disk model of $H^2$) which commutes with every element of $Gamma$ (since $f$ induces an inner automorphism of $pi_1(M)cong Gamma$). In particular, $F$ acts on the boundary circle $S^1$ of $H^2$ fixing fixed points of all elements of $Gamma$. Since $Gamma$ is free of rank 2, the set of fixed points of its nontrivial elements is infinite. Hence, $F$ fixes at least three points of $S^1$. Hence (being a linear-fractional transformation), $F=mathrmid$; thus, $f=mathrmid$.



          To conclude, every Riemannian metric on $M$ has finite group of isometries.



          Edit: I can prove the same claim for each noncompact complete hyperbolic $n$-manifold of finite volume, but a proof is more difficult.



          In general, the question can be reformulated in purely topological terms: Which smooth noncompact connected manifolds admit smooth proper actions of noncompact Lie groups? I suspect, this was studied in 1960s...






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Counterexample: Represent $M$ as the open disk in $mathbb R^2$ with two smaller closed disks omitted, and consider the vector field $partial_x$ restricted to $M$. Then apply the construction of my answer. I think that your answer is correct, if you also ask for a complete Riemannian metric on $M$.
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Michor
            Jul 14 at 8:55






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @PeterMichor: I am not using completeness of the metric $g$: Uniformization theorem does not require it. As for your example of a vector field, it will be "incomplete" and will not define an $R$-action. I think you will have this problem in general. The proof that I wrote is quite standard in hyperbolic geometry.
            $endgroup$
            – Misha
            Jul 14 at 8:58











          • $begingroup$
            Aha. Now I am confused. I think that my construction goes through in this case. I gave an argument for making the vector field complete by multiplying it with a function (for example $1/|X|^2_g$ with respect to a complete auxiliary metric $g$.
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Michor
            Jul 14 at 9:04







          • 2




            $begingroup$
            @Ian Agol: I know: In the answer I said that I am restricting to orientation preserving maps to simplify the discussion.
            $endgroup$
            – Misha
            Jul 15 at 3:09






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @AliTaghavi: $chi$ is the alternating sum of Betti numbers assuming that they are all finite, like in our case. Otherwise, $chi$ is undefined.
            $endgroup$
            – Misha
            Jul 17 at 2:58













          13












          13








          13





          $begingroup$

          Let $M$ be the triply punctured 2-sphere (i.e. $M=S^2-p_1, p_2, p_3)$); one can also take any noncompact connected surface of finite topological type as long as $chi(M)<0$ but the proof is a bit more involved.



          Suppose that $g$ is a Riemannian metric on $M$. To simplify matters, I consider only orientation-preserving isometries.



          Then $mathrmIsom(M,g)< mathrmConf(M,g)$. I claim that $mathrmConf(M,g)$, the group of conformal automorphisms of $(M,g)$, is finite. The mapping class group of $M$ (the group of self-diffeomorphisms of $M$ modulo isotopy) is finite (isomorphic to the dihedral group of order $6$); hence, it suffices to prove that if $f: (M,g)to (M,g)$ is a conformal automorphism isotopic to the identity then $f=mathrmid$. This is quite standard (most likely, you will find it in Farb-Margalit's book on the mapping class group).



          Note that $f$ is isotopic to the identity if and only if it induces an inner automorphism of $pi_1(M)$.



          By the uniformization theorem, $(M,g)$ is conformal to the quotient of the hyperbolic plane $H^2$ by a discrete group of isometries $Gamma$ (isomorphic to $F_2$, the free group on two generators). The map $f$ then lifts to an isometry $F$ of $H^2$ (a linear-fractional transformation in, say, the Poincare disk model of $H^2$) which commutes with every element of $Gamma$ (since $f$ induces an inner automorphism of $pi_1(M)cong Gamma$). In particular, $F$ acts on the boundary circle $S^1$ of $H^2$ fixing fixed points of all elements of $Gamma$. Since $Gamma$ is free of rank 2, the set of fixed points of its nontrivial elements is infinite. Hence, $F$ fixes at least three points of $S^1$. Hence (being a linear-fractional transformation), $F=mathrmid$; thus, $f=mathrmid$.



