Before I ask the question I clear up some notation. Throughout this question $M$ will be a smooth $n$ dimensional manifold, $G$ a $k$ dimensional Lie group and $G\times M\rightarrow M$ a smooth left action of $G$ on $M$.

If $X\in\mathfrak X(M)$ is a smooth vector field on $M$, its flow will be denoted as $\phi^X$. The effect of flowing for "time" $t$ from the point $x\in M$ is $\phi^X_t(x)$.

The Lie derivative of an arbitrary tensor field $T$ along $X$ is defined as $$ \mathcal L_X T=\frac{d}{dt}(\phi^X_t)^\ast T, $$ where this derivative is evaluated at $t=0$, and the upper asterisk denotes pullback. In particular, for a vector field $Y$, this means $$ \mathcal L_XY|_x=\frac{d}{dt}T\phi^X_{-t}(Y|_{\phi^X_t(x)}), $$ and this derivative is evaluated at $t=0$, and $T$ is the tangent functor. As far as I am aware, this is the standard convention.

Using these conventions, it can be derived, that if $A,B\in\mathfrak g$ are Lie algebra elements, then $$ \text{ad}_AB=\frac{d^2}{dsdt}\exp(sA)\exp(tB)\exp(-sA)=[A,B], $$ and this derivative is evaluated at $s,t=0$.

If $A\in\mathfrak g$, then we define the infinitesimal transformation associated to $A$ as a smooth vector field $X_A\in\mathfrak X(M)$ defined by $$ X_A|_x=\frac{d}{dt}\exp(tA)x, $$ where this derivative is evaluated at $t=0$, and $\exp(tA)x$ is the left action of $\exp(tA)$ on the point $x\in M$.

I am interested in the nature of the map $A\mapsto X_A$. Linearity is easy to see. I want to show how $X_{[A,B]}$ and $[X_A,X_B]$ are related.

My attempt at a derivation is as follows: $$ X_{[A,B]}=\frac{d}{dsdt}\exp(sA)\exp(tB)\exp(-sA)x=\frac{d}{ds}\frac{d}{dt}\phi^A_s\circ\phi^B_t\circ\phi^A_{-s}(x) \\ =\frac{d}{ds}T\phi^A_s\left(\frac{d}{dt}\phi^B_t(\phi^A_{-s}(x))\right)=\frac{d}{ds}T\phi^A_s(X^B|_{\phi^A_{-s}(x)})=-\mathcal L_{X_A}X_B|_x=-[X_A,X_B]|_x. $$ Here all derivatives are evaluated at 0 and $\phi^A_s\equiv\phi^{X_A}_s$.

So it seems that the map $A\mapsto X_A$ is a Lie algebra antihomomorphism. This seems to be contrary to expectation, especially as $\text{ad}_AB=[A,B]$, and this result should essentially be analogous to the relationship between $\text{ad}$ and $[\cdot,\cdot]$.

Is my derivation correct? Is this a bug or a feature? If I'm right, is there any particular reason why this is an antihomomorhpism?


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.