Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
added this pointer:
Under Def 2.1
Then a slice in a $G$-action $U$…
That should be ’$H$-slice’?
We hadn’t yet heard the term on this page. It’s the same as ’slice through $G$-orbits modulo $H$’ earlier?
Is there a way to see Cauchy surface as such a thing?
I see, okay I made it say “H-slice” in Def. 2.1.
And yes, if time evolution on some manifold is already given as an $\mathbb{R}^1$-action with timelike flow lines, then slices for this action (“1-slices”) are Cauchy surfaces!
I won’t edit further right now, since I am just on my phone at the moment, but we could add this as an example.
Okay, I have added to the statement of the theorem the condition that $X$ be locally compact, and then added a Remark (here) that Palais61 goes to some trouble to generalize away from this assumption by carefully adjusting the definition of proper action.
But I won’t go down that road now, will assume local compactness and keep fingers crossed that this won’t bite me later.
added pointer to:
This has a proof that for $S$ an $H$-slice, then $G \times S \to G \cdot S$ is an open map.
I had been looking for this statement, since it implies that for $S$ a slice through some point, also its intersection with any open neighbourhood of the point is still a slice through the point. This is used without comment in Lashof’s “Equivariant bundles and I fail to see how it doesn’t require an argument. Such as Antonyan’s.
Made explicit (here) the trivial but important example that $G$-slices through points whose stabilizer is the entire equivariance group $G$ are given by the entire $G$-space.
Used this to complete the following example (here) of slices through points in the canonical $O(n+1)$-action on $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$.
1 to 14 of 14