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

In Barrett Oneill's Semi-Riemann Geometry there is a definition of tensor component:

Let $\xi=(x^1,\dots ,x^n)$ be a coordinate system on $\upsilon\subset M$. If $A \in \mathscr I^r_s (M)$ the components of $A$ relative to $\xi$ are the real-valued functions $A _j^i, \dots j^i =A(dx^i_1,\dots > ,dx^i_s, \delta_{j 1},\dots, \delta_{j s})$ $i=1,\dots,r,\ j=1,\dots,s$ on $\upsilon$ where all indices run from $1$ to $n=\dim M$.

By the definition above the $i$th component of $X$ relative to $\xi$ is $X(dx^i)$,which is interpreted as $dx^i(X)=X(x^i)$.

I don't understand the last sentence.

Because one-forms are $(0,1)$ tensors we could interpret them like $V(\theta)=\theta(V)$.

So we can do the same thing here: $X(dx^i)=dx^i(X)$. But how did we write $dx^i(X)=X(x^i)$?

Did I make a mistake?

share|cite|improve this question
    
If any of the answers below were useful to you, then you should upvote (if you can) all answers you find useful and accept the one that was most useful to you. It is a way to show that you have found the answer to your question and it shows your appreciation. Now it seems like you still need help. If answers are not useful to you, then it helps if you say why not. This helps others to help you. For more information read this. – gebruiker Jun 21 at 8:41

The tensor $A_p$ at $p\in M$ of type $(r,s)$ is the multilinear map

$$A_p: \underbrace{T_p^{*} M\times\dots T_p^{*} M}_{r~\text{times}} \times\underbrace{T_p M\times\dots T_p M}_{s~\text{times}}\rightarrow \mathbb R $$

whose components ${A_p}^{i_1\dots i_r}_{j_1\dots j_s}$ are given by

$${A_p}^{i_1\dots i_r}_{j_1\dots j_s}:=A_p(dx^{i_1},\dots,dx^{i_r},\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{j_1}},\dots, \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{j_s}}),$$

denoting by $\xi=(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ a local coordinate system at $p$, and by $\{dx^{\bullet}\}$, $\{\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{\bullet}}\}$ dual basis of $T_p^{*} M$, $T_p M$.

As stated,

$$A_p^{i}:=A_p(dx^i), $$ $${A_p}_j:=A_p(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}). $$

The above convenstions and definitions are those which are currently used in most textbooks. I would propose then to stop here and use them for your computations; what comes under "which is interpreted...", is in my opinion not clear (for example, what is $A(x_i)?$ Maybe $A$ evaluated at $(x_1,\dots,x_n)$? But then why to use that notation, if it is what has been using since the beginning of the OP? Etc...).

share|cite|improve this answer

The is a very nice intuitive explanation of this in Penrose's Road to Reality, ch 14. As a quick summary, any vector field can be thought of as a directional derivative operator on scalar valued functions, i.e for every scalar valued smooth function $f$ and vector field $X$, define the scalar field $$X(f) \triangleq p \mapsto \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{f(p+\epsilon X_p) - f(p)}\epsilon $$ at every point $p$. This action on all $f$ uniquely determines $X$.

Similarly the 1-form $df$ acts on a vector field $X$ to yield the linear change in $f$ along $X$, ie: $$df(X) = X(f)$$

Substituting $x^i$ for $f$ then gives $dx^i(X) = X(x^i)$.


In more detail, given a coordinate system $x^i$, exterior calculus says $$df = \sum_i \partial_{x^i}f\,dx^i$$ Combining the above $$X(f) = df(X) = \sum_i \partial_{x^i}f\,dx^i(X) = \sum_i \partial_{x^i}f \, X(x^i) = \sum_i X(x^i) \, \partial_{x^i} f \\ \therefore X = \sum_i X^i \partial_{x^i} \text{ where } X^i \triangleq X(x^i)$$

So $\partial_{x^i}$ form a basis for the space of directional derivative operators and thus also vector fields.

The $dx^i$ then are the dual basis of $\partial_{x^i}$, since $$dx^i(\partial_{x^j}) = \partial_{x^j} x^i = \delta^i_j \\ dx^i(X) = X(x^i) = X^i$$ as required.

To formalize this for the general Riemannian setting, you need express it in terms of manifolds, charts and tangent spaces/bundles, with appropriate smoothness conditions on everything, but Penrose's explanation gives you a nice mental picture to start with. The book also has excellent diagrams. It is worth getting just for differential geometry chapter.

share|cite|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.