Holonomy and monodromy groupoids∗ Ronald Brown Ilhan˙ I¸cen˙ School of Informatics University of In¨on¨u˙ Mathematics Division Faculty of Science and Art University of Wales Department of Mathematics Bangor, Gwynedd Malatya/ Turkey LL57 1UT, U.K. [email protected] [email protected] Osman Mucuk University of Erciyes Faculty of Science and Art Department of Mathematics Kayseri/Turkey [email protected] November 6, 2018 Abstract We outline the construction of the holonomy groupoid of a locally Lie groupoid and the monodromy groupoid of a Lie groupoid. These specialise to the well known holonomy and monodromy groupoids of a foliation, when the groupoid is just an equivalence relation. Introduction The holonomy and monodromy groupoids of foliations are well known, and with their smooth structure are usually attributed to Winkelnkemper [41] and Phillips [37]. The purpose of this paper is to advertise the fact, due to Pradines in 1966 [38], that these constructions are special arXiv:math/0110064v1 [math.DG] 5 Oct 2001 cases of constructions which apply to wide classes of structured groupoids, where the foliation case is essentially that where the groupoid is the equivalence relation determined by the leaves of the foliation. In the final section, we suggest a number of wider questions and possible directions for investigation, in particular the possible relation with generalised Galois theory, and the potentiality of higher dimensional analogues. An important feature of Pradines’ work is that these constructions of holonomy and mon- odromy groupoids come with universal properties of a local-to-global form. The association of ∗MSC2000: 18F20, 22A22, 58H05 1 monodromy with a universal principle is classical, see for example Chevalley [18]. The mon- odromy principle asserts roughly that, in a simply connected situation, for example a simply connected group, or an equivalence relation on a simply connected space, a local morphism ex- tends to a global morphism. More generally, a local morphism can be lifted to a global morphism on the universal cover. The association of holonomy with a universal principle is less well known. It is stated in terms of an adjoint pair of functors, but not explained in detail, in [38]. It involves the notion of what Pradines called ‘un morceau d’un groupo¨ıde diff´erentiables’ and which we prefer to call a ‘locally Lie groupoid’. This is a groupoid G and a subset W of G containing the identities and such that W has the structure of a manifold. Conditions are imposed so that the groupoid structure is as ‘smooth as possible’ on W . There is a kind of ‘holonomy principle’ that, in the ‘locally sectionable’ case (see below), the manifold structure on W extends to a Lie groupoid structure not on G but on an overgroupoid Hol(G, W ) of G, and in which W is an open subspace. The case when Hol(G, W ) = G is also of interest, since this gives a condition for the pair (G, W ) to be extendible. This is used crucially to obtain a Lie structure on the monodromy groupoid of a Lie groupoid. Thus whereas usually the holonomy groupoid is constructed as a quotient of the monodromy groupoid, here we regard the holonomy construction as fundamental. This difference of approach seems of interest. Another question arising from this work is the applicability of the notion of locally Lie groupoid for encapsulating ideas of local structures. It is proven by Brown and Mucuk in [17] that the charts of a foliation on a paracompact manifold gives rise to a locally Lie groupoid. This process is generalised by Brown and I¸cen˙ in [9] to the case of a local subgroupoid. We also note recent work of Claire Debord [20] which studies the case of singular foliations, and has constructions whose relation to those given here would be interesting to determine. One aim for Pradines of this notion of what we call a locally Lie groupoid was as a half way house between a Lie algebroid and a Lie groupoid. We have not found a clear statement of which Lie algebroids give rise to a locally Lie groupoid, but the two steps of holonomy and monodromy groupoid were designed to model two of the three steps in getting an essentially unique Lie group from a Lie algebra, namely: produce from the Lie algebra a locally Lie group; from this produce a Lie group; finally, take the universal cover of this Lie group. It is remarkable that Pradines’ intuitions on these steps was so strong. The main ideas of the results and proofs for the holonomy and monodromy groupoids were described by Pradines to Brown in the early 1980s, and an incomplete account was written in [5]. A full account of the holonomy construction and related material was given in Aof’s Bangor thesis [2] and published in [3]. A full account of the monodromy construction was given in Mucuk’s Bangor thesis [36] and published in [17]. It should be emphasised that this gives useful conditions for the groupoid M(G), obtained from a Lie groupoid by taking the universal covers of the stars of G at the identities, to be given the structure of Lie groupoid so that the projection M(G) → G gives the universal covering map on each star. A key aspect of the construction is that M(G) is initially defined by a universal construction which ensures that it comes with a monodromy principle on the extendibility to M(G) of certain local morphisms on G. The problem is to get a topology on M(G) and this, remarkably, is solved by the holonomy construction, but in the case where the holonomy is trivial. This seems a roundabout method. The point, however, seems to be that the construction of the topology 2 involves local smooth admissible sections, and the proof that this method works seems to be no simpler in the case of trivial holonomy than in the general case. Thus it is important to be clear about the general method. The use of local admissible sections for these constructions seems essential. To see this we contrast with the group case. If G is a topological group, then left multiplication Lg by an element g of G maps open sets of G to open sets, and in fact Lg is a homeomorphism of G. This is no longer the case if G is topological groupoid, for obvious domain reasons. To remedy this situation, Ehresmann introduced the notion of ‘smooth local continuous admissible section’ σ of a Lie groupoid G. This is a smooth section of the source map α defined on some open set U of the object space OG and such that βσ maps U diffeomorphically to an open set of OG. Then left multiplication Lσ can be defined on G and does map open sets of G to open sets of G. We say that left multiplication by an element has to be ‘localised’, that is ‘spread’ to a local area. Intuitively, we regard σ and its associated Lσ as a ‘local procedure’ on the Lie groupoid G. In the case of a locally Lie groupoid (G, W ) there is a new twist. We can say that σ is smooth only if the image of σ lies in W , since only W has a manifold structure. We call such a σ a ‘local procedure’. The composition in the groupoid G extends to a composition of local admissible sections, and so such a composition can be regarded as a ‘composite of local procedures’, but such a composition may not have values in W and so is not a ‘local procedure’. In fact in the literature, more so in physics than in mathematics, the notion of holonomy is regarded as an iteration of local procedures which returns to the starting point but not to the starting value. We will see this interpreted as a germ [σ]x of such a composite for which σ(x) = 1x but there is no neighbourhood U of x for which σ(U) is contained in W and σ|U is smooth. That is, the iteration does not even locally give a local procedure. The convenient formal description of the above is in terms of inverse monoids and groupoids of germs. The nice point is that the formal description does exactly encapsulate the intuition, and it is the intention of this paper to convey this point. Now we give some precise definitions. 1 Definitions We fix our notation. A groupoid consists of a set G and two functions, the source and target maps, α, β : G → G such that αβ = β,βα = α (whence α2 = α, β2 = β, and α and β have the same image). We often write g : αg → βg. Further, there is a multiplication written, say, gh, for g, h ∈ G, with the property that gh is defined if and only if βg = αh, and then α(gh) = αg, β(gh) = βh. The set αG is called the set of identities, or objects, of the groupoid G, and is written OG. If x ∈ αG one often writes 1x for x to emphasise that such an x acts as an identity. We also require associativity of the multiplication, and the existence of an inverse to every element of G. It is often convenient to think of OG as disjoint from G. Thus a groupoid is also a small category in which every morphism is an isomorphism. A groupoid in which α = β is called a bundle of groups, while a groupoid in which the anchor map (α, β) : G → OG × OG is injective is just an equivalence relation.