Torsion is tensorial: Difference between revisions

From Diffgeom
 
Line 13: Line 13:


Then, <math>\tau(\nabla)</math> is a [[fact about::tensorial map]] in both coordinates. In other words, the value of <math>\tau(\nabla)</math> at a point <math>p \in M</math> depends only on <math>\nabla, X(p), Y(p)</math> and does not depend on the values of the vectors fields <math>X,Y</math> at points other than <math>p</math>.
Then, <math>\tau(\nabla)</math> is a [[fact about::tensorial map]] in both coordinates. In other words, the value of <math>\tau(\nabla)</math> at a point <math>p \in M</math> depends only on <math>\nabla, X(p), Y(p)</math> and does not depend on the values of the vectors fields <math>X,Y</math> at points other than <math>p</math>.
More explicitly, for any point <math>p \in M</math>, <math>\tau(\nabla)</math> defines a bilinear map:
<math>\! \tau(\nabla): T_p(M) \times T_p(M) \to T_p(M)</math>
Further, since in fact [[torsion is antisymmetric]], this is an alternating bilinear map.


==Related facts==
==Related facts==

Latest revision as of 17:56, 6 January 2012

This article gives the statement, and possibly proof, that a map constructed in a certain way is tensorial
View other such statements

Statement

Let M be a differential manifold and ∇ be a linear connection on M (viz., ∇ is a connection on the tangent bundle TM of M).

Consider the torsion of ∇, namely:

τ(∇):Γ(TM)×Γ(TM)→Γ(TM)

given by:

τ(∇)(X,Y)=∇XY−∇YX−[X,Y]

Then, τ(∇) is a tensorial map in both coordinates. In other words, the value of τ(∇) at a point p∈M depends only on ∇,X(p),Y(p) and does not depend on the values of the vectors fields X,Y at points other than p.

More explicitly, for any point p∈M, τ(∇) defines a bilinear map:

τ(∇):Tp(M)×Tp(M)→Tp(M)

Further, since in fact torsion is antisymmetric, this is an alternating bilinear map.

Related facts

Facts used

Fact no. Name Statement with symbols
1 Any connection is C∞-linear in its subscript argument ∇fA=f∇A for any C∞-function f and vector field A.
2 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)+f∇A(B)
3 Corollary of Leibniz rule for Lie bracket (in turn follows from Leibniz rule for derivations For a function f and vector fields X,Y:


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

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.

Tensoriality in the first coordinate

Given: f:M→R is C∞-function

To prove: τ(∇)(fX,Y)=fτ(∇)(X,Y)

Proof: We start out with the left side:

τ(∇)(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 ∇fX(Y)−∇Y(fX)−[fX,Y] Definition of torsion whole thing
2 f∇XY−∇Y(fX)−[fX,Y] Fact (1): C∞-linearity of connection in subscript argument ∇fX↦f∇X
3 f∇XY−(f∇YX+(Yf)(X))−[fX,Y] Fact (2): The Leibniz-like axiom that's part of the definition of a connection ∇Y(fX)↦f∇YX+(Yf)(X)
4 f∇XY−f∇YX−((Yf)(X)+[fX,Y]) parenthesis rearrangement --
5 f∇XY−f∇YX−f[X,Y] Fact (3) (Yf)(X)+[fX,Y]↦f[X,Y]
6 f(∇XY−∇YX−[X,Y]) factor out --
7 fτ(∇)(X,Y) use definition of torsion ∇XY−∇YX−[X,Y]↦τ(∇)(X,Y)

Tensoriality in the second coordinate

The proof is analogous to that for the first coordinate.

To prove τ(∇)(X,fY)=fτ(∇)(X,Y)

Proof: This is similar to tensoriality in the first coordinate.