2
$\begingroup$

Having some knowledge in differential geometry on $\mathbb{R}^n$, I'm reading a book on Information geometry by Amari. Let $S=\{p_{\theta}\}$, $\theta=(\theta_1,\dots,\theta_n)$ be an $n$-dimensional manifold parameterized by $\theta$. At some point the author writes, for a (differentiable) funtion $f:S\to \mathbb{R}$, $$(\text{grad}~f)_p=\sum_{i,j}\left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial \theta_i}\right)_pg^{i,j}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta_i}\right)_p,$$ where $[g^{i,j}]$ is the inverse of the Riemannian metric $[g_{i,j}]=[\langle \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta_i},\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta_j}\rangle]$. Can someone explain how does one arrive at this expression? Thank you.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Are you sure of your formula? The gradient is a vector, so you should specify a component on the l.h.s. and do not sum over 2 indices on the r.h.s. (Amari's book is great) $\endgroup$ – Avitus Dec 11 '13 at 10:42
  • $\begingroup$ @Avitus Yes, this is how it is given in the book. I too had the same doubt. In the next line he writes $\|(df)_p\|_p^2=\|(\text{grad}~f)_p\|_p^2=(\partial_if)_p(\partial_jf)_pg^{i,j}(p)$. I don't understand this as well. $\endgroup$ – Ashok Dec 11 '13 at 10:46
  • $\begingroup$ I see...that object is not the gradient of $f$ at $p$, understood as the vector $\nabla(f)^k:=\sum_i g^{ki}\frac{\partial f}{\partial \theta^i}$. It is $\operatorname{grad}(f):=\sum_k \nabla(f)^k\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_k}$, instead (i.e. an element of $T_pM$ with components given by the gradient of $f$ at $p$ components)... $\endgroup$ – Avitus Dec 11 '13 at 10:52
  • $\begingroup$ ...the identity involving the norms comes from $\|v\|^2:=\langle v,v\rangle$, where the inner product is defined using the Riemannian metric as you stated in the question. $\endgroup$ – Avitus Dec 11 '13 at 10:55
  • $\begingroup$ @Avitus: I don't understand. How does the inverse of the metric come into picture? Can you explain in detail in the answer? $\endgroup$ – Ashok Dec 11 '13 at 10:58
2
$\begingroup$

As you mentioned, the gradient of a function $f$ is defined as its dual vector of $df$, we can immediately write $$(\mathrm{grad} f(p))^i=g^{ij}(df(p))_j$$

Proof: $$g_{ij}X^j=\left<\partial_i,\partial_j\right>X^j=\left<\partial_i,X^j\partial_j\right>=\left<\partial_i,X\right>=X_i$$

And we know $df(p)_j=\partial_j f(p)$, so it follows $$\mathrm{grad} f(p)=(\mathrm{grad} f(p))^i\partial_i=g^{ij}\partial_jf(p)\partial_i$$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Can you elaborate bit on how you get $(\mathrm{grad} f(p))^i=g^{ij}(df(p))_j$? It should be simple, I presume. So give me only a hint! $\endgroup$ – Ashok Dec 11 '13 at 12:09
  • $\begingroup$ @Ashok See my edit. $\endgroup$ – Shuchang Dec 11 '13 at 12:19
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, still I'm not getting the appearence of the inverse $g^{i,j}$. $\endgroup$ – Ashok Dec 11 '13 at 12:32
  • $\begingroup$ @Ashok $g^{ij}$ is the inverse of $g_{ij}$ $\endgroup$ – Shuchang Dec 11 '13 at 12:33
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I know. But, will this equation $g_{ij}X^j=\langle\partial_i,\partial_j\rangle X^j=\langle\partial_i,X^j\partial_j\rangle=\langle\partial_i,X\rangle=X_i$ be true even if we replace $g_{i,j}$ by its inverse $g^{i,j}$? I'm confused. $\endgroup$ – Ashok Dec 11 '13 at 12:44

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.