Curvature is tensorial: Difference between revisions

From Diffgeom
No edit summary
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 + [fX,Y]}</math> || <math>\nabla</math> is <math>C^\infty</math>-linear in its subscript argument || <nath>(Yf)\nabla_X \to \nabla_{(Yf)X}</math>
| 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] - (Yf)X</math>.
| 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===


Let <math>f:M \to \R</math> be a scalar function. We will show that:
'''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>


Applying the Leibniz rule and the property of a connection being <math>C^\infty</math> in its subscript variable yields:
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) - \nabla_{[X,fY]}</math>
{| class="sortable" border="1"
 
! Step no. !! Current status of left side !! Facts/properties used !! Specific rewrites
which simplifies to:
|-
 
| 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\nabla_y - \nabla_Y\nabla_X) - \nabla_{[X,fY] - (Xf)Y}</math>
|-
 
| 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).
We now use the corollary stated above:
|-
 
| 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>\! f[X,Y] = [X,fY] - (Xf)Y</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>.
substituting this gives:
|-
 
| 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>
|}
 
which is <math>f R(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 E over a differential manifold M. The Riemann curvature tensor of is given as a map Γ(TM)Γ(TM)Γ(E)Γ(E) defined by:

R(X,Y)Z=XYZYXZ[X,Y]Z

We claim that R is a tensorial map in each of the variables X,Y,Z.

Related facts

Facts used

Fact no. Name Full statement
1 Leibniz rule for derivations For a vector field X and functions f,g, we have: X(fg)=(Xf)(g)+f(Xg)
2 Corollary of Leibniz rule for Lie bracket For a function f and vector fields X,Y:


f[X,Y]=[fX,Y]+(Yf)X
f[X,Y]=[X,fY](Xf)Y

3 The Leibniz-like axiom that is part of the definition of a connection For a function f and vector fields A,B, and a connection , we have A(fB)=(Af)(B)+fA(B)

Proof

To prove tensoriality in a variable, it suffices to show C-linearity in that variable. This is because linearity in C-functions guarantees linearity in a function that is 1 at exactly one point, and zero at others.

The proofs for X and Y are analogous, and rely on manipulation of the Lie bracket [fX,Y] and the property of a connection being C in the subscript vector. These proofs do not involve any explicit use of Z. The proof for Z relies simply on repeated application of the product rule, and the fact that XYYX=[X,Y].

Tensoriality in the first variable

Given: f:MR is a C-function.

To prove: R(fX,Y)=fR(X,Y), or more explicitly, fXYYfX[fX,Y]=f(XYYX[X,Y]

We start out with the left side:

fXYYfX[fX,Y]

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 fXYY(fX)[fX,Y] By definition of a connection, is C-linear in its subscript argument. fXfX
2 fXY(Yf)XfYX[fX,Y] Fact (3), the Leibniz-like axiom for connection. Y(fX)(Yf)X+fYX. To understand this more clearly imagine an input Z to the whole expression, so that the rewrite becomes Y(fX(Z))(Yf)X(Z)+fYX(Z). In the notation of fact (3), A=Y, f=f, and B=X(Z).
3 f(XYYX)(Yf)X[fX,Y] is C-linear in its subscript argument (Yf)X(Yf)X
4 f(XYYX)(Yf)X+[fX,Y] is additive in its subscript argument Failed to parse (syntax error): {\displaystyle \nabla_{(Yf)}X} + \nabla_{[fX,Y]} = \nabla_{(Yf)X + [fX,Y]}}
5 f(XYYX[X,Y]) Fact (2) [fX,Y]+(Yf)Xf[X,Y].

Tensoriality in the second variable

Given: f:MR is a C-function.

To prove: R(X,fY)=fR(X,Y), or more explicitly, XfYfYX[X,fY]=f(XYYX[X,Y].

We start out with the left side:

XfYfYX[X,fY]

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 X(fY)fYX[X,fY] By definition of a connection, is C-linear in its subscript argument fYfY.
2 (Xf)Y+f(XY)fYX[X,fY] Fact (3), the Leibniz-like axiom for connection X(fY)(Xf)Y+f(XY). To make this more concrete, imagine an input Z. Then, the rewrite becomes X(fY(Z))(Xf)Y(X)+f(XY(Z)). This comes setting A=X, f=f, B=YZ in Fact (3).
3 f(XYYX)[X,fY]+(Xf)Y is C-linear in its subscript argument. (Xf)Y(Xf)Y
4 f(XYYX)[X,fY](Xf)Y is additive in its subscript argument. [X,fY](Xf)Y[X,fY](Xf)Y.
5 f(XYYX[X,Y] Fact (2) [X,fY](Xf)Yf[X,Y]

Tensoriality in the third variable

Let f:MR be a scalar function. We will show that:

R(X,Y)(fZ)=fR(X,Y)Z

We start out with the left side:

XY(fZ)YX(fZ)[X,Y](fZ)

Now we apply the Leibniz rule for connnections on each term:

X((Yf)(Z)+fYZ)Y((Xf)Z+fXZ)f[X,Y]Z([X,Y]f)Z

We again apply the Leibniz rule to the first two term groups:

(XYf)(Z)+(Yf)XZ+(Xf)YZ+fXYZ(YXf)Z(Xf)YZ(Yf)XZfYXZf[X,Y]Z([X,Y]f)Z

After cancellations we are left with the following six terms:

f(XYYX[X,Y])Z+((XYYX[X,Y])f)Z

But since [X,Y]=XYYX, the last three terms vanish, and we are left with:

fR(X,Y)Z