9
$\begingroup$

Seeing as proving the existence and/or uniqueness of the Levi-Civita connection seems to crop up in every single exam in Geometry and General Relativity, what is the most succinct proof of this, to memorize.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What do you know? I assume you have seen wiki page of Levi-Civita connection. The proof of uniqueness there is not that bad. $\endgroup$ – Sasha May 4 '12 at 14:35
14
$\begingroup$

It's just a matter of remembering the order of things. The most practical way of proving the existence of Levi-Civita connection in a Riemannian manifold $(M,\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle)$ is using its desirable properties, say:

  1. Symmetry: $\nabla_XY-\nabla_YX=[X,Y]$

  2. Compatibility: $X\langle Y,Z\rangle=\langle\nabla_XY,Z\rangle+\langle Y,\nabla_XZ\rangle$

We construct the connection based on the behavior over the fields: lets $X,Y,Z$ be fields over $M$. By 2. and 1.,

a) $X\langle Y,Z\rangle=\langle\nabla_XY,Z\rangle+\langle Y,\nabla_XZ\rangle=\langle [X,Y],Z\rangle+\langle \nabla_YX,Z\rangle+\langle Y,\nabla_XZ\rangle$

b) $Y\langle Z,X\rangle=\langle\nabla_YZ,X\rangle+\langle Z,\nabla_YX\rangle$

c) $Z\langle X,Y\rangle=\langle\nabla_ZX,Y\rangle+\langle X,\nabla_ZY\rangle$

Notice that in first and second equations above we have $\langle \nabla_YX,Z\rangle$ appearing two times. Calculating "a) $+$ b) $-$ c)" we get, putting similar terms togheter,

\begin{eqnarray} X\langle Y,Z\rangle+Y\langle Z,X\rangle-Z\langle X,Y\rangle&=&\langle [X,Y],Z\rangle+2\langle \nabla_YX,Z\rangle\\ &+&\langle Y,\nabla_XZ-\nabla_ZX\rangle+\langle\nabla_YZ-\nabla_ZY,X\rangle\\ &=&2\langle\nabla_YX,Z\rangle+\langle [X,Y],Z\rangle+\langle [Y,Z],X\rangle+\langle [X,Z],Y\rangle \end{eqnarray}

(this equation is known as the Koszul formula) Isolating $\langle\nabla_YX,Z\rangle$, you get a formulae and hence can define point to point the value $\nabla_YX$. You just have to remember the (natural) order of derivations in a), b) and c) and "a) $+$ b) $-$ c)". The rest is straightforward.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I guess i cannot do any better than this. $\endgroup$ – DanielOfTaebl May 7 '12 at 7:50
  • $\begingroup$ I think if you wanna, for instance, remember the proof, you only need to remember that we derived in a mnemonic order and then sum and subtract. The rest is a matter of using identities listed above =) $\endgroup$ – matgaio May 7 '12 at 14:49
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielOfTaebl May I know why Koszul formula can uniquely determine $D_YX$? Does it follow from the inner product structure (since the formula holds for all $Z$)? $\endgroup$ – John Apr 15 '15 at 1:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DanielOfTaebl Also for a connection, we need the target to be a vector field. In this proof, we only define the $D_YX$ point-wisely. How can we guarantee the smoothness? $\endgroup$ – John Apr 15 '15 at 2:03
  • $\begingroup$ @John Rearranging the terms in the Koszul formula, we get $2\langle\nabla_YX,Z\rangle=K(X,Y,Z)$ where $K(X,Y,Z)$ denotes the remaining terms. Assuming $\nabla_YX$ defines a vector field, one can show with some lengthy but straight forward computations, that $\nabla$ in fact is a metric torsion free connection by using $K(X,Y,Z)$ in the computations. The fact that $\nabla_YX$ is a vector field is more tricky. One can show that $T(Z):=K(X,Y,Z)$ is $C^\infty(M)$-linear in $Z$, and conclude the unique existence of some vector field $X_0$ with $\langle X_0,\cdot\rangle=T$ using coordinate patches. $\endgroup$ – Kalua Oct 28 '18 at 21:03

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.