Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

We say that a Riemannian metric $g$ on a complex manifold $(X,I)$ is Hermitian if $$ g(x,y)=g(Ix,Iy) $$ for any $x,y\in \Gamma(X,TX)$. Here we consider $X$ as a real even dimensional manifold with complex structure $I$.

How can one show that $g$ is locally of the form $$ g=\sum_{i,j}g_{i,\overline{j}}dz_{i} \otimes d\overline{z}_{j} $$ where $z_1,\dots$ are local complex coordinate of $X$.

I am confused with two definition of complex structure; one given by $I\in \Gamma(X,End(TX))$ and the other given by local coordinate.

share|improve this question
    
Sorry, but I don't understand. A Riemannian metric is real-valued, whereas a Hermitian metric is complex-valued. How can the latter be a particular case of the former? What i think is true is that a Riemannian metric invariant under $J$ is the real part of a Hermitian metric. Moreover, being a Hermitian a section of $TX\otimes (TX)^*$, the formula you wrote is pretty obvious... –  wisefool Dec 13 '12 at 19:03

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

K., this stuff confuses me too, but here's how I understand it. Consider $X$ as a real, $2n$ dimensional manifold equipped with a (Riemannian) metric $g$, and a complex stucture $J$. You are correct in saying it is called Hermitian if $g(JX,JY) = g(X,Y)$, but this does not make it a hermitian inner product in the usual sense.

Now for any $p\in X$ $J_p: T_pX \rightarrow T_pX$ satisfies $J_p^2=-Id$, and so we may always choose real coordinates $x_1,y_1,\ldots,x_n,y_n$ on $X$ such that $J(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}) = \frac{\partial}{\partial y}$ and $J(\frac{\partial}{\partial y}) = -\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$. So here's how you get $J$ in local coordinates.

If we extend $J_p$ to the complexification of $T_pX$ it will have two eigenvalues $i$ and $-i$ and $T_pX\otimes\mathbb{C}$ will split into two eigenspaces: $T_pX\otimes\mathbb{C}=T^{'}_pX\oplus T^{''}_pX$. The $i$ eigenspace, $T^{'}_pX$, is the holomorphic tangent space and is spanned by vectors $\frac{\partial}{\partial z_i} = \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}-i\frac{\partial}{\partial y_i}$ while $T^{''}_pX$ is spanned by $\frac{\partial}{\partial\bar{z}_i} = \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}+i\frac{\partial}{\partial y_i}$. Note that if $\xi \in T_p^{'}X$ $\bar{\xi}\in T_p^{''}$.

We can extend $g$ by complex linearity to be defined on $T_pX\otimes\mathbb{C}$. In coordinates dual to the basis $\{\frac{\partial}{\partial z_i}, \frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{z_j}}\}$ we can write this as:

$$g = \sum g_{ij}dz_i\otimes dz_j + \sum g_{\bar{i}\bar{j}}\bar{dz}_i\otimes\bar{dz}_j + \sum g_{\bar{i}j} \bar{dz_i}\otimes dz_j + \sum g_{j\bar{i}} dz_j\otimes\bar{dz_i}$$

As in Javier's comment, where $g_{ij} = g(\frac{\partial}{\partial z_i},\frac{\partial}{\partial z_j})$ and so on.

Observe that

$$ g(J\frac{\partial}{\partial z_i},J\frac{\partial}{\partial z_j}) = g(i\frac{\partial}{\partial z_i},i\frac{\partial}{\partial z_j}) = -g(\frac{\partial}{\partial z_i},\frac{\partial}{\partial z_j})= -g_{ij}$$

Using the fact that $g$ is Hermitian however we also have $$g(J\frac{\partial}{\partial z_i},J\frac{\partial}{\partial z_j})= g(\frac{\partial}{\partial z_i},\frac{\partial}{\partial z_j}) = g_{ij}$$

Hence $g_{ij} = 0$. Similarly $g_{\bar{i}\bar{j}} = 0$. Finally observe that:

$$ g_{\bar{i}j} = g(\frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{z_i}}, \frac{\partial}{\partial z_j}) = g(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i},\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}) + g(\frac{\partial}{\partial y_i}, \frac{\partial}{\partial y_j}) + i\left(g(\frac{\partial}{\partial y_i},\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}) - g(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i},\frac{\partial}{\partial y_j})\right) $$ But, using the fact that $g$ is Hermitian again, as well as the definition of $\frac{\partial}{\partial y_i}$ and $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}$: $$ g(\frac{\partial}{\partial y_i},\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}) = g(J\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i},-J\frac{\partial}{\partial y_j}) = - g(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i},\frac{\partial}{\partial y_j}) $$ We also have $$ g(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i},\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}) = g(\frac{\partial}{\partial y_i},\frac{\partial}{\partial y_j}) $$

and so:

$$g_{\bar{i}j} = 2g(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i},\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}) -2ig(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i},\frac{\partial}{\partial y_j})$$

Using the same argument (i.e. using the fact that $g$ is Hermitian as well as the relationship between $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}$ and $\frac{\partial}{\partial y_i}$) we can show that: $$g_{j\bar{i}} = 2g(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i},\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}) -2ig(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i},\frac{\partial}{\partial y_j}) = g_{\bar{i}j}$$ We can also show that

$$g_{i\bar{j}} = \overline{g_{\bar{i}j}} $$

So we have $g = 2\sum g_{\bar{i}j} (\bar{dz_i}\otimes dz_j+dz_j\otimes\bar{dz_i})$ as required.

A word of caution; $g$ as defined above is a Hermitian metric in the sense of Griffiths and Harris. That is, a "positive definite Hermitian inner product: $$ (\ ,\ )_{p}: T^{'}_{p}M\otimes\overline{T^{'}_{p}M} \to \mathbb{C}$$ on the holomorphic tangent space at $p$ for each $p\in M$ depending smoothly on $p$" (pg. 27). I find it clearer to think of

$$h_p: T^{'}_{p}M\otimes T^{'}_{p}M \to \mathbb{C}$$ $$h_p(\xi,\zeta) = g(\xi,\overline{\zeta})$$ as the Hermitian metric on $T^{'}_{p}M$ as this more obviously (to me at least) a Hermitian inner product on each tangent space.

I tried to find a good reference for this construction; I think the best would be either Huybrecht's Complex Geometry pg. 28-31 or Gross, Huybechts and Joyce's "Calabi-Yau Manifolds and Related Geometries" (look at the beginning of the chapter written by Joyce).

share|improve this answer
    
Daniel, thank you for the detailed answer. This makes my understanding clearer. –  M. K. Feb 4 '13 at 7:51
    
You're most welcome! –  Daniel Mckenzie Feb 7 '13 at 13:16
    
What confuses me is why do you have only 3 terms in the decomposition of g, rather than 4. This would lead to a necessity of having one more condition that is $g(X,Y)=\overline{g(Y,X)}$ . –  Edvard Aug 20 at 16:02

$∑g_{i\bar j}dz^i⊗d\bar z^j+∑g_{\bar j i}d\bar z^j⊗dz^i=$ $∑g_{i\bar j}(dz^i⊗d\bar z^j+d\bar z^j⊗dz^i)$

I think it should be this. I only write it because the notation is missleading.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.