          To conclude, every Riemannian metric on $M$ has finite group of isometries.



          Edit: I can prove the same claim for each noncompact complete hyperbolic $n$-manifold of finite volume, but a proof is more difficult.



          In general, the question can be reformulated in purely topological terms: Which smooth noncompact connected manifolds admit smooth proper actions of noncompact Lie groups? I suspect, this was studied in 1960s...






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Let $M$ be the triply punctured 2-sphere (i.e. $M=S^2-p_1, p_2, p_3)$); one can also take any noncompact connected surface of finite topological type as long as $chi(M)<0$ but the proof is a bit more involved.



          Suppose that $g$ is a Riemannian metric on $M$. To simplify matters, I consider only orientation-preserving isometries.



          Then $mathrmIsom(M,g)< mathrmConf(M,g)$. I claim that $mathrmConf(M,g)$, the group of conformal automorphisms of $(M,g)$, is finite. The mapping class group of $M$ (the group of self-diffeomorphisms of $M$ modulo isotopy) is finite (isomorphic to the dihedral group of order $6$); hence, it suffices to prove that if $f: (M,g)to (M,g)$ is a conformal automorphism isotopic to the identity then $f=mathrmid$. This is quite standard (most likely, you will find it in Farb-Margalit's book on the mapping class group).



          Note that $f$ is isotopic to the identity if and only if it induces an inner automorphism of $pi_1(M)$.



          By the uniformization theorem, $(M,g)$ is conformal to the quotient of the hyperbolic plane $H^2$ by a discrete group of isometries $Gamma$ (isomorphic to $F_2$, the free group on two generators). The map $f$ then lifts to an isometry $F$ of $H^2$ (a linear-fractional transformation in, say, the Poincare disk model of $H^2$) which commutes with every element of $Gamma$ (since $f$ induces an inner automorphism of $pi_1(M)cong Gamma$). In particular, $F$ acts on the boundary circle $S^1$ of $H^2$ fixing fixed points of all elements of $Gamma$. Since $Gamma$ is free of rank 2, the set of fixed points of its nontrivial elements is infinite. Hence, $F$ fixes at least three points of $S^1$. Hence (being a linear-fractional transformation), $F=mathrmid$; thus, $f=mathrmid$.



          To conclude, every Riemannian metric on $M$ has finite group of isometries.



          Edit: I can prove the same claim for each noncompact complete hyperbolic $n$-manifold of finite volume, but a proof is more difficult.



          In general, the question can be reformulated in purely topological terms: Which smooth noncompact connected manifolds admit smooth proper actions of noncompact Lie groups? I suspect, this was studied in 1960s...







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Jul 14 at 11:19









          YCor

          30.4k4 gold badges91 silver badges146 bronze badges




          30.4k4 gold badges91 silver badges146 bronze badges










          answered Jul 14 at 8:42









          MishaMisha

          26k1 gold badge69 silver badges140 bronze badges




          26k1 gold badge69 silver badges140 bronze badges











          • $begingroup$
            Counterexample: Represent $M$ as the open disk in $mathbb R^2$ with two smaller closed disks omitted, and consider the vector field $partial_x$ restricted to $M$. Then apply the construction of my answer. I think that your answer is correct, if you also ask for a complete Riemannian metric on $M$.
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Michor
            Jul 14 at 8:55






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @PeterMichor: I am not using completeness of the metric $g$: Uniformization theorem does not require it. As for your example of a vector field, it will be "incomplete" and will not define an $R$-action. I think you will have this problem in general. The proof that I wrote is quite standard in hyperbolic geometry.
            $endgroup$
            – Misha
            Jul 14 at 8:58











          • $begingroup$
            Aha. Now I am confused. I think that my construction goes through in this case. I gave an argument for making the vector field complete by multiplying it with a function (for example $1/|X|^2_g$ with respect to a complete auxiliary metric $g$.
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Michor
            Jul 14 at 9:04







