3
$\begingroup$

Let $(M,g)$ be a Riemannian manifold and $\nabla$ a metric compatible connection. Let $\{e_a\}$ be a local orthonormal basis of vector fields on some open set $U\subset M$. We define the connection $1$-forms $\omega^a_b$ by

$$\nabla_X e_b = \omega^a_b(X)e_a.$$

Let $\operatorname{Rm}$ be the Riemann tensor defined by $$\operatorname{Rm}(X,Y)Z=\nabla_X\nabla_YZ-\nabla_Y\nabla_XZ-\nabla_{[X,Y]}Z.$$

One defines the curvature $2$-forms $\Omega^a_b$ by

$$\frac{1}{2}\operatorname{Rm}(X,Y)e_b=\Omega^a_b(X,Y)e_a.$$

I want to prove Cartan's second equation $$\Omega^a_b=d\omega^a_b-\omega_b^c\wedge \omega_c^a.$$

I just computed $\operatorname{Rm}(X,Y)e_b$ using the connecton $1$-forms:

$$\operatorname{Rm}(X,Y)e_b = \nabla_X\nabla_Y e_b - \nabla_Y \nabla_X e_b - \nabla_{[X,Y]}e_b\\ =\nabla_X\left[\omega^a_b(Y)e_a\right]-\nabla_Y\left[\omega^a_b(X)e_a\right]-\omega^a_b([X,Y])e_a\\ =X(\omega^a_b(Y))e_a+\omega^a_b(Y)\nabla_X e_a-Y(\omega^a_b(X))e_a-\omega^a_b(X)\nabla_Y e_a-\omega^a_b([X,Y])e_a.$$

Now we know that $$d\omega^a_b(X,Y)=X(\omega^a_b(Y))-Y(\omega^a_b(X))-\omega^a_b([X,Y]),$$

hence the above evaluates to

$$\operatorname{Rm}(X,Y)e_b = d\omega^a_b(X,Y)e_a + \omega^a_b(Y)\omega^c_a(X)e_c-\omega^a_b(X)\omega^c_a(Y)e_c\\ =d\omega^a_b(X,Y)e_a-2 \omega^a_b\wedge \omega_a^c(X,Y) e_c.$$

Now this last equation gives, upon using the definition of the curvature $2$-forms

$$\Omega^a_b = \dfrac{1}{2}d\omega^a_b - \omega_b^c\wedge \omega_c^a.$$

So there is this $1/2$ factor wrong in front of $d\omega^a_b$.

I have already read my computations again a few times but did not spot what I'm doing wrong.

So what is wrong with my approach? Why I'm getting this $1/2$ in front of $d\omega^a_b$?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

The mistake is in your formula for $d\omega^a_b$. You seem to be using the following convention for the wedge product (which I call the Alt convention in my book Introduction to Smooth Manifolds): $$ \alpha\wedge\beta(X,Y) = \frac1 2 (\alpha(X)\beta(Y) - \alpha(Y)\beta(X)). $$ Using that convention, the formula for $d$ of a $1$-form should be $$ d\alpha (X,Y) = \frac 1 2 (X(\alpha(Y)) - Y(\alpha(X)) - \alpha([X,Y]). $$ Your formula for $d\omega^a_b$ is missing the factor $\frac 1 2$.

You can also do this computation using the other wedge product convention (which I call the determinant convention): $$ \alpha\wedge\beta(X,Y) = \alpha(X)\beta(Y) - \alpha(Y)\beta(X). $$ With this convention, the formula for $d\alpha$ doesn't have the factor of $1/2$, and you also have to define the curvature form without the factor $1/2$: $$ \text{Rm}(X,Y)e_b = \Omega_b^a(X,Y)e_a. $$ In both cases, the structure equation comes out the way you wrote it: $$ \Omega_b^a = d\omega_b^a - \omega^c_b \wedge \omega^a_c. $$

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks very much @JackLee! As you pointed out I ended up mixing the two conventions. $\endgroup$
    – Gold
    Oct 7, 2019 at 23:30

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.