Curvature is tensorial: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(→Proof) |
||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
| 2 || <math>f\nabla_X\nabla_Y - (Yf)\nabla_X - f \nabla_Y\nabla_X - \nabla_{[fX,Y]}</math> || Fact (3), the Leibniz-like axiom for connection. || <math>\nabla_Y(f \nabla_X) \to (Yf)\nabla_X + f\nabla_Y\nabla_X</math>. To understand this more clearly imagine an input <math>Z</math> to the whole expression, so that the rewrite becomes <math>\nabla_Y(f \nabla_X(Z)) \to (Yf)\nabla_X(Z) + f\nabla_Y\nabla_X(Z)</math>. In the notation of fact (3), <math>A = Y</math>, <math>f = f</math>, and <math>B = \nabla_X(Z)</math>. | | 2 || <math>f\nabla_X\nabla_Y - (Yf)\nabla_X - f \nabla_Y\nabla_X - \nabla_{[fX,Y]}</math> || Fact (3), the Leibniz-like axiom for connection. || <math>\nabla_Y(f \nabla_X) \to (Yf)\nabla_X + f\nabla_Y\nabla_X</math>. To understand this more clearly imagine an input <math>Z</math> to the whole expression, so that the rewrite becomes <math>\nabla_Y(f \nabla_X(Z)) \to (Yf)\nabla_X(Z) + f\nabla_Y\nabla_X(Z)</math>. In the notation of fact (3), <math>A = Y</math>, <math>f = f</math>, and <math>B = \nabla_X(Z)</math>. | ||
|- | |- | ||
| 3 || <math>f(\nabla_X\nabla_Y - \nabla_Y\nabla_X) - \nabla_{(Yf)X | | 3 || <math>f(\nabla_X\nabla_Y - \nabla_Y\nabla_X) - \nabla_{(Yf)X} - \nabla_{[fX,Y]}</math> || <math>\nabla</math> is <math>C^\infty</math>-linear in its subscript argument || <math>(Yf)\nabla_X \to \nabla_{(Yf)X}</math> | ||
|- | |- | ||
| 4 || <math>f(\nabla_X\nabla_Y - \nabla_Y\nabla_X - \nabla_{[X,Y]})</math> || Fact (2) || <math>[fX,Y] \to f[X,Y] | | 4 || <math>f(\nabla_X\nabla_Y - \nabla_Y\nabla_X) - \nabla_{(Yf)X + [fX,Y]}</math> || <math>\nabla</math> is additive in its subscript argument || <math>\nabla_{(Yf)}X} + \nabla_{[fX,Y]} = \nabla_{(Yf)X + [fX,Y]}</math> | ||
|- | |||
| 5 || <math>f(\nabla_X\nabla_Y - \nabla_Y\nabla_X - \nabla_{[X,Y]})</math> || Fact (2) || <math>[fX,Y] + (Yf)X \to f[X,Y]</math>. | |||
|} | |} | ||
===Tensoriality in the second variable=== | ===Tensoriality in the second variable=== | ||
'''Given''': <math>f:M \to \R</math> is a <math>C^\infty</math>-function. | |||
<math>\! R(X,fY) = f R(X,Y)</math> | '''To prove''': <math>\! R(X,fY) = f R(X,Y)</math>, or more explicitly, <math>\nabla_X\nabla_{fY} - \nabla_{fY}\nabla_X - \nabla_{[X,fY]} = f (\nabla_X\nabla_Y - \nabla_Y\nabla_X - \nabla_{[X,Y]}</math>. | ||
We start out with the left side: | We start out with the left side: | ||
| Line 67: | Line 69: | ||
<math>\nabla_X\nabla_{fY} - \nabla_{fY}\nabla_X - \nabla_{[X,fY]}</math> | <math>\nabla_X\nabla_{fY} - \nabla_{fY}\nabla_X - \nabla_{[X,fY]}</math> | ||
Each step below is obtained from the previous one via some manipulation explained along side. | |||
<math>(Xf)\nabla_Y + f(\nabla_X\nabla_Y - \nabla_Y\nabla_X | {| class="sortable" border="1" | ||
! Step no. !! Current status of left side !! Facts/properties used !! Specific rewrites | |||
|- | |||
| 1 || <math>\nabla_X(f\nabla_Y) - f\nabla_Y\nabla_X - \nabla_{[X,fY]}</math> || By definition of a connection, <math>\nabla</math> is <math>C^\infty</math>-linear in its subscript argument || <math>\nabla_{fY} \to f\nabla_Y</math>. | |||
<math>f(\nabla_X\ | |- | ||
| 2 || <math>(Xf)\nabla_Y + f(\nabla_X\nabla_Y) - f\nabla_Y\nabla_X - \nabla_{[X,fY]}</math> || Fact (3), the Leibniz-like axiom for connection || <math>\nabla_X(f\nabla_Y) \to (Xf)\nabla_Y + f(\nabla_X\nabla_Y)</math>. To make this more concrete, imagine an input <math>Z</math>. Then, the rewrite becomes <math>\nabla_X(f\nabla_Y(Z)) \to (Xf)\nabla_Y(X) + f(\nabla_X\nabla_Y(Z))</math>. This comes setting <math>A = X</math>, <math>f = f</math>, <math>B = \nabla_YZ</math> in Fact (3). | |||
|- | |||
| 3 || <math>f(\nabla_X\nabla_Y - \nabla_Y\nabla_X) - \nabla_{[X,fY]} + \nabla_{(Xf)Y}</math> || <math>\nabla</math> is <math>C^\infty</math>-linear in its subscript argument. || <math>(Xf)\nabla_Y \to \nabla_{(Xf)Y}</math> | |||
