Lets take a vector field $X$ on some Riemannian manifold $(\mathcal{M},g)$ with Levi-Civita connection $\nabla$. Then, the components of its covariant derivative in coordinates are


Now, since $\nabla X$ is again tensor field, we can apply a second covariant derivative, which in coordinates yields


Now, instead of writing it like this, let us formally change the order in which the covariant detivative act, i.e. let us write


Now, mathematically speaking, the two terms on the right-hand side are ill-defined and do not make sense, since $\nabla$ is an operation acting on tensor fields and neither $\partial_{\alpha}X^{\beta}$ nor $\Gamma_{\alpha\delta}^{\beta}X^{\delta}$ are the components of a tensor field. However, if we treat these two terms as if they were rank (1,1) tensor fields, i.e. elements of $\Gamma^{\infty}(T\mathcal{M}\otimes T^{\ast}\mathcal{M})$, and use the standard formula for the connections, we will find the same and correct result for the components of $\nabla^{2}X$.

Now, this seem to work in general, i.e. for arbitrary rank tensors and an arbitrary amount of covariant derivatives (at least I never have seen a counter example).

My question, or lets say, my curiosity, is:

Why does the second "approach", in which we produce ill-defined terms in the steps in-between, work?

Is there any mathematical reason? For example, maybe one can extend the covariant derivative to more general "objects with indices" in a unique way, such that the steps in between become well-defined. For example, one can extend the covariant derivative to a map acting on tensor densities (i.e. sections of tensor product of a tensor bundle and a density bundle). Maybe there is a similar and more general notion which also includes objects like the partial derivative and the Christoffel symbols.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You know, I've used this types of calculations numerous times and never stopped to think about it like this. Good question. $\endgroup$
    – K.defaoite
    Jan 29 at 15:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @peek-a-boo Some help, maybe? :) $\endgroup$
    – K.defaoite
    Jan 29 at 15:08
  • $\begingroup$ The second way is technically not correct, but the formula you get by writing both covariant derivatives in terms of partial derivatives and Christoffel symbols is independent of the order you do the substitution. $\endgroup$
    – Deane
    Jan 29 at 23:31

2 Answers 2


The notion that Christoffel symbols are not tensor fields is not entirely true, or at least somewhat deceptive. If we choose a set of local coordinates $x^\alpha$, then the corresponding Chrisotoffel symbols $\Gamma^\alpha{}_{\beta\gamma}$ represent a perfectly well-defined local tensor field. Issues only arise when we try to interpret the objects involved as global, coordinate-independent objects, since a different set of coordinates will not generally result in the same tensor field, even on their common domain.

In this particular computation, we are fixing a coordinate system at the start, and finding an expression for $\nabla\nabla X$ in terms of the Christoffel symbols of those coordinates, so we can interpret expressions like $\nabla_\alpha(\Gamma^{\beta}{}_{\gamma\delta})$ as a covariant derivative of a tensor field without issue.


As an alternative point of view, let me point out the following: In your second approach, if you keep the term $(\partial_{\alpha}X^{\beta}+\Gamma_{\alpha\gamma}^{\beta}X^{\gamma})$ in brackets and use linearity only once there is no more covariant derivative, everything stays perfectly well-defined:


Now, as soon as you arrive here, you can use linearity, since $\partial_{\gamma}$ acts on every $C^{\infty}$-function and the terms with Christoffel symbols can also be clearly separated.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is exactly the way I see this $\endgroup$
    – Didier
    Jan 30 at 7:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .