Recover Covariant Derivative from Parallel Transport The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InParallel transport for a conformally equivalent metricA connection is the limit of the newton quotient of the parallel transportIs parallel transport injective?When parallel transport determines a connectionQuestions about definition of covariant derivative and characterization of geodesicsCovariant derivative and parallel transportHow do you formulate the linearity condition for a covariant derivative on a vector bundle in terms of parallel transport?Defining covariant derivative via parallel transport.Conectionless parallel transportDefining connection from parallel transport
Why didn't the Event Horizon Telescope team mention Sagittarius A*?
For what reasons would an animal species NOT cross a *horizontal* land bridge?
Did any laptop computers have a built-in 5 1/4 inch floppy drive?
Kerning for subscripts of sigma?
Worn-tile Scrabble
Can a flute soloist sit?
If I can cast sorceries at instant speed, can I use sorcery-speed activated abilities at instant speed?
The phrase "to the numbers born"?
Mathematics of imaging the black hole
Can there be female White Walkers?
Why doesn't UInt have a toDouble()?
Output the Arecibo Message
Is an up-to-date browser secure on an out-of-date OS?
Why can't devices on different VLANs, but on the same subnet, communicate?
What is this business jet?
Are there any other methods to apply to solving simultaneous equations?
Why not take a picture of a closer black hole?
Why don't hard Brexiteers insist on a hard border to prevent illegal immigration after Brexit?
What is preventing me from simply constructing a hash that's lower than the current target?
Inverse Relationship Between Precision and Recall
Why isn't the circumferential light around the M87 black hole's event horizon symmetric?
Can withdrawing asylum be illegal?
How can I define good in a religion that claims no moral authority?
Is bread bad for ducks?
Recover Covariant Derivative from Parallel Transport
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InParallel transport for a conformally equivalent metricA connection is the limit of the newton quotient of the parallel transportIs parallel transport injective?When parallel transport determines a connectionQuestions about definition of covariant derivative and characterization of geodesicsCovariant derivative and parallel transportHow do you formulate the linearity condition for a covariant derivative on a vector bundle in terms of parallel transport?Defining covariant derivative via parallel transport.Conectionless parallel transportDefining connection from parallel transport
$begingroup$
It is well known that one can recover the connection from the parallel transport. I struggle to understand this concept.
Since $Gamma(gamma)^t_s:E_gamma(s)to E_gamma(t)$ is an isomorphism between the fibers, it holds that $Gamma(gamma)^t_s(e_s)=e_t$ for the unique parallel translate $e_t=e(gamma(t))in E_gamma(t)$ of a section $e$ in the vector bundle along a curve $gamma:Ito M$ . Consequently, $nabla_dotgamma(0)e=lim_hto 0(Gamma(gamma)^0_h(e_h)-e_0)/h=0$.
However, how do we "recover" $nabla_Xe$ for an arbitrary section $e$ that might not be parallel along $gamma$ where $dotgamma(0)=X$?
differential-geometry vector-bundles
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
It is well known that one can recover the connection from the parallel transport. I struggle to understand this concept.
Since $Gamma(gamma)^t_s:E_gamma(s)to E_gamma(t)$ is an isomorphism between the fibers, it holds that $Gamma(gamma)^t_s(e_s)=e_t$ for the unique parallel translate $e_t=e(gamma(t))in E_gamma(t)$ of a section $e$ in the vector bundle along a curve $gamma:Ito M$ . Consequently, $nabla_dotgamma(0)e=lim_hto 0(Gamma(gamma)^0_h(e_h)-e_0)/h=0$.
However, how do we "recover" $nabla_Xe$ for an arbitrary section $e$ that might not be parallel along $gamma$ where $dotgamma(0)=X$?
differential-geometry vector-bundles
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Doesn't the link answer your question? Maybe I am misunderstanding something.
$endgroup$
– Braindead
May 17 '14 at 12:37
$begingroup$
@Braindead Is it true that for any section, there exists a curve to which it is parallel? I am confused since the formula linked equals zero for any section...
$endgroup$
– gofvonx
May 17 '14 at 12:40
$begingroup$
I don't think that is true, but I don't think that's relevant to your question. Basically, the parallel transport gives you a means of comparing the value of a section over two different points in the base space by transporting one of the vectors to the other point. This allows you to take their difference over a common point. There is no reason for this to be zero all the time.
$endgroup$
– Braindead
May 17 '14 at 12:47
$begingroup$
@Braindead But the parallel transport $Gamma$ is defined by $Gamma(gamma)_s^t(e_s)=e_t$ for the solution of $nabla_dotgamma(0)e=0$ and then $Gamma(gamma)_s^0(e_s)equiv e_0$, so the difference in the limes is always zero, isn't it?
