1
$\begingroup$

Let $M$ be a manifold and $\nabla$ a connection on $M$. If $X$ and $Y$ are smooth vector fields defined on a open set $U$ of $M$ then I define ${ \nabla }_{ X }Y ={ \nabla }_{ \widetilde{X} }\widetilde{Y} $ where $\widetilde{X}$ and $\widetilde{Y}$ are global vector fields which extend $X$ and $Y$, respectively.

  1. Is this well-defined?, that is, is this definition independent of the vector field extensions?

  2. Let ${ E }_{ i }$ form a local frame on $U$. Is this the way that ${ \nabla }_{ { { E }_{ i } } }{ E }_{ j }$ is defined?

  3. If so, then we have that ${ \nabla }_{ { { E }_{ i } } }{ E }_{ j }={ \nabla }_{ { \widetilde { E } _{ i } } }{ \widetilde { E } }_{ j }=\sum _{ k }^{ }{ { \Gamma }_{ ij }^{ k } } { E }_{ k }$ on $U$, where the ${ \Gamma }_{ ij }$ are functions defined on $U$ (a.k.a Christoffel symbols). Are the Christoffel symbols independent of the extensions of the the ${ E }_{ i }$?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Is there a preexisting notion of the covariant derivative of a vector field with respect to a vector field? I have never heard of such a thing, and it can't be expressed in abstract index notation. $\endgroup$ – Ben Crowell May 8 '17 at 0:19
  • $\begingroup$ @BenCrowell: The covariant derivative of vector fields wrt vector fields is built in to the very definition of a connection in the usual formulation of DG. In index notation $\nabla_X Y$ becomes $X^i \nabla_i Y^j$. $\endgroup$ – Anthony Carapetis May 8 '17 at 2:07
2
$\begingroup$
  1. To show that this is well-defined, we must take extensions $X_1, X_2$ and $Y_1, Y_2$ of $X$ and $Y$ and show that $\nabla_{X_1} Y_1 |_p = \nabla_{X_2} Y_2 |_p$ for any $p \in U$. Let $V,W$ be open sets such that $p \in V \subset W \subset U$ and construct a smooth bump function $\psi$ such that $\psi|_V = 1$ and $\psi|_{M\setminus W} = 0$. Then $\psi(p)=1$ and $d\psi|_p = 0$, so

$$ \begin{align*} \nabla_{X_1} Y_1|_p &= \psi(p) \nabla_{X_1}Y_1|_p \\ &=\nabla_{X_1}(\psi Y_1)|_p-(X_1|_p \psi) Y_1|_p \tag{by the Leibniz rule} \\ &= \nabla_{X_1}(\psi Y_1)|_p \tag{since $d\psi|_p=0$} \\ &= \nabla_{X_1}(\psi Y_2)|_p \tag{since $\psi Y_1 = \psi Y_2$} \\ &= \nabla_{\psi X_1}(\psi Y_2)|_p \tag{by $C^\infty$-linearity in $X$} \\ &= \nabla_{\psi X_2}(\psi Y_2)|_p \tag{since $\psi X_1 = \psi X_2$} \\ &= \nabla_{X_2}(\psi Y_2)|_p \\&= \psi(p)\nabla_{X_2} Y_2|_p + (X_2|_p \psi)Y_2|_p \\ &=\nabla_{X_2}Y_2|_p. \end{align*}$$

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes, since $\nabla_{E_i} E_j$ is independent of the extension and the formula $\nabla_{E_i} E_j = \sum_k \Gamma_{ij}^k E_k$ uniquely determines the $\Gamma_{ij}^k$. You can see this by letting $\theta^i$ denote the dual frame to $E_i$ (i.e. $\theta^j(E_i) = \delta^j_i$) and showing $\Gamma_{ij}^k = \theta^k(\nabla_{E_i} E_j)$.
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I´m very grateful with you. $\endgroup$ – Mr. X May 8 '17 at 16:52
  • $\begingroup$ I think you mean that ${ \psi }_{ |M-W }=0$, so that $\psi$ is a function defined on all $M$. Also I think that in the 3rd "since" it should read $\psi { X }_{ 1 }=\psi { X }_{ 2 }$, right?. $\endgroup$ – Mr. X May 8 '17 at 16:59
  • $\begingroup$ I was thinking that there may be not vector field extensions of the ${ E }_{ i }$ over $U$ at all!!!. Instead you pick $V\subseteq W\subseteq\ U$ and a bump function $\phi$ such that ${ \phi }_{ |V}=1$ and ${ \phi }_{ |U-W }=0 $, take $\phi { E }_{ i }$ and the extend it by the zero section. This global vector field is smooth and coincides with ${ E }_{ i }$ on $V$, but not necesarilly on $U$. So how can we see that with respect to this kind of extensions the covariant derivative is independent?? I´m so sorry of asking again. Should I edit the original question? $\endgroup$ – Mr. X May 8 '17 at 17:59
  • $\begingroup$ @Mr.X Thanks for the corrections, I've edited my answer. I'm not sure you're following the idea of the argument in your last objection - the whole bump function argument is just to show that the extension doesn't matter. We use a different $V,W,\psi$ for each point $p\in U$. $\endgroup$ – Anthony Carapetis May 9 '17 at 0:39

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.