Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

A connection can be thought of as a map $\Gamma(TM) \times \Gamma(TM) \to \Gamma(TM)$, so $\nabla_X Y$ is section of the tangent bundle. But it can also be thought of as a map $\Gamma(TM) \to \Gamma(T^*M \otimes TM)$, but why is that? I don't see how.

I thought maybe one keeps $X$ fixed in $\nabla_X Y$ but this doesn't give me a section of $T^*M \otimes TM$. Can someone explain it, please?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 4 down vote accepted

A section of $TM \otimes T^\ast M$ is just a $TM$-valued $1$-form. In other words, a section $\sigma \in \Gamma(TM \otimes T^\ast M)$ can be considered as a linear map $$\tilde{\sigma}: \Gamma(TM) \longrightarrow \Gamma(TM),$$ $$\tilde{\sigma}(p, v) = \sigma_p(v).$$

For a concrete example, consider the constant section $(1,2) \otimes dx \in \Gamma(T\Bbb R^2 \otimes T^\ast \Bbb R^2)$. Then the associated linear map $\Gamma(T\Bbb R^2) \longrightarrow \Gamma(T\Bbb R^2)$ in this case is $$(p, v) \mapsto ((1,2) \otimes dx)_p(v) = (1,2) \cdot dx_p(v) = (p,(v_1,2v_1)),$$ where $v = (v_1, v_2)$.

If you want to view a connection as a map $\nabla: \Gamma(TM) \longrightarrow \Gamma(TM \otimes T^\ast M)$ as opposed to a map $\nabla_X : \Gamma(TM) \longrightarrow \Gamma(TM)$ for some vector field $X$, then you should imagine it as the map $$Y \mapsto (X \mapsto \nabla_X Y).$$ In other words, you instead think of $X$ as the argument of the associated linear map $$\nabla_\bullet Y : \Gamma(TM) \longrightarrow \Gamma(TM).$$ For each choice of $X$ you then get a section $\nabla_X Y \in \Gamma(TM)$, so you should be able to see that $\nabla_\bullet Y$ is a section of $TM \otimes T^\ast M$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks for the answer. Is the section $(1,2)\otimes dx$ the same as $1\partial_{x_1} \otimes 2\partial_{x_2}\otimes dx^1 \otimes dx^2$? I have just started with this stuff and am used to thinking about it in terms of basis.. – soup Nov 26 '12 at 21:17
I was using coordinates $(x,y)$ instead of $(x^1, x^2)$ here. What I mean is $(1 \cdot \partial_x + 2 \cdot \partial_y) \otimes (1 \cdot dx + 0 \cdot dy) = (\partial_x + 2\partial_y) \otimes dx$. – Henry T. Horton Nov 26 '12 at 21:23

It does, if you identify $T^*M \otimes TM$ with $\text{Hom}(TM, TM)$. I'll describe the identification in the linear algebra setting between $V^* \otimes W$ and $Hom(V,W)$. Pick a basis $(v_1, ..., v_n)$ for $V$, take $(\phi^1, ..., \phi^n)$ to be the dual basis of $(v_i)$ for $V^*$ and take $(w_1, ..., w_m)$ to be a basis of $W$. Elements of $V^* \otimes W$ are of the form $\sum a_i^j \phi^i \otimes w_j$. How can we interpret them as maps from $V$ to $W$? Given a vector $v \in V$, the action of this element on $v$ is $$ \left( \sum a_i^j \phi^i \otimes w_j \right)\left( v \right) = \sum a^j_i \phi_i(v)w_j. $$ If we plug in $v_i$ we see that $$ \left( \sum a_i^j \phi^i \otimes w_j \right)\left( v_i \right) = \sum_{j} a^j_i w_j. $$ That is, the map defined by $\sum a_i^j \phi^i \otimes w_j$ is just the map represented in the bases $v$ and $w$ by the matrix $(a^j_i)$.

In the other direction, given a map $T : V \rightarrow W$, represent it in the bases $v$ and $w$ by $a^j_i$ and match it to the element $\sum a_i^j \phi^i \otimes w_j$. Just like you expand a vector $w \in W$ in a basis $w_i$ as $w = \sum_j a^j w_j$, where the coefficients are scalars, you expand a map $T$ as $T = \sum a_i^j \phi^i \otimes w_j $ where the "coefficients" $\sum_{i} a_i^j \phi^i$ are functionals in $V^*$.

As usual, everything passes from the linear algebra setting to the vector bundle setting, and you identify a tensor $\sum a_i^j dx^i \otimes \frac{\partial}{\partial x^j}$ with a map between $TM$ and $TM$, given in the frame $(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^j})$ by the matrix $(a_i^j)$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Small correction: the bundle in the first line should be $T^*M\otimes TM$, not $T^*M\otimes T^*M$. – Jack Lee Nov 27 '12 at 15:46
I've corrected it. Thanks! – levap Nov 28 '12 at 10:31
Thanks for the answer, appreciate it. – soup Nov 28 '12 at 17:55

Your Answer


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.