3
$\begingroup$

I have been working this problem almost 3 days, I would appreciate any help or idea:

Let (M,h) be a Riemannian manifold. For every $ p \in M $ and $ (e_1 , ... , e_n)$ basis of $T_pM$. There exists an orthonormal frame in an neighborhood of p $(E_1, ... , E_n)$ , with $E_i (p) = e_i$ and $\nabla E_i (p) = 0 $

Hint: Fix an orthonormal frame $(\overline E_i)$ near p with $\overline E_i (p) = e_i$ and define $E_i = \alpha_i^j\overline E_i $ with $(\alpha_i^j(x))_{ij} \in SO(n)$ and $\alpha_i^j(p)= \delta_i^j$.

What I have got:

The construction of an orthonormal frame $(\overline E_i)$ near p with $\overline E_i (p) = e_i$. Follows from Gram-Schmidt process with no problem.

Defining $E_i= \sum_j \alpha_i^j\overline E_i$ the frame is still orthonormal, that follows from a direct calculation and the fact that $(\alpha_i^j(x))_{ij} \in SO(n)$ and $\overline E_i (p) = e_i$ because $\alpha_i^j(p)= \delta_i^j$.

Since $h(E_i,E_j)= \delta_i^j$ then: $h(\nabla_X E_i, E_j) + h(E_i,\nabla_X E_j) = 0 $.

So all I have to see is that:

$h(\nabla_X E_i, E_j) = h(E_i,\nabla_X E_j) $

Writing the above equation with the koszul formula and doing the calculations, Using the antisymmetry of Lie bracket and the fact that the inner product is commutative:

$h(\nabla_X E_i, E_j) - h(E_i,\nabla_X E_j) = -h([E_i,E_j],X) $

So all at have to see is that in p: $[E_i,E_j](p) = 0$

That the Lie bracket its 0 at p for the basis constructed in this way! I have been trying to justify this from lie bracket proprieties with no luck

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I see, are you saying that the coordinates are precisely the $ \alpha_i^j $ right? $\endgroup$ – Alicia Basilio Nov 25 '16 at 3:43
  • $\begingroup$ But finding that coordinates would mean that the lie bracket its cero in a neighborhood, ?? that seems too much to me! but well I'm just a newbie in this. $\endgroup$ – Alicia Basilio Nov 25 '16 at 4:25
  • $\begingroup$ I don't understand, but thank you ill think about it. $\endgroup$ – Alicia Basilio Nov 25 '16 at 5:06
  • $\begingroup$ @user40276: Such a diffeomorphism cannot exist unless the initial metric is flat. It is simply not possible to reduce the problem to $\mathbb R^n$ with the flat metric. $\endgroup$ – Andreas Cap Nov 25 '16 at 7:46
  • $\begingroup$ @AndreasCap I was being silly. Not even flat is enough to guarantee covariantly constant sections. There're circle bundles top. trivial and, hence with vanishing curvature that are not covariantly trivializable. $\endgroup$ – user40276 Nov 25 '16 at 8:41
3
$\begingroup$

Choose a coordinate system $\varphi = (x^1, \dots, x^n)$ around $p$ with $p$ corresponding to $(0,\dots,0)$ and define the Christoffel symbols of the frame $\overline{E}_j$ with respect to the frame $\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}$ by

$$ \nabla_i \overline{E}_j = \nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}} \overline{E}_j = \Gamma_{ij}^k \overline{E}_k $$

(summation convention is in place). We want to define a new frame $E_i = \alpha_i^j \overline{E}_j$ so that the following conditions hold:

  1. The frame $E_i$ is an orthonormal frame.
  2. $E_i(p) = \overline{E}_i(p)$.
  3. $(\nabla_i E_j)(p) = \left( \nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}} E_j \right)(p) = 0$ for all $1 \leq i, j \leq n$.