          • 2




            $begingroup$
            @Ian Agol: I know: In the answer I said that I am restricting to orientation preserving maps to simplify the discussion.
            $endgroup$
            – Misha
            Jul 15 at 3:09






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @AliTaghavi: $chi$ is the alternating sum of Betti numbers assuming that they are all finite, like in our case. Otherwise, $chi$ is undefined.
            $endgroup$
            – Misha
            Jul 17 at 2:58
















          • $begingroup$
            Counterexample: Represent $M$ as the open disk in $mathbb R^2$ with two smaller closed disks omitted, and consider the vector field $partial_x$ restricted to $M$. Then apply the construction of my answer. I think that your answer is correct, if you also ask for a complete Riemannian metric on $M$.
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Michor
            Jul 14 at 8:55






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @PeterMichor: I am not using completeness of the metric $g$: Uniformization theorem does not require it. As for your example of a vector field, it will be "incomplete" and will not define an $R$-action. I think you will have this problem in general. The proof that I wrote is quite standard in hyperbolic geometry.
            $endgroup$
            – Misha
            Jul 14 at 8:58











          • $begingroup$
            Aha. Now I am confused. I think that my construction goes through in this case. I gave an argument for making the vector field complete by multiplying it with a function (for example $1/|X|^2_g$ with respect to a complete auxiliary metric $g$.
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Michor
            Jul 14 at 9:04







          • 2




            $begingroup$
            @Ian Agol: I know: In the answer I said that I am restricting to orientation preserving maps to simplify the discussion.
            $endgroup$
            – Misha
            Jul 15 at 3:09






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @AliTaghavi: $chi$ is the alternating sum of Betti numbers assuming that they are all finite, like in our case. Otherwise, $chi$ is undefined.
            $endgroup$
            – Misha
            Jul 17 at 2:58















          $begingroup$
          Counterexample: Represent $M$ as the open disk in $mathbb R^2$ with two smaller closed disks omitted, and consider the vector field $partial_x$ restricted to $M$. Then apply the construction of my answer. I think that your answer is correct, if you also ask for a complete Riemannian metric on $M$.
          $endgroup$
          – Peter Michor
          Jul 14 at 8:55




          $begingroup$
          Counterexample: Represent $M$ as the open disk in $mathbb R^2$ with two smaller closed disks omitted, and consider the vector field $partial_x$ restricted to $M$. Then apply the construction of my answer. I think that your answer is correct, if you also ask for a complete Riemannian metric on $M$.
          $endgroup$
          – Peter Michor
          Jul 14 at 8:55




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          @PeterMichor: I am not using completeness of the metric $g$: Uniformization theorem does not require it. As for your example of a vector field, it will be "incomplete" and will not define an $R$-action. I think you will have this problem in general. The proof that I wrote is quite standard in hyperbolic geometry.
          $endgroup$
          – Misha
          Jul 14 at 8:58





          $begingroup$
          @PeterMichor: I am not using completeness of the metric $g$: Uniformization theorem does not require it. As for your example of a vector field, it will be "incomplete" and will not define an $R$-action. I think you will have this problem in general. The proof that I wrote is quite standard in hyperbolic geometry.
          $endgroup$
          – Misha
          Jul 14 at 8:58













          $begingroup$
          Aha. Now I am confused. I think that my construction goes through in this case. I gave an argument for making the vector field complete by multiplying it with a function (for example $1/|X|^2_g$ with respect to a complete auxiliary metric $g$.
          $endgroup$
          – Peter Michor
          Jul 14 at 9:04





          $begingroup$
          Aha. Now I am confused. I think that my construction goes through in this case. I gave an argument for making the vector field complete by multiplying it with a function (for example $1/|X|^2_g$ with respect to a complete auxiliary metric $g$.
          $endgroup$
          – Peter Michor
          Jul 14 at 9:04





          2




          2




          $begingroup$
          @Ian Agol: I know: In the answer I said that I am restricting to orientation preserving maps to simplify the discussion.
          $endgroup$
          – Misha
          Jul 15 at 3:09




          $begingroup$
          @Ian Agol: I know: In the answer I said that I am restricting to orientation preserving maps to simplify the discussion.
          $endgroup$
          – Misha
          Jul 15 at 3:09