<math>\ | |- | ||
| 4 || <math>f(\nabla_X\nabla_Y - \nabla_Y\nabla_X) - \nabla_{[X,fY] - (Xf)Y}</math> || <math>\nabla</math> is additive in its subscript argument. || <math>\nabla_{[X,fY]} - \nabla_{(Xf)Y} \to \nabla_{[X,fY] - (Xf)Y}</math>. | |||
|- | |||
| 5 || <math>f(\nabla_X\nabla_Y - \nabla_Y\nabla_X - \nabla_{[X,Y]}</math> || Fact (2) || <math>[X,fY] - (Xf)Y \to f[X,Y]</math> | |||
<math>f (\nabla_X\nabla_Y - \nabla_Y\nabla_X - \nabla_{[X,Y]}</math> | |} | ||
===Tensoriality in the third variable=== | ===Tensoriality in the third variable=== | ||
Revision as of 21:00, 25 February 2011
This article gives the statement, and possibly proof, that a map constructed in a certain way is tensorial
View other such statements
Statement
Let be a connection on a vector bundle over a differential manifold . The Riemann curvature tensor of is given as a map defined by:
We claim that is a tensorial map in each of the variables .
Related facts
- Curvature is antisymmetric in first two variables
- Curvature is antisymmetric in last two variables
- Curvature is symmetric in the pairs of first and last two variables
Facts used
| Fact no. | Name | Full statement |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Leibniz rule for derivations | For a vector field and functions , we have: |
| 2 | Corollary of Leibniz rule for Lie bracket | For a function and vector fields :
|
| 3 | The Leibniz-like axiom that is part of the definition of a connection | For a function and vector fields , and a connection , we have |
Proof
To prove tensoriality in a variable, it suffices to show -linearity in that variable. This is because linearity in -functions guarantees linearity in a function that is 1 at exactly one point, and zero at others.
The proofs for and are analogous, and rely on manipulation of the Lie bracket and the property of a connection being in the subscript vector. These proofs do not involve any explicit use of . The proof for relies simply on repeated application of the product rule, and the fact that .
Tensoriality in the first variable
Given: is a -function.
To prove: , or more explicitly,
We start out with the left side:
Each step below is obtained from the previous one via some manipulation explained along side.
| Step no. | Current status of left side | Facts/properties used | Specific rewrites |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | By definition of a connection, is -linear in its subscript argument. | ||
| 2 | Fact (3), the Leibniz-like axiom for connection. | . To understand this more clearly imagine an input to the whole expression, so that the rewrite becomes . In the notation of fact (3), , , and . | |
| 3 | is -linear in its subscript argument | ||
| 4 | is additive in its subscript argument | Failed to parse (syntax error): {\displaystyle \nabla_{(Yf)}X} + \nabla_{[fX,Y]} = \nabla_{(Yf)X + [fX,Y]}} | |
| 5 | Fact (2) | . |
Tensoriality in the second variable
Given: is a -function.
To prove: , or more explicitly, .
We start out with the left side:
Each step below is obtained from the previous one via some manipulation explained along side.
| Step no. | Current status of left side | Facts/properties used | Specific rewrites |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | By definition of a connection, is -linear in its subscript argument | . | |
| 2 | Fact (3), the Leibniz-like axiom for connection | . To make this more concrete, imagine an input . Then, the rewrite becomes . This comes setting , , in Fact (3). | |
| 3 | is -linear in its subscript argument. | ||
| 4 | is additive in its subscript argument. | . | |
| 5 | Fact (2) |
Tensoriality in the third variable
Let be a scalar function. We will show that:
We start out with the left side:
Now we apply the Leibniz rule for connnections on each term:
We again apply the Leibniz rule to the first two term groups:
After cancellations we are left with the following six terms:
But since , the last three terms vanish, and we are left with: