I'm working on proving Lemma 4.6 in John Lee's "Riemannian Manifolds":

Lemma. Let $\nabla$ be a linear connection on a Riemannian manifold $M$. There is a unique connection in each tensor bundle $T_l^kM$, also denoted $\nabla$, such that the following conditions are satisfied:

  1. On $TM$, $\nabla$ agrees with the given connection.
  2. On $T^0M$, $\nabla$ is given by ordinary differentiation of functions: $$\nabla_X f = Xf.$$
  3. $\nabla$ obeys the following product rule with respect to tensor products: $$\nabla_X(F \otimes G) = (\nabla_X F)\otimes G + F \otimes (\nabla_X G).$$
  4. $\nabla$ commutes with all contractions: if "$\mathrm{tr}$" denotes the trace of any pair of indices, $$\nabla_X(\mathrm{tr}Y) = \mathrm{tr}(\nabla_X Y).$$
  5. $\nabla$ obeys the following product rule with respect to the natural pairing between a covector field $\omega$ and a vector field $Y$: $$\nabla_X\langle \omega, Y\rangle = \langle \nabla_X \omega, Y \rangle + \langle \omega, \nabla_X Y \rangle.$$
  6. For any $F \in \mathcal T_l^k(M)$, where $\mathcal T_l^k(M)$ is the space of smooth $(k,l)$-tensor fields on $M$, and for any vector fields $Y_i$ and 1-forms $\omega^j$, \begin{align} (\nabla_X F)(\omega^1, \ldots, \omega^l, Y_1, \ldots, Y_k) = &X(F(\omega^1, \ldots, \omega^l, Y_1, \ldots, Y_k)) \\ &- \sum_{j=1}^l F(\omega^1, \ldots, \nabla_X \omega^j, \ldots, \omega^l, Y_1, \ldots, Y_k) \\ &- \sum_{i=1}^k F(\omega^1, \ldots, \omega^l, Y_1, \ldots, \nabla_X Y_i, \ldots, Y_k). \end{align}

Lee suggests using 1-4 to prove 5 and 6 (and thus to prove uniqueness), and prove existence using 5 and 6 (ie using 5 and 6 to prove 1-4). The one part of this I'm having trouble with is proving 5 from 1-4 (I can prove 2-4 from 6 and 1 (note 5 follows from 6 also), and 6 follows from 3). Certainly 5 bears resemblance to 3, but 3 involves explicit tensor products, and 5 does not; besides, $\langle \omega, Y \rangle \in C^\infty(M) = \mathcal T^0(M)$, which seems to suggest 2 should be used, but again, the exact computation is lost on me. Any insights?

  • $\begingroup$ Hint: Perhaps use 4 (along with 3) to get 5? $\endgroup$ – Ted Shifrin May 15 '17 at 18:28
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure how to use 4, since 4 involves the trace of a vector field. Unless $Y$ is supposed to be a mixed tensor field instead...? (I had originally proved 6 with this assumption but now I'm doubting my original argument) $\endgroup$ – D Ford May 15 '17 at 18:36
  • $\begingroup$ It's not trace of a vector field. It's a contraction (summing, for example, $\sum_i a^i_j b_i$, one upper index and identical lower index). This is specifically what you have in 5. $\endgroup$ – Ted Shifrin May 15 '17 at 19:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DomVeconi: You're misinterpreting the statement about traces. I didn't say that $Y$ was a vector field -- in that statement, $Y$ can be any tensor field whose trace is defined, which means it has to have at least one upper index and one lower index. This doesn't make sense if $Y$ is a vector field. (Admittedly, using the letter $Y$ there was ill-advised. In my draft second edition, I've changed it to $F$ instead of $Y$.) $\endgroup$ – Jack Lee May 15 '17 at 23:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JackLee I see, that makes more sense. Thanks for taking the time to help clarify the lemma! $\endgroup$ – D Ford May 16 '17 at 0:20

The discussion above has hinted pretty much. Let me thus summarise them down here as a solution.

Let $(E_i)$ be a local frame and $(\varphi^i)$ be the dual coframe. First we note that given any 1-form $\eta=\eta_j\varphi^j$ (Einstein summation convention) and any vector field $Z=Z^iE_i$, we have \begin{equation} \eta\otimes Z=\eta_jZ^i\varphi^j\otimes E_i \end{equation} i.e., the coefficients of $\eta\otimes Z$ are $\eta_jZ^i$. Thus, by taking contraction, we have \begin{equation} \text{tr}(\eta\otimes Z)=\eta_mZ^m \end{equation} but the R.H.S. is just $\eta(Z)$. Therefore \begin{equation} \text{tr}(\eta\otimes Z)=\left\langle\eta,Z\right\rangle \end{equation} Now we can use 3 and 4, together with linearity of tr, to show 5 as follow: \begin{align} \nabla_X\left\langle\omega,Y\right\rangle&=\nabla_X(\text{tr}(\omega\otimes Y)) \\ &=\text{tr}(\nabla_X(\omega\otimes Y))\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\mbox{(By 4)} \\ &=\text{tr}((\nabla_X\omega)\otimes Y+\omega\otimes(\nabla_XY))\qquad\quad\mbox{(By 3)} \\ &=\text{tr}((\nabla_X\omega)\otimes Y)+\text{tr}(\omega\otimes(\nabla_XY))\qquad\mbox{(Linearity of tr)} \\ &=\left\langle\nabla_X\omega,Y\right\rangle+\left\langle\omega,\nabla_XY\right\rangle\qquad\mbox{($\nabla_X\omega$ is a 1-form while $\nabla_XY$ is a vector field)} \end{align} This completes the proof (of 5).


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.