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          @AliTaghavi: $chi$ is the alternating sum of Betti numbers assuming that they are all finite, like in our case. Otherwise, $chi$ is undefined.
          $endgroup$
          – Misha
          Jul 17 at 2:58




          $begingroup$
          @AliTaghavi: $chi$ is the alternating sum of Betti numbers assuming that they are all finite, like in our case. Otherwise, $chi$ is undefined.
          $endgroup$
          – Misha
          Jul 17 at 2:58











          9












          $begingroup$

          The answer is sometimes yes:



          If $M$ admits a complete vector field $X$, such that
          its flow
          $operatornameFl^X: mathbb Rtimes M to M$ is a proper action, then there exists a Riemannian metric which is invariant under the flow, by the following



          Theorem. If M is a proper G-manifold, then there is a G-invariant Riemann metric on M.



          which is due to Palais if I remember correctly. A proof of this theorem can be found in 6.30 of Topics in Differential Geometry. AMS, 2008.



          Finally, the isometry group then contains a non-compact 1-parameter group (this is not enough: it might be dense) which moves each point towards infinity for $ttoinfty$. So the isometry group cannot be compact (in the compact-open topology).



          The existence of such a vector field is a nontrivial condition, since then $M$ is the total space of real line bundle, as pointed out by Misha Kapovich. This is actually proved in 29.21 of 1.



          See his answer for an example where the answer is no.



          ADDED:



          The converse is also true: If the (connected component of the) isometry group is not compact, it contains a closed 1-parameter group whose generating vector field then has proper flow.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            If I look at the vector field $ypartial_x - xpartial_y$ then it should be complete on $Bbb R^2-0$, where it has no zeros. But I think the flow is not proper, as for any point $x$ we have $varphi_X^2pi n(x)=x$. Is that correct?
            $endgroup$
            – o r
            Jul 14 at 7:53










          • $begingroup$
            True, one needs a vectorfield without periodic orbit.
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Michor
            Jul 14 at 8:11






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            If you have a proper $R$-action then $M$ is diffeomorphic to the total space of an $R$-bundle; of course, many noncompact manifolds do not admit such.
            $endgroup$
            – Misha
            Jul 14 at 9:05










          • $begingroup$
            But the $mathbb R$-bundle is over a non-Hausdorff space, in general. In particular, in the 3 punctured sphere: Where 1 orbit becomes two, the two cannot be separated. See www.mat.univie.ac.at/~michor/vect-mf.pdf
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Michor
            Jul 14 at 9:36











          • $begingroup$
            Proper actions have Hausdorff quotient spaces. What you explained nicely in your linked note is that given an incomplete vector field on a manifold, you can extend it to a complete vector field on a (potentially) non-Hausdorff manifold. What happens in the 3-holed sphere example is that the quotient is obviously non-Hausdorff and, hence, you cannot get a proper $R$-action (even though, individual trajectories are proper, of course). What you have here is a variation on the standard example of a non-proper $R$-action on the punctured affine plane, given by $(t, (x,y))mapsto (e^tx, e^-ty)$.
            $endgroup$
            – Misha
            Jul 14 at 10:35















          9












          $begingroup$

          The answer is sometimes yes:



          If $M$ admits a complete vector field $X$, such that
          its flow
          $operatornameFl^X: mathbb Rtimes M to M$ is a proper action, then there exists a Riemannian metric which is invariant under the flow, by the following



          Theorem. If M is a proper G-manifold, then there is a G-invariant Riemann metric on M.



          which is due to Palais if I remember correctly. A proof of this theorem can be found in 6.30 of Topics in Differential Geometry. AMS, 2008.



          Finally, the isometry group then contains a non-compact 1-parameter group (this is not enough: it might be dense) which moves each point towards infinity for $ttoinfty$. So the isometry group cannot be compact (in the compact-open topology).



          The existence of such a vector field is a nontrivial condition, since then $M$ is the total space of real line bundle, as pointed out by Misha Kapovich. This is actually proved in 29.21 of 1.