$endgroup$
– gofvonx
May 17 '14 at 12:51
$begingroup$
You can apply the parallel transport to a non-parallel arbitrary section. Also, the parallel transport in the wikipedia article is not defined by that equation. See if my answer below makes sense to you.
$endgroup$
– Braindead
May 17 '14 at 13:12
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
It is well known that one can recover the connection from the parallel transport. I struggle to understand this concept.
Since $Gamma(gamma)^t_s:E_gamma(s)to E_gamma(t)$ is an isomorphism between the fibers, it holds that $Gamma(gamma)^t_s(e_s)=e_t$ for the unique parallel translate $e_t=e(gamma(t))in E_gamma(t)$ of a section $e$ in the vector bundle along a curve $gamma:Ito M$ . Consequently, $nabla_dotgamma(0)e=lim_hto 0(Gamma(gamma)^0_h(e_h)-e_0)/h=0$.
However, how do we "recover" $nabla_Xe$ for an arbitrary section $e$ that might not be parallel along $gamma$ where $dotgamma(0)=X$?
differential-geometry vector-bundles
$endgroup$
It is well known that one can recover the connection from the parallel transport. I struggle to understand this concept.
Since $Gamma(gamma)^t_s:E_gamma(s)to E_gamma(t)$ is an isomorphism between the fibers, it holds that $Gamma(gamma)^t_s(e_s)=e_t$ for the unique parallel translate $e_t=e(gamma(t))in E_gamma(t)$ of a section $e$ in the vector bundle along a curve $gamma:Ito M$ . Consequently, $nabla_dotgamma(0)e=lim_hto 0(Gamma(gamma)^0_h(e_h)-e_0)/h=0$.
However, how do we "recover" $nabla_Xe$ for an arbitrary section $e$ that might not be parallel along $gamma$ where $dotgamma(0)=X$?
differential-geometry vector-bundles
differential-geometry vector-bundles
edited May 17 '14 at 16:46
Braindead
3,4051839
3,4051839
asked May 17 '14 at 12:21
gofvonxgofvonx
1,052828
1,052828
$begingroup$
Doesn't the link answer your question? Maybe I am misunderstanding something.
$endgroup$
– Braindead
May 17 '14 at 12:37
$begingroup$
@Braindead Is it true that for any section, there exists a curve to which it is parallel? I am confused since the formula linked equals zero for any section...
$endgroup$
– gofvonx
May 17 '14 at 12:40
$begingroup$
I don't think that is true, but I don't think that's relevant to your question. Basically, the parallel transport gives you a means of comparing the value of a section over two different points in the base space by transporting one of the vectors to the other point. This allows you to take their difference over a common point. There is no reason for this to be zero all the time.
$endgroup$
– Braindead
May 17 '14 at 12:47
$begingroup$
@Braindead But the parallel transport $Gamma$ is defined by $Gamma(gamma)_s^t(e_s)=e_t$ for the solution of $nabla_dotgamma(0)e=0$ and then $Gamma(gamma)_s^0(e_s)equiv e_0$, so the difference in the limes is always zero, isn't it?
$endgroup$
– gofvonx
May 17 '14 at 12:51
$begingroup$
You can apply the parallel transport to a non-parallel arbitrary section. Also, the parallel transport in the wikipedia article is not defined by that equation. See if my answer below makes sense to you.
$endgroup$
– Braindead
May 17 '14 at 13:12
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Doesn't the link answer your question? Maybe I am misunderstanding something.
$endgroup$
– Braindead
May 17 '14 at 12:37
$begingroup$
@Braindead Is it true that for any section, there exists a curve to which it is parallel? I am confused since the formula linked equals zero for any section...
$endgroup$
– gofvonx
May 17 '14 at 12:40
$begingroup$
I don't think that is true, but I don't think that's relevant to your question. Basically, the parallel transport gives you a means of comparing the value of a section over two different points in the base space by transporting one of the vectors to the other point. This allows you to take their difference over a common point. There is no reason for this to be zero all the time.
$endgroup$
– Braindead
May 17 '14 at 12:47
$begingroup$
@Braindead But the parallel transport $Gamma$ is defined by $Gamma(gamma)_s^t(e_s)=e_t$ for the solution of $nabla_dotgamma(0)e=0$ and then $Gamma(gamma)_s^0(e_s)equiv e_0$, so the difference in the limes is always zero, isn't it?
