1
$\begingroup$

In this note, equation (6) the author claimed that

$(M,g)$ is a Riemannian manifold. Let $X,Y,K$ be vector fields defined in the vicinity of a point $p\in M$. Then the condition that $\nabla$ is Levi-Civita connection means that $$L_K|_p(M\ni x\mapsto g_x(X_x,Y_x)\in\Bbb R)=g_p((\nabla_KX)_p,Y_p)+g_p(X_p,(\nabla_KY)_p)$$

I have rearranged the notations to make them look rigorous. In the original notations the equation looks like

$$L_K\langle X,Y\rangle=\partial_K\langle X,Y\rangle=\langle \nabla_KX,Y\rangle+\langle X,\nabla_KY\rangle$$

Could anybody provide any references for a proof? The reference the author gave seems inaccessible (I couldn't find it online). Many thanks!

EDIT In effect I'm looking for a proof for the characterisation of Killing fields found on Wikipedia, i.e., $X$ preserves metric (which I think is equivalent to $L_K|_p(M\ni x\mapsto g_x(X_x,Y_x)\in\Bbb R)=0$) means

$$g(\nabla _{{Y}}X,Z)+g(Y,\nabla _{{Z}}X)=0\,$$

EDIT AGAIN Sorry I was so dumb, the equation I asked about in the main text is just the compatibility of the Levi-Civita connection. And in fact, this expression doesn't quite match the one characterising the Killing form (in the previous EDIT): for the one in the main text it's $\nabla_KX$ and for the one in the EDIT it's $\nabla_XK$. I have to give it quite a lot of thoughts how to make use of the relation $\nabla_KX-\nabla_XK=[K,X]$ etc.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Do you mean $\partial_K \langle X, Y \rangle$? $\endgroup$ – Robert Lewis May 25 '17 at 8:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @RobertLewis yeah of course, the directional derivative wrt $K$. Sorry for the oversight. $\endgroup$ – Vim May 25 '17 at 8:58
1
$\begingroup$

For completeness, here is a proof; I haven;t read the note you linked to in much detail but it appears to prove it along the same lines.

Consider the operator $A_{X}\equiv \mathcal{L}_{X}-\nabla_{X}$ in terms of a vector field $X$ on some manifold $\mathcal{M}$ where $\mathcal{L}_{X},\nabla_{X}$ denote Lie and covariant differentiation respectively. This operator inherits properties from $\mathcal{L}_{X}$ and $\nabla_{X}$, namely it is a derivation on tensor fields that commutes with contractions. It also satisfies $A_{X}f=0$, for any function $f \in \mathcal{F}(M)$. In particular, for any vector fields $X,Y,Z$ on $\mathcal{M}$:

$$A_{X}[g(Y,Z)] = (A_{X}g)(Y,Z) + g(A_{X}Y,Z) + g(Y,A_{X}Z) \;=\; 0.$$

For a metric compatible connection ($\nabla_{X} g = 0$), we have $A_{X}g = \mathcal{L}_{X}g$, so the above becomes:

$$-(\mathcal{L}_{X}g)(Y,Z) = g(A_{X}Y,Z) + g(Y,A_{X}Z)\qquad\qquad(*)$$

But also, for any vector field $Y$, we have

$$A_{X}Y \;=\; \mathcal{L}_{X}Y - \nabla_{X}Y \;=\; [X,Y] - \nabla_{X}Y$$

which, if the connection is torsion free, reduces to

$$A_{X}Y = - \nabla_{Y}X$$

since the torsion tensor is given by $T(X,Y) = \nabla_{X}Y - \nabla_{Y}X - [X,Y]=0$. Then, we may rewrite $(*)$ as

$$(\mathcal{L}_{X}g)(Y,Z) = g(\nabla_{Y}X,Z) + g(\nabla_{Z}X,Y)$$

This is true for any vector field $X$, but if $K$ is Killing, $\mathcal{L}_{K}g=0$ and this becomes:

$$g(\nabla_{Y}K,Z) + g(\nabla_{Z}K,Y) = 0$$

which is Killing's equation, as you have written above.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. Could you please elaborate a bit on why $A_Xf=0$ for functions? Actually I can't quite make sense of $\nabla_Xf$. $\endgroup$ – Vim May 25 '17 at 12:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes - so $A_{X}f=\nabla_{X}f - \mathcal{L}_{X}f$. But the covariant derivative of a function $f$ with respect to a vector field $X$ is just $X$ acting on $f$: $\nabla_{X}f=Xf$. The same is true for Lie derivative: $\mathcal{L}_{X}f=Xf$. Hence $A_{X}f=Xf-Xf=0$. $\endgroup$ – AloneAndConfused May 25 '17 at 12:17
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry for my ignorance, but would you also explain a bit why $$A_{X}[g(Y,Z)] = (A_{X}g)(Y,Z) + g(A_{X}Y,Z) + g(Y,A_{X}Z).$$ I know $$(\nabla_Xg)(Y,Z)=X(g(Y,Z))-g(\nabla_XY,Z)-g(\nabla_XZ,Y)$$ but does $\mathcal L$ share this property too? (Is it what you call "a derivation on tensor fields that commutes with contractions"? Thought I don't quite understand what "tensor fields that commute with contractions" mean) $\endgroup$ – Vim May 25 '17 at 12:25
  • $\begingroup$ Never mind, I found a proof on Lee's Intro to Smooth Manifolds. Thanks again! $\endgroup$ – Vim May 25 '17 at 12:34
  • $\begingroup$ That's okay! And out of interest that is exactly what I mean by "commute with contractions" and the Lie derivative has that property also. More here in fact: math.stackexchange.com/questions/1304244/… $\endgroup$ – AloneAndConfused May 25 '17 at 12:36

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.