          See his answer for an example where the answer is no.



          ADDED:



          The converse is also true: If the (connected component of the) isometry group is not compact, it contains a closed 1-parameter group whose generating vector field then has proper flow.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            If I look at the vector field $ypartial_x - xpartial_y$ then it should be complete on $Bbb R^2-0$, where it has no zeros. But I think the flow is not proper, as for any point $x$ we have $varphi_X^2pi n(x)=x$. Is that correct?
            $endgroup$
            – o r
            Jul 14 at 7:53










          • $begingroup$
            True, one needs a vectorfield without periodic orbit.
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Michor
            Jul 14 at 8:11






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            If you have a proper $R$-action then $M$ is diffeomorphic to the total space of an $R$-bundle; of course, many noncompact manifolds do not admit such.
            $endgroup$
            – Misha
            Jul 14 at 9:05










          • $begingroup$
            But the $mathbb R$-bundle is over a non-Hausdorff space, in general. In particular, in the 3 punctured sphere: Where 1 orbit becomes two, the two cannot be separated. See www.mat.univie.ac.at/~michor/vect-mf.pdf
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Michor
            Jul 14 at 9:36











          • $begingroup$
            Proper actions have Hausdorff quotient spaces. What you explained nicely in your linked note is that given an incomplete vector field on a manifold, you can extend it to a complete vector field on a (potentially) non-Hausdorff manifold. What happens in the 3-holed sphere example is that the quotient is obviously non-Hausdorff and, hence, you cannot get a proper $R$-action (even though, individual trajectories are proper, of course). What you have here is a variation on the standard example of a non-proper $R$-action on the punctured affine plane, given by $(t, (x,y))mapsto (e^tx, e^-ty)$.
            $endgroup$
            – Misha
            Jul 14 at 10:35













          9












          9








          9





          $begingroup$

          The answer is sometimes yes:



          If $M$ admits a complete vector field $X$, such that
          its flow
          $operatornameFl^X: mathbb Rtimes M to M$ is a proper action, then there exists a Riemannian metric which is invariant under the flow, by the following



          Theorem. If M is a proper G-manifold, then there is a G-invariant Riemann metric on M.



          which is due to Palais if I remember correctly. A proof of this theorem can be found in 6.30 of Topics in Differential Geometry. AMS, 2008.



          Finally, the isometry group then contains a non-compact 1-parameter group (this is not enough: it might be dense) which moves each point towards infinity for $ttoinfty$. So the isometry group cannot be compact (in the compact-open topology).



          The existence of such a vector field is a nontrivial condition, since then $M$ is the total space of real line bundle, as pointed out by Misha Kapovich. This is actually proved in 29.21 of 1.



          See his answer for an example where the answer is no.



          ADDED:



          The converse is also true: If the (connected component of the) isometry group is not compact, it contains a closed 1-parameter group whose generating vector field then has proper flow.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          The answer is sometimes yes:



          If $M$ admits a complete vector field $X$, such that
          its flow
          $operatornameFl^X: mathbb Rtimes M to M$ is a proper action, then there exists a Riemannian metric which is invariant under the flow, by the following



          Theorem. If M is a proper G-manifold, then there is a G-invariant Riemann metric on M.



          which is due to Palais if I remember correctly. A proof of this theorem can be found in 6.30 of Topics in Differential Geometry. AMS, 2008.



          Finally, the isometry group then contains a non-compact 1-parameter group (this is not enough: it might be dense) which moves each point towards infinity for $ttoinfty$. So the isometry group cannot be compact (in the compact-open topology).



          The existence of such a vector field is a nontrivial condition, since then $M$ is the total space of real line bundle, as pointed out by Misha Kapovich. This is actually proved in 29.21 of 1.



          See his answer for an example where the answer is no.



          ADDED:



          The converse is also true: If the (connected component of the) isometry group is not compact, it contains a closed 1-parameter group whose generating vector field then has proper flow.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Jul 14 at 12:22

























          answered Jul 14 at 7:29









          Peter MichorPeter Michor

          22.1k1 gold badge43 silver badges93 bronze badges




          22.1k1 gold badge43 silver badges93 bronze badges











          • $begingroup$
            If I look at the vector field $ypartial_x - xpartial_y$ then it should be complete on $Bbb R^2-0$, where it has no zeros. But I think the flow is not proper, as for any point $x$ we have $varphi_X^2pi n(x)=x$. Is that correct?
            $endgroup$
            – o r
            Jul 14 at 7:53










          • $begingroup$
            True, one needs a vectorfield without periodic orbit.
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Michor
            Jul 14 at 8:11






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            If you have a proper $R$-action then $M$ is diffeomorphic to the total space of an $R$-bundle; of course, many noncompact manifolds do not admit such.
            $endgroup$
            – Misha
            Jul 14 at 9:05










          • $begingroup$
            But the $mathbb R$-bundle is over a non-Hausdorff space, in general. In particular, in the 3 punctured sphere: Where 1 orbit becomes two, the two cannot be separated. See www.mat.univie.ac.at/~michor/vect-mf.pdf
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Michor
            Jul 14 at 9:36











          • $begingroup$
            Proper actions have Hausdorff quotient spaces. What you explained nicely in your linked note is that given an incomplete vector field on a manifold, you can extend it to a complete vector field on a (potentially) non-Hausdorff manifold. What happens in the 3-holed sphere example is that the quotient is obviously non-Hausdorff and, hence, you cannot get a proper $R$-action (even though, individual trajectories are proper, of course). What you have here is a variation on the standard example of a non-proper $R$-action on the punctured affine plane, given by $(t, (x,y))mapsto (e^tx, e^-ty)$.
            $endgroup$
            – Misha
            Jul 14 at 10:35
















          • $begingroup$
            If I look at the vector field $ypartial_x - xpartial_y$ then it should be complete on $Bbb R^2-0$, where it has no zeros. But I think the flow is not proper, as for any point $x$ we have $varphi_X^2pi n(x)=x$. Is that correct?
            $endgroup$
            – o r
            Jul 14 at 7:53










          • $begingroup$
            True, one needs a vectorfield without periodic orbit.
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Michor
            Jul 14 at 8:11






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            If you have a proper $R$-action then $M$ is diffeomorphic to the total space of an $R$-bundle; of course, many noncompact manifolds do not admit such.
            $endgroup$
            – Misha
            Jul 14 at 9:05










          • $begingroup$
            But the $mathbb R$-bundle is over a non-Hausdorff space, in general. In particular, in the 3 punctured sphere: Where 1 orbit becomes two, the two cannot be separated. See www.mat.univie.ac.at/~michor/vect-mf.pdf
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Michor
            Jul 14 at 9:36











          • $begingroup$
            Proper actions have Hausdorff quotient spaces. What you explained nicely in your linked note is that given an incomplete vector field on a manifold, you can extend it to a complete vector field on a (potentially) non-Hausdorff manifold. What happens in the 3-holed sphere example is that the quotient is obviously non-Hausdorff and, hence, you cannot get a proper $R$-action (even though, individual trajectories are proper, of course). What you have here is a variation on the standard example of a non-proper $R$-action on the punctured affine plane, given by $(t, (x,y))mapsto (e^tx, e^-ty)$.
            $endgroup$
            – Misha
            Jul 14 at 10:35















          $begingroup$
          If I look at the vector field $ypartial_x - xpartial_y$ then it should be complete on $Bbb R^2-0$, where it has no zeros. But I think the flow is not proper, as for any point $x$ we have $varphi_X^2pi n(x)=x$. Is that correct?
          $endgroup$
          – o r
          Jul 14 at 7:53




          $begingroup$
          If I look at the vector field $ypartial_x - xpartial_y$ then it should be complete on $Bbb R^2-0$, where it has no zeros. But I think the flow is not proper, as for any point $x$ we have $varphi_X^2pi n(x)=x$. Is that correct?
          $endgroup$
          – o r
          Jul 14 at 7:53












          $begingroup$
          True, one needs a vectorfield without periodic orbit.
          $endgroup$
          – Peter Michor
          Jul 14 at 8:11




