In the following proposition of Do Carmo's Riemannian Geometry, I don't understand part (c) because $\frac{DV}{dt}$ is a vector field along the curve $c$, so it has domain $I$, while $\nabla_{\frac{dc}{dt}}Y$ is a vector field on $M$ with domain $M$, so how can they be equal? Also, the affine connection $\nabla$ is defined for two vector fields on $M$, $X$ and $Y$, and gives another vector field on $M$ $\nabla_X Y$. So how can we speak of $\nabla_{\frac{dc}{dt}}Y$ if $\frac{dc}{dt}$ is a vector field along $c$ and not a vector field on $M$?

enter image description here


In part (c), the equality should read

$$ \frac{DV}{dt}(t_0) = \nabla_{\frac{dc}{dt}|_{t_0}}(Y) = \nabla_{\dot{c}(t_0)}(Y) $$

where both sides of the equality are elements of $T_{c(t_0)}M$.

Immediately after the statement of the theorem, Do Carmo proves that given an affine connection $\nabla$ on $M$, the value of $(\nabla_X Y)(p)$ depends only on $X(p)$ and the value of $Y$ along any curve $\alpha \colon I \rightarrow M$ satisfying $\alpha(0) = p$ and $\dot{\alpha}(0) = X(p)$. In particular, the expression $\nabla_{\frac{dc}{dt}|_{t_0}}(Y)$ makes sense (as we can interpret $\nabla_{\frac{dc}{dt}|_{t_0}}(Y)$ as $(\nabla_X Y)(c(t_0))$ where $X$ is any vector field on $M$ that satisfies $X(c(t_0)) = \frac{dc}{dt}|_{t_0}$ - such vector fields exist and $(\nabla_X Y)(c(t_0))$ does not depend on a specific choice of such an $X$).


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.