2
$\begingroup$

I have two questions regarding the exterior derivative of vector valued forms when representations are involved:

Suppose $V$ is a vector space, $M$ a smooth manifold and $\omega$ is a $V$ valued $k$-form on $M$. Ie, $\omega \in \Omega^k(M;V)$. Suppose furthermore that $\rho_1:G\rightarrow GL(V)$ is a representation for some Lie Group $G$ and $\rho_2:\mathfrak{g}\rightarrow GL(V)$ is the induced Lie algebra representation.

The function $\rho_1(g)\circ \omega$ could be considered as a $V$ valued $k$-form on $M$. If $d:\Omega^k(M;V)\rightarrow \Omega^{k+1}(M;V)$ is the exterior derivative for $V$ valued $k$-forms, then

$d(\rho(g)\circ \omega)=\rho(g)\circ d\omega$.

I am just wondering why this is true?

Furthermore, in some lecture notes I'm reading the author also writes for $\eta\in \Omega^1(M;\mathfrak{g})$ that

$d(\rho_2(\eta)\circ \omega)=\rho_2(d\eta)\circ \omega-\rho_2(\eta)\wedge d\omega$

I am completely in the dark as to how this equation makes sense. I don't understand how the RHS is a 2-form or where the RHS even comes from. How would you make sense of this equation?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

The first equation is true because $\rho(g)$ is a constant, so it commutes with the exterior derivative. More explicitly, let $\{e_i\}$ be a basis for $V$. Then you can write $\omega = \sum_i e_i \otimes \omega_i$ with $\omega_i \in \Omega^k(M)$. Also, write $\rho(g) e_i = \sum_j g_i^j e_j$. Then $$ d(\rho(g)\omega) = d(\sum_{ij} g_i^j e_j \otimes \omega_i) = \sum_{ij} g_i^j e_j \otimes d\omega_i = \rho(g) d\omega. $$

For the second equation you can do a similar thing (note that now $\eta$ is not constant and so you have to use the Leibniz rule). Note that $\rho_2(\eta)\circ \omega$ combines the wedge product on forms with the action of $\mathfrak g$ on $V$ and so is in $\Omega^{k+1}(M;V)$. So the right hand side should be a k+1 form, not a 2-form.

EDIT


Some more details for the second: write $\eta = \sum_i X_i \otimes \eta_i$ where $X_i \in \mathfrak g, \eta_i \in \Omega^1(M)$. Write $\omega$ as before. By definition, $\rho_2(\eta) \circ \omega = \sum_{ij} (\rho_2(X_i)(e_j)) \otimes (\eta_i \wedge \omega_j)$. So $$ d(\rho_2(\eta) \circ \omega) = \sum_{ij} (\rho_2(X_i)(e_j)) \otimes d(\eta_i \wedge \omega_j) \\ = \sum_{ij} (\rho_2(X_i)(e_j)) \otimes (d\eta_i \wedge \omega_j - \eta_i \wedge d\omega_j) \\ = \sum_{ij} (\rho_2(X_i)(e_j)) \otimes d\eta_i \wedge \omega_j - \sum_{ij} (\rho_2(X_i)(e_j)) \otimes \eta_i \wedge d\omega_j \\ = \rho_2(d\eta) \circ \omega - \rho_2(\eta)\circ d\omega. $$ Hope this clears it up.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your help with this (and all of my questions!) I really appreciate it. I follow what you wrote about the first equation but am still stuck on how to extend this to the case of the second equation... Do we start with $\eta=\sum_i \theta_i\otimes\eta_i$ where $(\theta_i)$ is a basis for $\mathfrak{g}$ and $\eta_i\in \Omega^1(M)$? $\endgroup$ – beedge89 Mar 16 '15 at 6:32
  • $\begingroup$ Also, I don't know how to interpret $\rho(d\eta)$... $\endgroup$ – beedge89 Mar 16 '15 at 6:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Let me know if my edit helps. $\endgroup$ – Eric O. Korman Mar 16 '15 at 6:40
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. Absolutely. Thank you so much. I did not even understand the definition of $\rho_2(\eta)\circ \omega$ but you have really cleared all of this up for me. Thank you! $\endgroup$ – beedge89 Mar 16 '15 at 6:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No problem! Notation in this area can be very confusing. I think most authors would write $\rho_2(\eta) \wedge \omega$ instead of $\rho_2(\eta) \circ \omega$. $\endgroup$ – Eric O. Korman Mar 16 '15 at 6:48

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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