          $begingroup$
          True, one needs a vectorfield without periodic orbit.
          $endgroup$
          – Peter Michor
          Jul 14 at 8:11




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          If you have a proper $R$-action then $M$ is diffeomorphic to the total space of an $R$-bundle; of course, many noncompact manifolds do not admit such.
          $endgroup$
          – Misha
          Jul 14 at 9:05




          $begingroup$
          If you have a proper $R$-action then $M$ is diffeomorphic to the total space of an $R$-bundle; of course, many noncompact manifolds do not admit such.
          $endgroup$
          – Misha
          Jul 14 at 9:05












          $begingroup$
          But the $mathbb R$-bundle is over a non-Hausdorff space, in general. In particular, in the 3 punctured sphere: Where 1 orbit becomes two, the two cannot be separated. See www.mat.univie.ac.at/~michor/vect-mf.pdf
          $endgroup$
          – Peter Michor
          Jul 14 at 9:36





          $begingroup$
          But the $mathbb R$-bundle is over a non-Hausdorff space, in general. In particular, in the 3 punctured sphere: Where 1 orbit becomes two, the two cannot be separated. See www.mat.univie.ac.at/~michor/vect-mf.pdf
          $endgroup$
          – Peter Michor
          Jul 14 at 9:36













          $begingroup$
          Proper actions have Hausdorff quotient spaces. What you explained nicely in your linked note is that given an incomplete vector field on a manifold, you can extend it to a complete vector field on a (potentially) non-Hausdorff manifold. What happens in the 3-holed sphere example is that the quotient is obviously non-Hausdorff and, hence, you cannot get a proper $R$-action (even though, individual trajectories are proper, of course). What you have here is a variation on the standard example of a non-proper $R$-action on the punctured affine plane, given by $(t, (x,y))mapsto (e^tx, e^-ty)$.
          $endgroup$
          – Misha
          Jul 14 at 10:35




          $begingroup$
          Proper actions have Hausdorff quotient spaces. What you explained nicely in your linked note is that given an incomplete vector field on a manifold, you can extend it to a complete vector field on a (potentially) non-Hausdorff manifold. What happens in the 3-holed sphere example is that the quotient is obviously non-Hausdorff and, hence, you cannot get a proper $R$-action (even though, individual trajectories are proper, of course). What you have here is a variation on the standard example of a non-proper $R$-action on the punctured affine plane, given by $(t, (x,y))mapsto (e^tx, e^-ty)$.
          $endgroup$
          – Misha
          Jul 14 at 10:35

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


          • 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.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f336073%2fpossible-isometry-groups-of-open-manifolds%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

          Get product attribute by attribute group code in magento 2get product attribute by product attribute group in magento 2Magento 2 Log Bundle Product Data in List Page?How to get all product attribute of a attribute group of Default attribute set?Magento 2.1 Create a filter in the product grid by new attributeMagento 2 : Get Product Attribute values By GroupMagento 2 How to get all existing values for one attributeMagento 2 get custom attribute of a single product inside a pluginMagento 2.3 How to get all the Multi Source Inventory (MSI) locations collection in custom module?Magento2: how to develop rest API to get new productsGet product attribute by attribute group code ( [attribute_group_code] ) in magento 2

          Category:9 (number) SubcategoriesMedia in category "9 (number)"Navigation menuUpload mediaGND ID: 4485639-8Library of Congress authority ID: sh85091979ReasonatorScholiaStatistics

          Magento 2.3: How do i solve this, Not registered handle, on custom form?How can i rewrite TierPrice Block in Magento2magento 2 captcha not rendering if I override layout xmlmain.CRITICAL: Plugin class doesn't existMagento 2 : Problem while adding custom button order view page?Magento 2.2.5: Overriding Admin Controller sales/orderMagento 2.2.5: Add, Update and Delete existing products Custom OptionsMagento 2.3 : File Upload issue in UI Component FormMagento2 Not registered handleHow to configured Form Builder Js in my custom magento 2.3.0 module?Magento 2.3. How to create image upload field in an admin form