2

I'm trying to solve Exercise 4.3 in J. Lee's Riemannian Manifolds book. The setting is as follows: let $\nabla$ be a linear connection on $M$. I want to show property (b) of Lemma 4.6, which says that $\nabla$ commutes with all contractions. To make the notation easier, I want to show it first for $F\in\mathcal T^1_1(M)$, i.e., I want to show that $$ \nabla_X(\text{tr}(F))=\text{tr}(\nabla_X F). $$ We can work locally, so let $E_j$ and $\omega^i$ be frames of $TM$ and $T^*M$ respectively. We can then write $F=\sum F^j_i E_j\otimes\omega^i$, and we know then that $$ \text{tr}F=\sum_m F^m_m, $$ so $\nabla_X(\text{tr}F)=\sum_m X(F^m_m)$. By property (c) we know that $$ \nabla_X(\sum F^j_i E_j\otimes \omega^i)=\sum X(F^i_j)E_j\otimes\omega^i+\sum F^i_j(\nabla_X E_j\otimes\omega^i+E_j\otimes\nabla_X\omega^i). $$ Since we need $\text{tr}(\nabla_X F)=\sum_m X(F^m_m)$, it seems that we would need $$ \text{tr}\left(\sum F^i_j(\nabla_X E_j\otimes\omega^i+E_j\otimes\nabla_X\omega^i)\right)=0, $$ and I don't see why that would be the case. Could someone point me into the right direction?

Edit

Thanks to everyone's help I've realised why I got stuck: I should have worked with a coordinate frame $\partial_i$ along with its dual coframe $dx^i$, and by taking $X=\partial_m$, the expression $\nabla_X\omega^i$ is then $\nabla_{\partial_m}(dx^i)$, whose coefficients can be determined using property (i) of the Lemma (in terms of the Christoffel symbols).

Sha Vuklia
  • 3,960
  • 4
  • 19
  • 37
  • 2
    One thing you can do to simplify the calculation is use linearity of the covariant derivative to assume $X = E_i$. – A. Thomas Yerger Dec 24 '22 at 17:13
  • @A.ThomasYerger He is not assuming $\nabla$ is the covariant derivative, it is just a general affine connection, but yes linearity still applies. – K.defaoite Dec 24 '22 at 18:26
  • I don't see any way to progress without explicitly writing $\nabla_XE_j$ as a linear combination of the original frame $(E_1,...,E_m)$. The way around this is to consider what you're doing at a fixed point $p\in M$, and arrange for $(\nabla_XE_j)(p)=0$ for all $j$. I'll just show in my answer below how the full cancellation would happen in a coordinate frame then. Same would work for your frame $(E_1,..., E_m)$. – Ivo Terek Dec 25 '22 at 01:57

1 Answers1

3

Ok, let $X\in \mathfrak{X}(M)$, $F \in \mathscr{T}^1_1(M)$, and $\nabla$ be any affine connection on $TM$. I'll use Einstein's summation convention and local coordinates.

The idea here is that $$\begin{split}(\nabla_XF)^i_j &= {\rm d}x^{i}((\nabla_XF)(\partial_j)) \\ &= {\rm d}x^{i}(\nabla_X(F(\partial_j)) - F(\nabla_X\partial_j)) \\ &= {\rm d}x^{i}(\nabla_X(F_j^k\partial_k) - F(\nabla_X\partial_j)) \\ &= {\rm d}x^i(X(F^k_j)\partial_k + F^k_j\nabla_X\partial_k - F(\nabla_X\partial_j)) \\ &= X(F^i_j) + {\color{red}{{\rm d}x^{i}(F^k_j\nabla_X\partial_k - F(\nabla_X\partial_j))}}.\end{split}$$We are done once we show that the term in red vanishes when subjected to contraction. On one hand, we have that $$F^k_j\nabla_X\partial_k = F^k_jX^\ell\nabla_{\partial_\ell}\partial_k = F^k_jX^\ell \varGamma_{\ell k}^i\partial_i,$$and on the other $$F(\nabla_X\partial_j) = F(X^\ell\nabla_{\partial_\ell}\partial_j )=F(X^\ell \varGamma_{\ell j}^{k}\partial_k) = F_k^iX^\ell \varGamma_{\ell j}^k\partial_i,$$so that $${\color{red}{{\rm d}x^{i}(F^k_j\nabla_X\partial_k - F(\nabla_X\partial_j))}} = F^k_jX^\ell\varGamma_{\ell k}^i - F^i_{k}X^\ell\varGamma_{\ell j}^k = X^\ell(F^k_j\varGamma_{\ell k}^i - F^i_k\varGamma_{\ell j}^k).$$The factor $X^\ell$ is irrelevant, so make $i=j$ on $F^k_j\varGamma_{\ell k}^i - F^i_k\varGamma_{\ell j}^k$ to obtain $$F^k_i\varGamma_{\ell k}^i - F^i_k\varGamma_{\ell i}^k = 0,$$since the second term is obtained from the first one by renaming the dummy indices $i\leftrightarrow k$.