$endgroup$
– gofvonx
May 17 '14 at 12:51
$begingroup$
You can apply the parallel transport to a non-parallel arbitrary section. Also, the parallel transport in the wikipedia article is not defined by that equation. See if my answer below makes sense to you.
$endgroup$
– Braindead
May 17 '14 at 13:12
$begingroup$
Doesn't the link answer your question? Maybe I am misunderstanding something.
$endgroup$
– Braindead
May 17 '14 at 12:37
$begingroup$
Doesn't the link answer your question? Maybe I am misunderstanding something.
$endgroup$
– Braindead
May 17 '14 at 12:37
$begingroup$
@Braindead Is it true that for any section, there exists a curve to which it is parallel? I am confused since the formula linked equals zero for any section...
$endgroup$
– gofvonx
May 17 '14 at 12:40
$begingroup$
@Braindead Is it true that for any section, there exists a curve to which it is parallel? I am confused since the formula linked equals zero for any section...
$endgroup$
– gofvonx
May 17 '14 at 12:40
$begingroup$
I don't think that is true, but I don't think that's relevant to your question. Basically, the parallel transport gives you a means of comparing the value of a section over two different points in the base space by transporting one of the vectors to the other point. This allows you to take their difference over a common point. There is no reason for this to be zero all the time.
$endgroup$
– Braindead
May 17 '14 at 12:47
$begingroup$
I don't think that is true, but I don't think that's relevant to your question. Basically, the parallel transport gives you a means of comparing the value of a section over two different points in the base space by transporting one of the vectors to the other point. This allows you to take their difference over a common point. There is no reason for this to be zero all the time.
$endgroup$
– Braindead
May 17 '14 at 12:47
$begingroup$
@Braindead But the parallel transport $Gamma$ is defined by $Gamma(gamma)_s^t(e_s)=e_t$ for the solution of $nabla_dotgamma(0)e=0$ and then $Gamma(gamma)_s^0(e_s)equiv e_0$, so the difference in the limes is always zero, isn't it?
$endgroup$
– gofvonx
May 17 '14 at 12:51
$begingroup$
@Braindead But the parallel transport $Gamma$ is defined by $Gamma(gamma)_s^t(e_s)=e_t$ for the solution of $nabla_dotgamma(0)e=0$ and then $Gamma(gamma)_s^0(e_s)equiv e_0$, so the difference in the limes is always zero, isn't it?
$endgroup$
– gofvonx
May 17 '14 at 12:51
$begingroup$
You can apply the parallel transport to a non-parallel arbitrary section. Also, the parallel transport in the wikipedia article is not defined by that equation. See if my answer below makes sense to you.
$endgroup$
– Braindead
May 17 '14 at 13:12
$begingroup$
You can apply the parallel transport to a non-parallel arbitrary section. Also, the parallel transport in the wikipedia article is not defined by that equation. See if my answer below makes sense to you.
$endgroup$
– Braindead
May 17 '14 at 13:12
|
show 1 more comment
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Although he discusses it for the tangent bundle only, John M. Lee mentions a theorem in his book Riemannian Manifolds, from which it should get clearer:
Theorem 4.11. (Parallel translation) Given a curve $gamma:Irightarrow M,~t_0in I$, and an [arbitrary] vector $V_0in T_gamma(t_0)M$, there exists a unique parallel vector field $W$ along
$gamma$ s.t. $W(t_0):=W(gamma(t_0))=V_0$
Here, I took the liberty of renaming the vector field.
Now, what does parallel vector field $W$ along $gamma$ mean? Simple, it's $D_tWequiv0$. What's $D_t$, I hear you wondering. Well, if $W$ is a smooth vector field on $M$, then $D_tW(t_0)=nabla_dotgamma(t_0)W$. So, as not to wreak any more havoc in this definition jungle, we shall simply restrict to this case (since the ODE $D_tWequiv0$ then becomes $nabla_dotgammaWequiv0$, which is the way it's written in your link).
What John does next is, he defines
If $gamma:Irightarrow M$ is a curve and $t_0,~t_1in I$, the parallel translation defines an operator $$P_t_0t_1:T_gamma(t_0)Mrightarrow T_gamma(t_1)M$$ with $P_t_0t_1V_0=W(t_1)$, where $V_0in T_gamma(t_0)M$ and $W$ is the parallel vector field from the theorem.
This is, by the theorem, an isomorphism between tangent spaces and therefore gives you for each vector at each point of the curve a uniquely determined vector - at another point in the image of the curve - which 'looks like the original vector', if you will.