Let us write explicitly the conditions on the matrix $\alpha = (\alpha_i^j)_{i,j=1}^n$ must satisfy for each of the following conditions to hold:

  1. The matrix $\alpha(q) = (\alpha_i^j(q))_{i,j=1}^n$ must be an orthonormal matrix for each $q \in U$ (where $U$ is the relevant neighborhood of $p \in M$).
  2. $\alpha(p) = I_n$ (the identity matrix).
  3. We must have $$ (\nabla_i E_j)(p) = (\nabla_i (\alpha_j^k \overline{E}_k))(p) = \left( \frac{\partial \alpha_{j}^k}{\partial x^i} \overline{E}_k + \alpha_j^k \Gamma_{ik}^l \overline{E}_l \right)(p) = \\ \left( \frac{\partial \alpha_j^l}{\partial x^i}(p) + \alpha_j^k(p) \Gamma_{ik}^l(p) \right) \overline{E}_l(p) = 0$$ which implies that $$ \frac{\partial \alpha_j^l}{\partial x^i}(p) + \alpha_j^k(p) \Gamma_{ik}^l(p) = \frac{\partial \alpha_j^l}{\partial x^i}(p) + \delta_j^k \Gamma_{ik}^l(p) = \frac{\partial \alpha_j^l}{\partial x^i}(p) + \Gamma_{ij}^l(p) = 0 $$ for $ 1 \leq i,j,l \leq n$. If we set $\Gamma_i = (\Gamma_{ij}^k)_{j,k=1}^n$, this can be written as $$ \frac{\partial \alpha}{\partial x^i}(p) = -\Gamma_i(p) $$ for $1 \leq i \leq n$.

Note that the matrix $\Gamma_i := (\Gamma_{ij}^k)_{j,k=1}^n$ is anti-symmetric (since our connection is metric).

If we set

$$ \alpha(\varphi^{-1}(x^1, \dots, x^n)) := e^{-x^i \Gamma_i(p)} $$

then since the exponential of an anti-symmetric matrix is orthogonal, we have $(1)$ and by direct calculation we also have $(2)$ and $(3)$.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Hint: The actual task is to show that you can choose the functions $\alpha^i_j$ in such a way that the conditions are satisfied, which mainly amounts to fixing the derivatives at $x$ without destroying the fact that the matrix $(\alpha^i_j)$ is orthogonal.

My preferred way to solve the problem would not be by choosing an orthonormal frame and then adapting via the $\alpha^i_j$ but rather use parallel transport to directly construct an appropriate frame.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Here's a different approach (related to Andreas Cap's suggestion).

Take a normal neighbourhood $U$ of $p$. We define $E_i$ in the following way: for $q\in U$, let $v:=\exp_p^{-1}(q)$ and $\gamma_v$ be the geodesic such that $\gamma_v(0)=p$ and $\gamma_v'(0)=v$. Define $E_i(q)$ to be the parallel transport of $e_i$ through $\gamma_v$ from $t=0$ to $t=1$.

By definition of parallel transport, we have $E_i(p)=e_i$ and $(\nabla_{\gamma_v'(t)}E_i)(\gamma_v(t))=0$. In particular for $t=0$, $\nabla_vE_i(p)=0$ for any $v\in \exp_p^{-1}(U)$. Using the $\mathbb{R}$-linearity of $\nabla$, we may rescale $v$ to conclude $\nabla_X E_i(p)=0$ for any $X\in T_pM$.

Furthermore, if $\{e_1,...,e_n\}$ is orthonormal, we have $\langle E_i(q),E_j(q)\rangle=\langle e_i,e_j\rangle=\delta_{ij}$, since parallel transport preserves the inner product, so $\{E_1,...,E_n\}$ is orthonormal in $U$.

*Obs.: Parallel transport involves solving an ODE. The smoothness of $E_i$ is guaranteed by the theorem of smooth dependence on the initial conditions.

$\endgroup$

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.