Editted to add Lemma 3.4.

The book "An Introduction to Differentiable Manifolds and Riemannian Geometry" by William Boothby has the following definition of connection.

(3.1) Definition. A $C^\infty$ connection $\nabla$ on a manifold $M$ is a mapping $\nabla: \mathfrak{X}(M) \times \mathfrak{X}(M) \to > \mathfrak{X}(M)$ denoted by $\nabla:(X,Y)\to \nabla_X Y$ which has the linearity properties: For all $f,g\in C^\infty(M)$ and $X,X',Y,Y'\in > \mathfrak{X}(M)$, we have

(1) $\nabla_{fX+gX'}Y = f(\nabla_x Y) + g(\nabla_{X'}Y)$

(2) $\nabla_X(fY+gY')=f\nabla_X Y + g\nabla_X Y' + (Xf)Y+(Xg)Y'$

The book introduces a corollary which aims to show that $(\nabla_X Y)_p=\nabla_{X_p} Y$ because the definition of connection does not immediately state this. But I don't understand the proof of the below corollary. In particular its not clear to me what is $\tilde{X}$ doing and how its used to show dependence on $X$ at $p$ and not on the whole of $X$.

(3.4) Lemma. Let $X,Y\in \mathfrak{X}(M)$ and suppose that either $X=0$ or $Y=0$ on an open set $U\subset M$. If $\nabla$ is a connection [satisfying properties (1) and (2) of Definition 3.1], then the vector field $\nabla_X Y = 0$ on $U$.

(3.5) Corollary. Let $p$ be any point of $M$. If $X,X'\in\mathfrak{X}(M)$ such that $X_p=X'_p$, then for every vector field $Y$, $(\nabla_X Y)_p=(\nabla_{X'} Y)_p$. Denote this uniquely determined vector by $\nabla_{X_p}Y$. Then the mapping from $T_p(M)\to > T_p(M)$ defined by $X_p\to \nabla_{X_p}Y$ is linear.

Proof. Let $U,\varphi$ be a coordinate neighborhood of the point $p$. As in the proof of the lemma, there is a $C^\infty$ function on $M$ with $\text{supp}(f)\subset U$ and $f\equiv1$ on a neighborhood $V$ of $p$ (so $\overline{V}\subset U$). If $X\in\mathfrak{X}(M)$, then on $U$ we have $$X=\sum_{i=1}^n a_i E_i$$ with $a_i\in C^{\infty}(U)$ and $E_1,\ldots,E_n$ the vectors of the coordinate frames. We define $\tilde{X}, \tilde{E_1},\ldots, \tilde{E_n}\in\mathfrak{X}(M)$ and $\tilde{a_1},\ldots,\tilde{a_m}\in C^{\infty}(M)$ by $\tilde{X}=f^2X,\tilde{E_i}=fE_i$ and $\tilde{a_i}=fa_i, i=1,\ldots,n$, on $U$, and all to be zero (vectors and functions respectively) on the open set $M-\text{supp}(f)$. Then we have $$\tilde{X}=\tilde{a_1}\tilde{E_1}+\cdots+\tilde{a_n}\tilde{E_n}$$ on all of $M$; but on $\overline{V}$ this reduces to the equation above since $\tilde{X}=X$, $\tilde{E_i}=E_i$ and $\tilde{a_i}=a_i$ on this set. Applying Lemma 3.4 and property (1) of $\nabla$ gives $$\nabla_X Y=\nabla_{\tilde{X}} Y = \sum_{i=1}^n \tilde{a_i}\nabla_{\tilde{E_i}} Y \quad\text{on}\quad V$$. Hence $$(\nabla_X Y)_p = \sum \tilde{a_i}(p)(\nabla_{\tilde{E_i}} Y)_p = \sum a_i(p)(\nabla_{E_i}Y)_p$$, where the right-hand side depends only on the value $X_p$ of the vector field $X$ at $p$. This proves the first statement and the formula itself shows that the mapping $X_p\to\nabla_{X_p}Y=(\nabla_X Y)_p$ is a linear mapping of $T_p(M)$ into itself. For its value depends linearly on the components $a_1(p),\ldots,a_n(p)$ of $X_p$ relative to the basis $E_{1p},\ldots,E_{np}$ of $T_p(M)$.

  • $\begingroup$ The role of $\tilde{X}$ and the like is to extend the formula $X=\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i}E_{i}$ on all of $M$ instead of just in the chart $(U, \phi)$. Then, for the part "$(\nabla_{X}Y)_{p}$ only depends on the value of $X$ in $p$",look at the last identity, $(\nabla_{X}Y)_{p} = \sum a_{i}(p)(\nabla_{E_{i}}Y)_{p}$. If $X'$ were another vector field with the same value in $p$ as $X$, say $X' = \sum b_{i}E_{i}$ in the same chart, but $b_{i}(p) = a_{i}(p)$, then, by the same reasoning, $(\nabla_{X'}Y)_{p} = \sum b_{i}(p)(\nabla_{E_{i}}Y)_{p} = \sum a_{i}(p)(\nabla_{E_{i}}Y)_{p}=(\nabla_{X}Y)_{p}$. $\endgroup$ – Matija Sreckovic Apr 7 at 9:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user782220: I am afraid that this proof is as clear as it gets. No text on differential geometry does this kind of proof in full detail, it's a characteristic of this subject. The proof is indeed a bit sloppy: it is not clear where lemma 3.4 is used, and it is not clear why $(\nabla _{E_i} Y)_p$ does not depend on $f$, given that $E_i$ does. This last omission, in particular, makes the proof look a bit circular. You'll learn to live with these, though, that's everyday life in differential geometry. $\endgroup$ – Alex M. Apr 9 at 8:55
  • $\begingroup$ So am I understanding this correctly that the subtle point is that linearity (property 1) cannot be applied to directly show that $\nabla_X Y= \sum_{i=1}^n a_i \nabla_{E_i} Y$ on $V$ because the $E_i$ are not defined on all of $M$. And that is the reason for going through $\tilde{X}$. $\endgroup$ – user782220 Apr 10 at 0:06

Well, look at the final formula $$(\nabla_X Y)_p = \sum \tilde{a_i}(p)(\nabla_{\tilde{E_i}} Y)_p = \sum a_i(p)(\nabla_{E_i}Y)_p.$$

The $E_i$ do not depend on what $X$ are: they are just the coordinate vector fields on our chosen coordinate chart at $p$. The coefficients $a_i(p)$ depend only on $X_p$, since they are defined as the coefficients of $X_p$ with respect to the basis $(E_1)_p,\dots,(E_n)_p$ for $T_p(M)$. So if we had any other vector field $X'$ with $X'_p=X_p$, then we would have $a_i'(p)=a_i(p)$ for each $i$ where $a_i'$ is defined correspondingly for $X'$. From the formula above, we conclude that $(\nabla_X Y)_p=(\nabla_{X'}Y)_p$.

The role of $\tilde{X}$ here is just to be able to write $X$ as a linear combination of the $E_i$: since the $E_i$ are only defined locally near $p$, we must multiply everything by the bump function $f$ so we can ignore everything outside a neighborhood of $p$ (and Lemma 3.4 tells us this won't change $(\nabla_X Y)_p$).


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.