The formula would then, in John's book, look like this
$$D_tV(t_0)=lim_trightarrow t_0fracP^-1_t_0tV(t)-V(t_0)t-t_0=lim_trightarrow t_0fracW_t(t_0)-V(t_0)t-t_0,$$ where $W_t$ is the parallel vector field determined by $D_tW_tequiv0$ and $W_t(t)=V(t)$.
Hope that cleared things up.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am not sure of the extent of your mathematical background, so I apologize if I am writing something that's completely obvious to you.
Let $e : M to E$ be a section of a vector bundle $E to M$.
We want to be able to compare values of $e$ over different base points.
$e(p)$ and $e(q)$ live in different vector spaces $E_p$ and $E_q$, $e(p) - e(q)$ makes no sense. How can we compare them?
We can do it if there was some way to transport all the vectors in $E_q$ to $E_p$. To make sure all the vectors get transported in the right way, it makes sense to use an isomorphism. It also makes sense to think of this notion of transporting as being done over a path from $p$ to $q$ in $M$.
It turns out for general manifolds there is no canonical way to do this. The definition of Parallel Transport in your article reflects this: different curves in the base space give you different isomorphisms.
So pick a curve: $gamma: [0,1] to M$, with $gamma(0) = p$ and $gamma(1) = q$.
Now, $Gamma(gamma)_1^0 e(q) in E_p$, so the difference $(Gamma(gamma)_1^0 e(q) - e(p)) in E_p$ and it all makes sense.
There is no reason for this difference to be 0.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
[Using Lee's hint]: Let $ nabla $ be a linear connection of $ M $ and $ gamma: [0,1] to M $ smooth curve, we want to prove:
$$
D_tV(t_0) = lim_t to 0 fracP_t_0,t^-1V(t) - V(t_0)t - t_0
$$
Proof: Let $ epsilon > 0 $ with $ (U,psi = (x^1,...,x^n)) $ chart and $ gamma([0,1] cap (t-epsilon,t+epsilon)) subset U $. consider local basis $partial_i = fracpartialpartial x^i$.
Let $ (E_i(t)) $ fields such that $ E_i(0) = partial_i $ and $ D_tE_i = 0 $. Since parallel translations are isomorphisms, $ (E_i(t)) $ is a local basis.
Let $ V(t) = V^i(t) E_i(t) $ for $ t in (t-epsilon,t+epsilon)cap [0,1] $, note that $ P_t_0,t^-1 V(t) = V^i(t)partial_i $.
$$
frac1t - t_0(P_t_0,t^-1 V(t) - V(t_0))
=
$$
$$
frac(V^i(t) - V^i(t_0)t - t_0partial_i
to
dotV^i(t_0)partial_i
$$
On the other hand
$$
D_tV (t_0)
=
(D_tV^i(t) E_i(t) )(t_0)
=
$$
$$
left(
dotV^i(t_0)E_i(t_0)
+
V^i(t_0) (D_tE_i)(t_0)
right)
=
dotV^i(t)partial_i
$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f798997%2frecover-covariant-derivative-from-parallel-transport%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Although he discusses it for the tangent bundle only, John M. Lee mentions a theorem in his book Riemannian Manifolds, from which it should get clearer:
Theorem 4.11. (Parallel translation) Given a curve $gamma:Irightarrow M,~t_0in I$, and an [arbitrary] vector $V_0in T_gamma(t_0)M$, there exists a unique parallel vector field $W$ along
$gamma$ s.t. $W(t_0):=W(gamma(t_0))=V_0$
Here, I took the liberty of renaming the vector field.
Now, what does parallel vector field $W$ along $gamma$ mean? Simple, it's $D_tWequiv0$. What's $D_t$, I hear you wondering. Well, if $W$ is a smooth vector field on $M$, then $D_tW(t_0)=nabla_dotgamma(t_0)W$. So, as not to wreak any more havoc in this definition jungle, we shall simply restrict to this case (since the ODE $D_tWequiv0$ then becomes $nabla_dotgammaWequiv0$, which is the way it's written in your link).
What John does next is, he defines
If $gamma:Irightarrow M$ is a curve and $t_0,~t_1in I$, the parallel translation defines an operator $$P_t_0t_1:T_gamma(t_0)Mrightarrow T_gamma(t_1)M$$ with $P_t_0t_1V_0=W(t_1)$, where $V_0in T_gamma(t_0)M$ and $W$ is the parallel vector field from the theorem.
This is, by the theorem, an isomorphism between tangent spaces and therefore gives you for each vector at each point of the curve a uniquely determined vector - at another point in the image of the curve - which 'looks like the original vector', if you will.
The formula would then, in John's book, look like this
$$D_tV(t_0)=lim_trightarrow t_0fracP^-1_t_0tV(t)-V(t_0)t-t_0=lim_trightarrow t_0fracW_t(t_0)-V(t_0)t-t_0,$$ where $W_t$ is the parallel vector field determined by $D_tW_tequiv0$ and $W_t(t)=V(t)$.
Hope that cleared things up.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Although he discusses it for the tangent bundle only, John M. Lee mentions a theorem in his book Riemannian Manifolds, from which it should get clearer:
Theorem 4.11. (Parallel translation) Given a curve $gamma:Irightarrow M,~t_0in I$, and an [arbitrary] vector $V_0in T_gamma(t_0)M$, there exists a unique parallel vector field $W$ along
$gamma$ s.t. $W(t_0):=W(gamma(t_0))=V_0$
Here, I took the liberty of renaming the vector field.
Now, what does parallel vector field $W$ along $gamma$ mean? Simple, it's $D_tWequiv0$. What's $D_t$, I hear you wondering. Well, if $W$ is a smooth vector field on $M$, then $D_tW(t_0)=nabla_dotgamma(t_0)W$. So, as not to wreak any more havoc in this definition jungle, we shall simply restrict to this case (since the ODE $D_tWequiv0$ then becomes $nabla_dotgammaWequiv0$, which is the way it's written in your link).
What John does next is, he defines
If $gamma:Irightarrow M$ is a curve and $t_0,~t_1in I$, the parallel translation defines an operator $$P_t_0t_1:T_gamma(t_0)Mrightarrow T_gamma(t_1)M$$ with $P_t_0t_1V_0=W(t_1)$, where $V_0in T_gamma(t_0)M$ and $W$ is the parallel vector field from the theorem.
This is, by the theorem, an isomorphism between tangent spaces and therefore gives you for each vector at each point of the curve a uniquely determined vector - at another point in the image of the curve - which 'looks like the original vector', if you will.
The formula would then, in John's book, look like this
$$D_tV(t_0)=lim_trightarrow t_0fracP^-1_t_0tV(t)-V(t_0)t-t_0=lim_trightarrow t_0fracW_t(t_0)-V(t_0)t-t_0,$$ where $W_t$ is the parallel vector field determined by $D_tW_tequiv0$ and $W_t(t)=V(t)$.
Hope that cleared things up.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Although he discusses it for the tangent bundle only, John M. Lee mentions a theorem in his book Riemannian Manifolds, from which it should get clearer:
Theorem 4.11. (Parallel translation) Given a curve $gamma:Irightarrow M,~t_0in I$, and an [arbitrary] vector $V_0in T_gamma(t_0)M$, there exists a unique parallel vector field $W$ along
$gamma$ s.t. $W(t_0):=W(gamma(t_0))=V_0$
Here, I took the liberty of renaming the vector field.
Now, what does parallel vector field $W$ along $gamma$ mean? Simple, it's $D_tWequiv0$. What's $D_t$, I hear you wondering. Well, if $W$ is a smooth vector field on $M$, then $D_tW(t_0)=nabla_dotgamma(t_0)W$. So, as not to wreak any more havoc in this definition jungle, we shall simply restrict to this case (since the ODE $D_tWequiv0$ then becomes $nabla_dotgammaWequiv0$, which is the way it's written in your link).
What John does next is, he defines
If $gamma:Irightarrow M$ is a curve and $t_0,~t_1in I$, the parallel translation defines an operator $$P_t_0t_1:T_gamma(t_0)Mrightarrow T_gamma(t_1)M$$ with $P_t_0t_1V_0=W(t_1)$, where $V_0in T_gamma(t_0)M$ and $W$ is the parallel vector field from the theorem.
This is, by the theorem, an isomorphism between tangent spaces and therefore gives you for each vector at each point of the curve a uniquely determined vector - at another point in the image of the curve - which 'looks like the original vector', if you will.
The formula would then, in John's book, look like this
$$D_tV(t_0)=lim_trightarrow t_0fracP^-1_t_0tV(t)-V(t_0)t-t_0=lim_trightarrow t_0fracW_t(t_0)-V(t_0)t-t_0,$$ where $W_t$ is the parallel vector field determined by $D_tW_tequiv0$ and $W_t(t)=V(t)$.
Hope that cleared things up.
$endgroup$
Although he discusses it for the tangent bundle only, John M. Lee mentions a theorem in his book Riemannian Manifolds, from which it should get clearer:
Theorem 4.11. (Parallel translation) Given a curve $gamma:Irightarrow M,~t_0in I$, and an [arbitrary] vector $V_0in T_gamma(t_0)M$, there exists a unique parallel vector field $W$ along
$gamma$ s.t. $W(t_0):=W(gamma(t_0))=V_0$
Here, I took the liberty of renaming the vector field.
Now, what does parallel vector field $W$ along $gamma$ mean? Simple, it's $D_tWequiv0$. What's $D_t$, I hear you wondering. Well, if $W$ is a smooth vector field on $M$, then $D_tW(t_0)=nabla_dotgamma(t_0)W$. So, as not to wreak any more havoc in this definition jungle, we shall simply restrict to this case (since the ODE $D_tWequiv0$ then becomes $nabla_dotgammaWequiv0$, which is the way it's written in your link).
What John does next is, he defines
If $gamma:Irightarrow M$ is a curve and $t_0,~t_1in I$, the parallel translation defines an operator $$P_t_0t_1:T_gamma(t_0)Mrightarrow T_gamma(t_1)M$$ with $P_t_0t_1V_0=W(t_1)$, where $V_0in T_gamma(t_0)M$ and $W$ is the parallel vector field from the theorem.
This is, by the theorem, an isomorphism between tangent spaces and therefore gives you for each vector at each point of the curve a uniquely determined vector - at another point in the image of the curve - which 'looks like the original vector', if you will.
The formula would then, in John's book, look like this
$$D_tV(t_0)=lim_trightarrow t_0fracP^-1_t_0tV(t)-V(t_0)t-t_0=lim_trightarrow t_0fracW_t(t_0)-V(t_0)t-t_0,$$ where $W_t$ is the parallel vector field determined by $D_tW_tequiv0$ and $W_t(t)=V(t)$.
Hope that cleared things up.
edited May 19 '14 at 8:39
answered May 18 '14 at 8:01
Jo BeJo Be
6751519
6751519
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am not sure of the extent of your mathematical background, so I apologize if I am writing something that's completely obvious to you.
Let $e : M to E$ be a section of a vector bundle $E to M$.
We want to be able to compare values of $e$ over different base points.
$e(p)$ and $e(q)$ live in different vector spaces $E_p$ and $E_q$, $e(p) - e(q)$ makes no sense. How can we compare them?
We can do it if there was some way to transport all the vectors in $E_q$ to $E_p$. To make sure all the vectors get transported in the right way, it makes sense to use an isomorphism. It also makes sense to think of this notion of transporting as being done over a path from $p$ to $q$ in $M$.
It turns out for general manifolds there is no canonical way to do this. The definition of Parallel Transport in your article reflects this: different curves in the base space give you different isomorphisms.
So pick a curve: $gamma: [0,1] to M$, with $gamma(0) = p$ and $gamma(1) = q$.
Now, $Gamma(gamma)_1^0 e(q) in E_p$, so the difference $(Gamma(gamma)_1^0 e(q) - e(p)) in E_p$ and it all makes sense.
There is no reason for this difference to be 0.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am not sure of the extent of your mathematical background, so I apologize if I am writing something that's completely obvious to you.
Let $e : M to E$ be a section of a vector bundle $E to M$.
We want to be able to compare values of $e$ over different base points.
$e(p)$ and $e(q)$ live in different vector spaces $E_p$ and $E_q$, $e(p) - e(q)$ makes no sense. How can we compare them?
We can do it if there was some way to transport all the vectors in $E_q$ to $E_p$. To make sure all the vectors get transported in the right way, it makes sense to use an isomorphism. It also makes sense to think of this notion of transporting as being done over a path from $p$ to $q$ in $M$.
It turns out for general manifolds there is no canonical way to do this. The definition of Parallel Transport in your article reflects this: different curves in the base space give you different isomorphisms.
So pick a curve: $gamma: [0,1] to M$, with $gamma(0) = p$ and $gamma(1) = q$.
Now, $Gamma(gamma)_1^0 e(q) in E_p$, so the difference $(Gamma(gamma)_1^0 e(q) - e(p)) in E_p$ and it all makes sense.
There is no reason for this difference to be 0.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am not sure of the extent of your mathematical background, so I apologize if I am writing something that's completely obvious to you.
Let $e : M to E$ be a section of a vector bundle $E to M$.
We want to be able to compare values of $e$ over different base points.
$e(p)$ and $e(q)$ live in different vector spaces $E_p$ and $E_q$, $e(p) - e(q)$ makes no sense. How can we compare them?
We can do it if there was some way to transport all the vectors in $E_q$ to $E_p$. To make sure all the vectors get transported in the right way, it makes sense to use an isomorphism. It also makes sense to think of this notion of transporting as being done over a path from $p$ to $q$ in $M$.
It turns out for general manifolds there is no canonical way to do this. The definition of Parallel Transport in your article reflects this: different curves in the base space give you different isomorphisms.
So pick a curve: $gamma: [0,1] to M$, with $gamma(0) = p$ and $gamma(1) = q$.
Now, $Gamma(gamma)_1^0 e(q) in E_p$, so the difference $(Gamma(gamma)_1^0 e(q) - e(p)) in E_p$ and it all makes sense.
There is no reason for this difference to be 0.
$endgroup$
I am not sure of the extent of your mathematical background, so I apologize if I am writing something that's completely obvious to you.
Let $e : M to E$ be a section of a vector bundle $E to M$.
We want to be able to compare values of $e$ over different base points.
$e(p)$ and $e(q)$ live in different vector spaces $E_p$ and $E_q$, $e(p) - e(q)$ makes no sense. How can we compare them?
We can do it if there was some way to transport all the vectors in $E_q$ to $E_p$. To make sure all the vectors get transported in the right way, it makes sense to use an isomorphism. It also makes sense to think of this notion of transporting as being done over a path from $p$ to $q$ in $M$.
It turns out for general manifolds there is no canonical way to do this. The definition of Parallel Transport in your article reflects this: different curves in the base space give you different isomorphisms.
So pick a curve: $gamma: [0,1] to M$, with $gamma(0) = p$ and $gamma(1) = q$.
Now, $Gamma(gamma)_1^0 e(q) in E_p$, so the difference $(Gamma(gamma)_1^0 e(q) - e(p)) in E_p$ and it all makes sense.
There is no reason for this difference to be 0.
edited May 17 '14 at 13:14
answered May 17 '14 at 13:04
BraindeadBraindead
3,4051839
3,4051839
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
[Using Lee's hint]: Let $ nabla $ be a linear connection of $ M $ and $ gamma: [0,1] to M $ smooth curve, we want to prove:
$$
D_tV(t_0) = lim_t to 0 fracP_t_0,t^-1V(t) - V(t_0)t - t_0
$$
Proof: Let $ epsilon > 0 $ with $ (U,psi = (x^1,...,x^n)) $ chart and $ gamma([0,1] cap (t-epsilon,t+epsilon)) subset U $. consider local basis $partial_i = fracpartialpartial x^i$.
Let $ (E_i(t)) $ fields such that $ E_i(0) = partial_i $ and $ D_tE_i = 0 $. Since parallel translations are isomorphisms, $ (E_i(t)) $ is a local basis.
Let $ V(t) = V^i(t) E_i(t) $ for $ t in (t-epsilon,t+epsilon)cap [0,1] $, note that $ P_t_0,t^-1 V(t) = V^i(t)partial_i $.
$$
frac1t - t_0(P_t_0,t^-1 V(t) - V(t_0))
=
$$
$$
frac(V^i(t) - V^i(t_0)t - t_0partial_i
to
dotV^i(t_0)partial_i
$$
On the other hand
$$
D_tV (t_0)
=
(D_tV^i(t) E_i(t) )(t_0)
=
$$
$$
left(
dotV^i(t_0)E_i(t_0)
+
V^i(t_0) (D_tE_i)(t_0)
right)
=
dotV^i(t)partial_i
$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
[Using Lee's hint]: Let $ nabla $ be a linear connection of $ M $ and $ gamma: [0,1] to M $ smooth curve, we want to prove:
$$
D_tV(t_0) = lim_t to 0 fracP_t_0,t^-1V(t) - V(t_0)t - t_0
$$
Proof: Let $ epsilon > 0 $ with $ (U,psi = (x^1,...,x^n)) $ chart and $ gamma([0,1] cap (t-epsilon,t+epsilon)) subset U $. consider local basis $partial_i = fracpartialpartial x^i$.
Let $ (E_i(t)) $ fields such that $ E_i(0) = partial_i $ and $ D_tE_i = 0 $. Since parallel translations are isomorphisms, $ (E_i(t)) $ is a local basis.
Let $ V(t) = V^i(t) E_i(t) $ for $ t in (t-epsilon,t+epsilon)cap [0,1] $, note that $ P_t_0,t^-1 V(t) = V^i(t)partial_i $.
$$
frac1t - t_0(P_t_0,t^-1 V(t) - V(t_0))
=
$$
$$
frac(V^i(t) - V^i(t_0)t - t_0partial_i
to
dotV^i(t_0)partial_i
$$
On the other hand
$$
D_tV (t_0)
=
(D_tV^i(t) E_i(t) )(t_0)
=
$$
$$
left(
dotV^i(t_0)E_i(t_0)
+
V^i(t_0) (D_tE_i)(t_0)
right)
=
dotV^i(t)partial_i
$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
[Using Lee's hint]: Let $ nabla $ be a linear connection of $ M $ and $ gamma: [0,1] to M $ smooth curve, we want to prove:
$$
D_tV(t_0) = lim_t to 0 fracP_t_0,t^-1V(t) - V(t_0)t - t_0
$$
Proof: Let $ epsilon > 0 $ with $ (U,psi = (x^1,...,x^n)) $ chart and $ gamma([0,1] cap (t-epsilon,t+epsilon)) subset U $. consider local basis $partial_i = fracpartialpartial x^i$.
Let $ (E_i(t)) $ fields such that $ E_i(0) = partial_i $ and $ D_tE_i = 0 $. Since parallel translations are isomorphisms, $ (E_i(t)) $ is a local basis.
Let $ V(t) = V^i(t) E_i(t) $ for $ t in (t-epsilon,t+epsilon)cap [0,1] $, note that $ P_t_0,t^-1 V(t) = V^i(t)partial_i $.
$$
frac1t - t_0(P_t_0,t^-1 V(t) - V(t_0))
=
$$
$$
frac(V^i(t) - V^i(t_0)t - t_0partial_i
to
dotV^i(t_0)partial_i
$$
On the other hand
$$
D_tV (t_0)
=
(D_tV^i(t) E_i(t) )(t_0)
=
$$
$$
left(
dotV^i(t_0)E_i(t_0)
+
V^i(t_0) (D_tE_i)(t_0)
right)
=
dotV^i(t)partial_i
$$
$endgroup$
[Using Lee's hint]: Let $ nabla $ be a linear connection of $ M $ and $ gamma: [0,1] to M $ smooth curve, we want to prove:
$$
D_tV(t_0) = lim_t to 0 fracP_t_0,t^-1V(t) - V(t_0)t - t_0
$$
Proof: Let $ epsilon > 0 $ with $ (U,psi = (x^1,...,x^n)) $ chart and $ gamma([0,1] cap (t-epsilon,t+epsilon)) subset U $. consider local basis $partial_i = fracpartialpartial x^i$.
Let $ (E_i(t)) $ fields such that $ E_i(0) = partial_i $ and $ D_tE_i = 0 $. Since parallel translations are isomorphisms, $ (E_i(t)) $ is a local basis.
Let $ V(t) = V^i(t) E_i(t) $ for $ t in (t-epsilon,t+epsilon)cap [0,1] $, note that $ P_t_0,t^-1 V(t) = V^i(t)partial_i $.
$$
frac1t - t_0(P_t_0,t^-1 V(t) - V(t_0))
=
$$
$$
frac(V^i(t) - V^i(t_0)t - t_0partial_i
to
dotV^i(t_0)partial_i
$$
On the other hand
$$
D_tV (t_0)
=
(D_tV^i(t) E_i(t) )(t_0)
=
$$
$$
left(
dotV^i(t_0)E_i(t_0)
+
V^i(t_0) (D_tE_i)(t_0)
right)
=
dotV^i(t)partial_i
$$
answered Mar 30 at 21:09
Gustavo LabegaliniGustavo Labegalini
466
466
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f798997%2frecover-covariant-derivative-from-parallel-transport%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Doesn't the link answer your question? Maybe I am misunderstanding something.
$endgroup$
– Braindead
May 17 '14 at 12:37
$begingroup$
@Braindead Is it true that for any section, there exists a curve to which it is parallel? I am confused since the formula linked equals zero for any section...
$endgroup$
– gofvonx
May 17 '14 at 12:40
$begingroup$
I don't think that is true, but I don't think that's relevant to your question. Basically, the parallel transport gives you a means of comparing the value of a section over two different points in the base space by transporting one of the vectors to the other point. This allows you to take their difference over a common point. There is no reason for this to be zero all the time.
$endgroup$
– Braindead
May 17 '14 at 12:47
$begingroup$
@Braindead But the parallel transport $Gamma$ is defined by $Gamma(gamma)_s^t(e_s)=e_t$ for the solution of $nabla_dotgamma(0)e=0$ and then $Gamma(gamma)_s^0(e_s)equiv e_0$, so the difference in the limes is always zero, isn't it?
$endgroup$
– gofvonx
May 17 '14 at 12:51
$begingroup$
You can apply the parallel transport to a non-parallel arbitrary section. Also, the parallel transport in the wikipedia article is not defined by that equation. See if my answer below makes sense to you.
$endgroup$
– Braindead
May 17 '14 at 13:12