arXiv:1003.2759v2 [math.DG] 21 Apr 2010 tutrso ,wihisl xiisarc emtyadsy and geometry rich a Σ. equi exhibits of are itself symmetries points metr which topological whose no space Σ, is a on develops there One structures geometry: earth. Euclidean the of local atlas no admits sphere a Keywords. (2000). Classification Subject Mathematics rep of spaces deformation of properties groups. global to and leads structure local it geometric ing how particular and In dimension, representations. low group in manifolds on structures Abstract. Goldman M. William manifolds geometric homogeneous Locally Mathematicia 2010 of India, Congress Hyderabad, International the of Proceedings lsiyaltepsil aso nrdcn h oa geom local the introducing of ways possible the all classify mtiaino -aiod,uiomzto,crystallog uniformization, 3-manifolds, of ometrization n a s hc oooisspotasse flclcoordinates local of system a space a support homogeneous group Fe topologies Lie fixed transitive which a ask under points. invariant may geometrie space one of classical a the of organization that properties the Program quantitative r as Erlangen 1872 loose metric his rigid the in proposed and with measurements deals quantitative topology involves geometry While background Historical 1. action. deformat structure, ergodic hyperbolic complex structure, CR struc ical projective structure, affine surface, h Riemann metric, space, completen Fricke Teichm¨uller holonomy, space, structure, group, symplectic fundamental group, Lie action, oooia pcslclymdldo ooeeu pc o space homogeneous a on stud modeled the locally initiated spaces Ehresmann topological Charles transformations, try rga.Tebscpolmi o ie oooyΣadageom a and Σ topology given a for is problem basic 3 Thurston’s The of context program. the formed later spaces homogeneous h oriaecagsaelclyrsrcin ftransformation of restrictions locally are changes coordinate the esre eea xmlso h lsicto flclyh locally of classification the of examples several survey We oiae yFlxKensnto htgoer sgoverned is geometry that notion Klein’s Felix by Motivated Foundation Science National the by supported Partially oncin uvtr,fie ude ooeeu pc,Th space, homogeneous bundle, fiber curvature, connection, X = G/H uhta noelpigcodnt patches, coordinate overlapping on that such rmr 75;Scnay57N16. Secondary 57M50; Primary ahcgop iceegop proper group, discrete group, raphic ns r sflto nunderstand- in tool useful a are s pblcsrcue Riemannian structure, ypebolic ue ofra tutr,spher- structure, conformal ture, o pc,mpigcasgroup, class mapping space, ion tyof etry fgoercsrcue on structures geometric of y dmninlgeometrization -dimensional eettoso fundamental of resentations i ru.Teelocally These group. Lie a f s,dvlpet geodesic, development, ess, aec lse fgeometric of classes valence mtisaiigfo the from arising mmetries eea td fsurface of study general a clyacrt Euclidean accurate ically X yisgopo symme- of group its by mgnosgeometric omogeneous noΣ o example, For Σ. into etry from s to.Therefore ction. econsidered be s oee na on modeled X G = rtnge- urston i Klein lix . elations, G/H to , 2 W. Goldman
In this generality this question was first asked by Charles Ehresmann [55] at the conference “Quelques questions de Geom´etrie et de Topologie,” in Geneva in 1935. Forty years later, the subject of such locally homogeneous geometric structures experienced a resurgence when W. Thurston placed his 3-dimensional geometrization program [158] in the context of locally homogeneous (Riemannian) structures. The rich diversity of geometries on homogeneous spaces brings in a wide range of techniques, and the field has thrived through their interaction. Before Ehresmann, the subject may be traced to several independent threads in the 19th century:
• The theory of monodromy of Schwarzian differential equations on Riemann surfaces, which arose from the integration of algebraic functions;
• Symmetries of crystals led to the enumeration (1891) by Fedorov, Sch¨oenflies and Barlow of the 230 three-dimensional crystallographic space groups (the 17 two-dimensional wallpaper groups had been known much earlier). The general qualitative classification of crystallographic groups is due to Bieber- bach.
• The theory of connections, curvature and parallel transport in Riemannian geometry, which arose from the classical theory of surfaces in R3.
The uniformization of Riemann surfaces linked complex analysis to Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry. Klein, Poincar´eand others saw that the moduli of Rie- mann surfaces, first conceived by Riemann, related (via uniformization) to the deformation theory of geometric structures. This in turn related to deforming discrete groups (or more accurately, representations of fundamental groups in Lie groups), the viewpoint of the text of Fricke-Klein [62].
2. The Classification Question
Here is the fundamental general problem: Suppose we are given a manifold Σ (a topology) and a homogeneous space (G, X = G/H) (a geometry). Identify a space whose points correspond to equivalence classes of (G, X)-structures on Σ. This space should inherit an action of the group of topological symmetries (the mapping class group Mod(Σ)) of Σ. That is, how many inequivalent ways can one weave the geometry of X into the topology of Σ? Identify the natural Mod(Σ)-invariant geometries on this deformation space.
3. Ehresmann structures and development
For n> 1, the sphere Sn admits no Euclidean structure. This is just the familiar fact there is no metrically accurate atlas of the world. Thus the deformation space of Euclidean structures on Sn is empty. On the other hand, the torus admits a rich Locally homogeneous geometric manifolds 3 class of Euclidean structures, and (after some simple normalizations) the space of Euclidean structures on T 2 identifies with the quotient of the upper half-plane H2 by the modular group PGL(2, Z). Globalizing the coordinate charts in terms of the developing map is useful here. Replace the coordinate atlas by a universal covering space M˜ −→ M with covering group π1(M). Replace the coordinate charts by a local diffeomorphism, the devel- dev oping map M˜ −−→ X, as follows. dev is equivariant with respect to the actions of h π1(M) by deck transformations on M˜ and by a representation π1(M) −→ G, re- spectively. The coordinate changes are replaced by the holonomy homomorphism h. The resulting developing pair (dev,h) is unique up to composition/conjugation by elements in G. This determines the structure. Here is the precise correspondence. Suppose that
{(Uα, ψα) | Uα ∈U} is a (G, X)-coordinate atlas: U is an open covering by coordinate patches Uα, with ψα coordinate charts Uα −−→ X for Uα ∈ U. For every nonempty connected open subset U ⊂ Uα ∩ Uβ, there is a (necessarily unique)
g(U; Uα,Uβ) ∈ G such that ψα|U = g(U) ◦ ψβ|U . (Since a homogeneous space X carries a natural real-analytic structure invari- ant under G, every (G, X)-manifold carries an underlying real-analytic structure. For convenience, therefore, we fix a smooth structure on Σ, and work in the dif- ferentiable category, where tools such as transversality are available. Since we concentrate here in low dimensions (like 2), restricting to smooth manifolds and mappings sacrifices no generality. Therefore, when we speak of “a topological space Σ” we really mean a smooth manifold Σ rather than just a topological space.) The coordinate changes {g(U; Uα,Uβ)} define a flat (G, X)-bundle as follows.
Start with the trivial (G, X)-bundle over the disjoint union `Uα∈U Uα, having components Πα Eα := Uα × X −−→ Uα. Now identify, for (u,uα,uβ) ∈ U × Uα × Uβ, the two local total spaces U × X ⊂ Eα with U × X ⊂ Eβ by