Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T17:24:58.532Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

PARABOLIC COMPACTIFICATION OF HOMOGENEOUS SPACES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2019

Andreas Čap
Affiliation:
Faculty of Mathematics, University of Vienna, Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1, 1090Wien, Austria ([email protected]; [email protected])
A. Rod Gover
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland1142, New Zealand ([email protected])
Matthias Hammerl
Affiliation:
Faculty of Mathematics, University of Vienna, Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1, 1090Wien, Austria ([email protected]; [email protected])

Abstract

In this article, we study compactifications of homogeneous spaces coming from equivariant, open embeddings into a generalized flag manifold $G/P$. The key to this approach is that in each case $G/P$ is the homogeneous model for a parabolic geometry; the theory of such geometries provides a large supply of geometric tools and invariant differential operators that can be used for this study. A classical theorem of Wolf shows that any involutive automorphism of a semisimple Lie group $G$ with fixed point group $H$ gives rise to a large family of such compactifications of homogeneous spaces of $H$. Most examples of (classical) Riemannian symmetric spaces as well as many non-symmetric examples arise in this way. A specific feature of the approach is that any compactification of that type comes with the notion of ‘curved analog’ to which the tools we develop also apply. The model example of this is a general Poincaré–Einstein manifold forming the curved analog of the conformal compactification of hyperbolic space. In the first part of the article, we derive general tools for the analysis of such compactifications. In the second part, we analyze two families of examples in detail, which in particular contain compactifications of the symmetric spaces $\mathit{SL}(n,\mathbb{R})/\mathit{SO}(p,n-p)$ and $\mathit{SO}(n,\mathbb{C})/\mathit{SO}(n)$. We describe the decomposition of the compactification into orbits, show how orbit closures can be described as the zero sets of smooth solutions to certain invariant differential operators and prove a local slice theorem around each orbit in these examples.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2019. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

A.Č. and A.R.G. gratefully acknowledge support from the Royal Society of New Zealand via Marsden grant 16-UOA-051; A.Č. gratefully acknowledges support by project P27072-N25 of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF). All authors acknowledge the hospitality of the University of Auckland and the University of Vienna. We thank the anonymous referee for very helpful comments.

References

Aharony, O., Gubser, S. S., Maldacena, J. M., Ooguri, H. and Oz, Y., Large N field theories, string theory and gravity, Phys. Rep. 323 (2000), 183386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branson, T., Čap, A., Eastwood, M. and Gover, A. R., Prolongations of geometric overdetermined systems, Int. J. Math. 17(6) (2006), 641664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borel, A. and Ji, L., Compactifications of Symmetric and Locally Symmetric Spaces, Mathematics: Theory & Applications (Birkhäuser, Boston, 2006).Google Scholar
Calderbank, D. M. J. and Diemer, T., Differential invariants and curved Bernstein–Gelfand–Gelfand sequences, J. Reine Angew. Math. 537 (2001), 67103.Google Scholar
Čap, A. and Gover, A. R., Tractor calculi for parabolic geometries, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 354 (2002), 15111548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Čap, A. and Gover, A. R., Projective compactifications and Einstein metrics, J. Reine Angew. Math. 717 (2016), 4775.Google Scholar
Čap, A. and Gover, A. R., Projective compactness and conformal boundaries, Math. Ann. 366 (2016), 15871620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Čap, A. and Gover, A. R., C-projective compactification; (quasi-)Kähler metrics and CR boundaries, Amer. J. Math. 141 (2019), 813856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Čap, A., Gover, A. R. and Hammerl, M., Projective BGG equations, algebraic sets, and compactifications of Einstein geometries, J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 86 (2012), 433454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Čap, A., Gover, A. R. and Hammerl, M., Holonomy reductions of Cartan geometries and curved orbit decompositions, Duke Math. J. 163 (2014), 10351070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Čap, A. and Slovák, J., Parabolic Geometries I: Background and General Theory, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Čap, A., Slovák, J. and Souček, V., Bernstein–Gelfand–Gelfand sequences, Ann. of Math. (2) 154 (2001), 97113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fefferman, C. and Graham, C. R., The Ambient Metric, Annals of Mathematics Studies, Volume 178 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2012).Google Scholar
Frauendiener, J., Conformal infinity, Living Rev. Relativ. 7 (2004), 2004-1, 82pp.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gover, A. R., Conformal Dirichlet–Neumann maps and Poincaré–Einstein manifolds, SIGMA (Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications) 3(100) (2007), 21 pages.Google Scholar
Gover, A. R., Almost Einstein and Poincaré–Einstein manifolds in Riemannian signature, J. Geom. Phys. 60 (2010), 182204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gover, A. R., Latini, E. and Waldron, A., Poincaré–Einstein holography for forms via conformal geometry in the bulk, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 235(1106) (2015), vi+95 pp.Google Scholar
Gover, A. R. and Waldron, A., Boundary calculus for conformally compact manifolds, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 63 (2014), 119163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gover, A. R. and Waldron, A., Renormalized volume, Commun. Math. Phys. 354 (2017), 12051244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, C. R. and Zworski, M., Scattering matrix in conformal geometry, Invent. Math. 152 (2003), 89118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobayashi, T., Ørsted, B., Somberg, P. and Souček, V., Branching laws for Verma modules and applications in parabolic geometry. I, Adv. Math. 285 (2015), 17961852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolář, I., Michor, P. W. and Slovák, J., Natural Operations in Differential Geometry (Springer, Berlin, 1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazzeo, R. and Melrose, R. B., Meromorphic extension of the resolvent on complete spaces with asymptotically constant negative curvature, J. Funct. Anal. 75 (1987), 260310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melrose, R. B., Geometric Scattering Theory. Stanford Lectures (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995).Google Scholar
Mostow, G. D., Quasi-conformal mappings in n-space and the rigidity of hyperbolic space forms, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. 34 (1968), 53104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neusser, K., Prolongation on regular infinitesimal flag structures, Internat. J. Math. 23(4) (2012), 1250007, 41 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palais, R. S., On the existence of slices for actions of non-compact Lie groups, Ann. of Math. (2) 73 (1961), 295323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penrose, R., Asymptotic properties of fields and space–times, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 (1963), 6668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratcliffe, J. G., Foundations of Hyperbolic Manifolds, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Volume 149 (Springer, New York, 1994). xii+747 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasy, A., Microlocal analysis of asymptotically hyperbolic and Kerr–de Sitter spaces (with an appendix by Semyon Dyatlov), Invent. Math. 194 (2013), 381513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, J. A., Finiteness of orbit structure for real flag manifolds, Geom. Dedicata 3 (1974), 377384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar