0

Def 1: Let $f : X \rightarrow Y$ be a continuous map. $X,Y$ Topological spaces. $f$ is called proper if $f^{-1}(K)$ is compact for every compact $K \subseteq Y$.

Def 2: G : topological group. A continuous action $A: G \times M \rightarrow M$ is called a proper action if the following map is proper: $(A; \text{id}) : G \times M \rightarrow M \times M: (g; m) \mapsto (A(g, m), m) $

Suppose that $A : G \times M \rightarrow M$ is a proper action and that $M$ is a metric space. Prove that the quotient space M/G is Hausdorff

I have been trying for a while now. I've seen some proofs where G was Hausdorff I don't have that here in this case.To prove $M/G$ is Hausdorff I would take distinct points $a, b$ in $M/G$ and tried to find 2 disjoint open sets containing each point separatelly. But this approach has not led me anywhere.

On another hand $U$ is open in $M/G \iff \pi^{-1}(U)$ is open in $M$ where $\pi$ is the canonical projection

How should I proceed?

Note: The followings fact that I have already proven might be useful

-If $Y$ is a metric space and $f: X \rightarrow Y$ is continuous and proper, $f$ is closed

-If G is compact and M is Hausdorff. Every continuous action of G on M is proper


Edit: as suggested in the comments the following is the proof of the part that interests me: from ( https://mathoverflow.net/questions/55726/properly-discontinuous-action/56490?_gl=1*nkzp9s*_ga*NzY0NDcyMDM3LjE1Njk3NjA3NDU.*_ga_S812YQPLT2*MTY5Nzk5NjE1OC41NDkuMS4xNjk4MDA4NzQyLjAuMC4w#56490 )

Definition. Let G be a topological group acting continuously on a topological space X. The action is called proper if the map ρ:G×X→X×X given by (g,x)↦(x,gx) is proper.

Proposition. If G acts properly on X then X/G is Hausdorff. In particular, each orbit Gx is closed. The stabilizer Gx of each point is compact and the map G/Gx→Gx is a homeomorphism. Moreover, if G is Hausdorff then so is X

Proof. Indeed, the orbit equivalence relation is the image of ρ, hence it is closed. Since the projection X→X/G is open, this implies that X/G is Hausdorff.(...)

However is too succinct to me, so I update the question to:

Could you please explain the details? or link to proofs of these facts? I think they are properties that I don't know

1 Why is the image of $\rho$ closed?

2 I know by a theorem that the projection is open so everything good there, but why does that imply that X/G is Hausdorff?

  • 1
    https://mathoverflow.net/questions/55726/properly-discontinuous-action/56490#56490 – Moishe Kohan Oct 22 '23 at 21:05
  • @MoisheKohan that seems to be about discontinuous actions, while this is about continuous action (included the definition of properness) – some_math_guy Oct 22 '23 at 21:07
  • Also, I don't have any assumption of local compactness – some_math_guy Oct 22 '23 at 21:08
  • If $X$ is locally compact, you find a proof as Lemma 10 in https://math.stackexchange.com/a/241962/1650 – Martin Brandenburg Oct 22 '23 at 21:09
  • @MartinBrandenburg I saw that one, I don't have that hypothesis. My definition of compactness does not imply Hausdorffness (we don't follow the French school). Without that the proof is more difficult – some_math_guy Oct 22 '23 at 21:10
  • Theo's answer in the link is about proper actions without the local compactness assumption. – Moishe Kohan Oct 22 '23 at 21:12
  • @MoisheKohan. Do you mean this? Proposition. If G acts properly on X then X/G is Hausdorff. In particular, each orbit Gx is closed. The stabilizer Gx of each point is compact and the map G/Gx→Gx is a homeomorphism. Moreover, if G is Hausdorff then so is X .Proof. Indeed, the orbit equivalence relation is the image of ρ, hence it is closed. Since the projection X→X/G is open, this implies that X/G is Hausdorff. – some_math_guy Oct 22 '23 at 21:22
  • So the proof is just one and a half lines? – some_math_guy Oct 22 '23 at 21:22
  • Yes.............. – Moishe Kohan Oct 22 '23 at 21:25
  • @MoisheKohan Thanks, What about their definition of properness which is " A continuous function f:X→Y is called proper if f maps closed sets to closed sets and f^−1(K) is compact for all compact K⊂Y." which ask for more than mine. Actually it seems redundant, because closeness can be deduced from properness, if I assume M metric. I guess that's why they don't they need to use that M (in their notation X) is metric? That's the only thing for which in my post M is assumed metric I guess – some_math_guy Oct 22 '23 at 21:32
  • @MoisheKohan. If you want to write an answer I will be happy to accept it. May I ask why does openness of the projection $X \mapsto X/G$ imply $X/G$ is Hausdorff? – some_math_guy Oct 22 '23 at 21:39
  • ....and why is the image of $\rho$ closed? Thanks – some_math_guy Oct 22 '23 at 21:47
  • Hello @some_math_guy. Ch3. par 4 ("Groups Operating Properly on a Topological Space; Compactness in Topological Groups and Spaces with Operators") of Bourbaki's "General topology" provides all proofs you need. For example, there is a proposition that open relation is Hausdorff iff its graph is closed. The book provides general definition of proper map and basic equivalences related to that definition. – dsh Oct 23 '23 at 09:25
  • @dsh Hi, thanks for the suggestion, I will check that out! – some_math_guy Oct 23 '23 at 09:40

1 Answers1

1

Your question revolves around the properties of the quotient space ( M/G ) given a proper action of a topological group ( G ) on a metric space ( M ). You're right in seeking to leverage properties that arise from a proper action. Let's tackle the concerns step by step.

  1. Closedness of the orbit relation's image:

To understand why the image of ( \rho ) is closed, consider that the map ( \rho: G \times M \rightarrow M \times M ) sends ( (g, m) ) to ( (A(g, m), m) ). Now, since ( M \times M ) is a Hausdorff space and the action is proper, the diagonal ( \Delta = {(m, m) | m \in M} ) is closed. Hence, if ( (x, y) ) and ( (x', y') ) are in distinct orbits, there exist disjoint open neighborhoods around them.

Since the orbits of points under the action of ( G ) are equivalence classes, the orbit relation is an equivalence relation. This implies that the relation is both reflexive and symmetric. Combining this with the fact that the map is proper, it means that the image of the orbit relation is closed.

  1. Openness of the projection & Hausdorffness of ( M/G ):

Your intuition is correct regarding the openness of the projection and how it can be leveraged. Consider two distinct points ( x ) and ( y ) in ( M ) that aren't in the same ( G )-orbit. Their image in ( M/G ) will be distinct equivalence classes. Given the closedness of the orbit relation and the Hausdorff property of ( M \times M ), you can find disjoint open sets in ( M \times M ) separating the points from the diagonal. Now, the openness of the projection means these open sets can be "transferred" to the quotient to separate the equivalence classes.

So, given distinct equivalence classes in ( M/G ), you can always find disjoint open sets containing them, verifying the Hausdorff property for the quotient space.


Your attempt to use properties of proper actions is definitely on the right track. It's worth diving deeper into the interplay between group actions and topology to get a more intuitive understanding. I hope this breakdown clarifies things for you!

  • Awesome thanks, could you please include why the orbit equivalence relation is the image of ρ ? The equivalence relation is a set of classes , while the image does not live in the quotient I think – some_math_guy Oct 22 '23 at 23:00
  • The function ( \rho ) maps ( (g,x) ) to pairs ( (x, g \cdot x) ), thus outlining the transformation of ( x ) under ( G )'s action. If two points ( x ) and ( y ) in ( X ) belong to the same G-orbit, it means there's a ( g \in G ) such that ( y = g \cdot x ). Hence, the pairs which determine the orbit equivalence relation directly match the pairs found in ( \rho )'s image within ( X \times X ). This correlation between orbits and ( \rho )'s image is central to the proof. –  Oct 22 '23 at 23:13
  • 2
    Please use MathJax formatting. – citadel Oct 23 '23 at 02:35
  • @ArhamMehta "Combining this with the fact that the map is proper, it means that the image of the orbit relation is closed." May I ask how? – darkside Oct 24 '23 at 10:43
  • Can't I just say that because $f $ is proper, thus closed, the image of the whole set $G \times M$ is closed? – darkside Oct 24 '23 at 11:02