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.

I'm in trouble proving that if $(M,J)$ is a complex manifold with $J$ a compatible almost complex structure then the Nijenhuis tensor of $J$ vanishes: in other words I would like to find that for any two vector fields $X,Y$ one has $$ J[X,Y]=J[X,JY]+J[JX,Y]+[X,Y] $$ I tried applying all the definitions of commutator I actually know, but I can't manage it...

===

Edit: Am I using the wrong definition of commutator? Can you please confirm me that $[X,Y]$ is defined for $X=X_i\partial_i$, $Y=Y_j\partial_j$ to be the vector field $$ \sum_{i=1}^N\Big(\sum_{j=1}^N X_j\frac{\partial Y_i}{\partial x_j}-Y_j\frac{\partial X_i}{\partial x_j}\Big)\partial_i $$

share|improve this question
    
Doesn't this identity simply say that the commutator bracket is complex linear on complex manifolds? Also, it is more familiar to me in the form $\frac{1}{2}[J,J] = 0$ where $\frac{1}{2}[J,J](X,Y) = [JX,JY] - [X,Y]-J[X,JY] - J[JX,Y]$. –  t.b. Jul 22 '11 at 12:31
    
Also, are you sure you've got your identity right? –  t.b. Jul 22 '11 at 12:43
    
@Theo: Yes, and yes. The resul I want to prove is part of the theorem by Newlander e Nirenberg saying that $M$ is a complex manifold iff $J$ is integrable, iff the Nijenhuis is zero. –  tetrapharmakon Jul 22 '11 at 15:52
    
In the sign conventions I know this result says that $\frac{1}{2}[J,J] = 0$ is equivalent to being a complex manifold. But somehow our identities do not look the same (we seem to disagree about one $J$ here and I'm sure about my version, too). Unfortunately, I don't know a good (= readable) reference for Newlander-Nirenberg. –  t.b. Jul 22 '11 at 16:07
    
Kobayashi-Nomizu's Foundations states the result in the form of theorem 2.5 page 124, and they define the Nijenhuis tensor in "my" way, upto a factor 2... –  tetrapharmakon Jul 22 '11 at 16:16

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

"Kobayashi-Nomizu's Foundations states the result in the form of theorem 2.5 page 124, and they define the Nijenhuis tensor in "my" way, upto a factor 2"

It's in the volume II, anyway from this book follow that [JX, JY]= [X, Y]+ J[X, JY]+ J[JX, Y] (for a complex strucure J)

in your expression above on the left you write the term J[X, Y] instead [JX, JY].

share|improve this answer
    
Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to point out, but I couldn't check as I currently don't have access to KN. –  t.b. Jul 22 '11 at 16:57
    
Yes, you're right. But even writing it in this way, the only thing I can get is that $[X,JY]+[JX,Y]=0$ so a couple of term cancels out, but now.. How can $[JX,JY]=[X,Y]$ be true? –  tetrapharmakon Jul 22 '11 at 17:05
    
@tetrapharmakon: replace $X$ by $JX$ then you get a minus sign on the left and you're reduced to the previous identity. –  t.b. Jul 22 '11 at 17:16

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.