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.

Let $M$ be a riemannian manifold with metric $g$ and a connection $\nabla$ on $M$. Let $X,Y$ two vector fields along a curve $\gamma$ on $M$. Let $$\tau_{t,s}:T_{\gamma(s)}M\to T_{\gamma(t)}M$$ the parallel translation along $\gamma$. We consider the fonction $$F(t)=g(\gamma(t))(\tau_{t,s} X(\gamma(s)), \tau_{t,s} Y(\gamma(s))).$$ Then $$F'(s)=g(\gamma(t))\left(\frac{d}{dt}\bigg|_{t=s}\tau_{t,s} X(\gamma(s)), \tau_{t,s}Y(\gamma(s))\right)+g(\gamma(t))\left(\frac{d}{dt}\bigg|_{t=s}\tau_{t,s} Y(\gamma(s)), \tau_{t,s}X(\gamma(s))\right)+\dot\gamma\left[g(X,Y)\right](\gamma(s)) \ (\star).$$

I do not understand why this identity holds. Here is what I have tried so far:

Let $$a(t)=\tau_{t,s} X(\gamma(s))=a_i(t)\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}\bigg|_{\gamma(t)}\text{ and }b(t)=\tau_{t,s} Y(\gamma(s))=b_j(t)\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}\bigg|_{\gamma(t)},$$ so $F(t)=g(\gamma(t))(a(t),b(t))$. If we let $$g_{ij}(t)=g(\gamma(t))\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}\bigg|_{\gamma(t)}, \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}\bigg|_{\gamma(t)}\right),$$ we find that $F(t)=a_i(t)b_j(t)g_{ij}(t)$, thus the derivative of $F$ is $$F'(s)=a_i'(s)b_j(s)g_{ij}(s)+a_i(s)b_j'(s)g_{ij}(s)+a_i(s)b_j(s)g'_{ij}(s).$$ The first two terms give the first two terms of $(\star)$, but what about the last one ? We have that $$\dot\gamma\left[g(X,Y)\right](\gamma(s))=\frac{d}{dt}\bigg|_{t=s} g(\gamma(t))(X(\gamma(t)),Y(\gamma(t))),$$ right ? This does not seem equal to $a_i(s)b_j(s)g'_{ij}(s)$... ?

share|improve this question
    
Your definition of $F(t)$ doesn't make sense unless $s = \epsilon$. This in turn causes problems with your expression for $F'(s)$. –  treble Dec 23 '12 at 22:18
    
You mean $t$ close enough to $s$ ? It was implicitly assumed. –  Klaus Dec 24 '12 at 10:02
    
My fault, I thought your subscript $s$ was an $\epsilon$ (hard for me to see those tiny subscripts). It makes sense now. –  treble Dec 24 '12 at 19:14

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

The formula was wrong in the book...

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.