Ivo Terek
  • 77,665
  • Thanks for the elaborate solution. I get it now. I must say that I didn't see how you arrived at ${\rm d}x^{i}(\nabla_X(F(\partial_j)) - F(\nabla_X\partial_j))$, but what I've done now is take $X=\partial_k$, and then when writing out $\nabla_{\partial_k}F$, I need to find the coefficients of $\nabla_{\partial_k}dx^i$, which I can obtain using property $(i)$ of the lemma. – Sha Vuklia Dec 25 '22 at 13:54
  • There's no need to look at $\nabla_{\partial_k}{\rm d}x^i$ whatsoever. In the expression $${\rm d}x^i(X(F^k_j)\partial_k + F^k_j\nabla_X\partial_k - F(\nabla_X\partial_j))$$I used that ${\rm d}x^i$ is linear and that $${\rm d}x^i(X(F^k_j)\partial_k) = X(F^k_j){\rm d}x^i(\partial_k) = X(F^k_j)\delta^i_k = X(F^i_j).$$ – Ivo Terek Dec 25 '22 at 17:58
  • 1
    Or, inside ${\rm d}x^i$, I used that $$(\nabla_XF)(Y) = \nabla_X(F(Y)) - F(\nabla_XY)$$with $Y = \partial_j$. This is the definition of $\nabla_XF$ and you're not expected to solve the problem without knowing it... – Ivo Terek Dec 25 '22 at 18:01
  • Right. The distinction between functions and evaluations got a bit blurry for me, because we're evaluating $Y$ on the $(1,1)$ tensor $\nabla_X F$. In case my future self or someone else gets confused too: we are looking at $\nabla_XF(Y)=(\nabla_X F)(Y,-)$, so by def. $$ (\nabla_X F)(Y,Z)=X(F(Y,Z))-F(\nabla_X Y,Z)-F(Y,\nabla_X Z). $$ Since $\langle \nabla_X(F(Y)),Z\rangle=\nabla_X\langle F(Y,Z)\rangle-\langle F(Y),\nabla_X Z\rangle=X(F(Y,Z))-F(Y,\nabla_X Z)$, we have $$ (\nabla_X F)(Y,Z)=\nabla_X(F(Y))-F(\nabla_X Y)(Z), $$ so indeed $(\nabla_X F)(Y)=\nabla_X(F(Y))-F(\nabla_XY)$. – Sha Vuklia Dec 25 '22 at 19:33
  • That's a convoluted way to think about it, but it works. The formula $(\nabla_XF)(Y) = \nabla_X(F(Y)) - F(\nabla_XY)$ is a definition and you're using several isomorphisms in your computation above probably without realizing. If you don't want to think of a $(1,1)$-tensor as an endomorphism, then it should take a vector field and a $1$-form as inputs, not two vector fields. If you have a Riemannian metric, then you can identity vector fields and $1$-forms. But even still, your computation only holds if $\nabla$ -- not assumed to be the Levi-Civita connection -- is metric-compatible. – Ivo Terek Dec 26 '22 at 13:04
  • 1
    Right, I wasn't thinking of $(1,1)$-tensors as endomorphisms; then the identity $(\nabla_X F)(Y)=\nabla_X(F(Y))-F(\nabla_X Y)$ makes a lot more sense, and I can see how my previous comment seemed convoluted. I'll keep this viewpoint in mind, thanks. – Sha Vuklia Dec 26 '22 at 15:05