What is the definition of Lie derivatives?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter yifli
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition Derivatives
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Lie derivative is defined for a differentiable function f on a manifold M with respect to a one-parameter group \varphi. The derivative is expressed as the limit: lim_{t→0} (φ*_t[f]-f)/t, leading to the conclusion that D_{φ_x}f=X(x)f, where X(x) is a tangent vector at point x. The discussion clarifies that the expression X(x)d_xf is ill-defined since X(x) operates on functions while d_xf is a 1-form. The notation used in the literature defines tangent vectors as equivalence classes, reinforcing the relationship between the Lie derivative and tangent vectors.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of differentiable functions on manifolds
  • Familiarity with tangent vectors and their properties
  • Knowledge of the chain rule in calculus
  • Basic concepts of differential geometry
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Lie derivatives in differential geometry
  • Explore the relationship between tangent vectors and differential forms
  • Learn about equivalence classes of tangent vectors in manifold theory
  • Investigate the application of the chain rule in manifold contexts
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students studying differential geometry, particularly those interested in the applications of Lie derivatives and tangent vectors on manifolds.

yifli
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
Let \varphi be a one-parameter group on a manifold M, and let f be a differentiable function on M, the derivative of f with respect to \varphi is the defined as the limit:

\lim_{t\to 0} \frac{\varphi^*_t[f]-f}{t}(x)=\lim_{t\to 0}\frac{f\circ \varphi_x(t)-f\circ \varphi_x(0)}{t}=D_{\varphi_x}f=X(x)f,
where X(x) is a tangent vector at x and the operator D_\varphi is defined as D_\varphi f=\frac{df\circ \varphi}{dt}\bigg|_{t=0}

I don't understand why D_{\varphi_x}f=X(x)f. According to the chain rule, I would get D_{\varphi_x}f=d_x f \circ d_0 \varphi(x)=X(x)d_x f
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your last expression X(x)d_xf is ill defined, as X(x) is a differential operator on functions on M, whereas d_xf is a 1-form on M.

On the other hand, if you expand d_xf\circ d_0\varphi(x), you get

\sum_i\frac{\partial f}{\partial x^i}\frac{d\varphi^i_x(t)}{dt}(0)=\sum_i \frac{\partial f}{\partial x^i}X^i(x)

which is X(x)f by definition.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
quasar987 said:
Your last expression X(x)d_xf is ill defined, as X(x) is a differential operator on functions on M, whereas d_xf is a 1-form on M.

On the other hand, if you expand d_xf\circ d_0\varphi(x), you get

\sum_i\frac{\partial f}{\partial x^i}\frac{d\varphi^i_x(t)}{dt}(0)=\sum_i\frac{\partial f}{\partial x^i}X^i(x)

which is X(x)f by definition.

I read the book again and found out it's just the notation they use:
for any differentiable function f defined about x and any tangent vector \xi they set \xi(f)=D_\varphi(f) where \varphi \in \xi (they define a tangent vector as an equivalence class), so D_{\varphi_x}f=X(x)f

@quasar987: The way you expand d_xf\circ d_0\varphi_x is actually the chain rule in Cartesian space, so it is true only if \varphi:R\rightarrow R^m and f: R^m\rightarrow R.

Moreover, I just realized it's not correct to use the chain rule in this case:
\begin{align*}<br /> D_{\varphi_x}f &amp; = \frac{df\circ \varphi_x}{dt}\bigg|_{t=0} (\mbox{definition of } D_\varphi) \\<br /> &amp; = d_xf \circ d_0 \varphi_x (\mbox{not true because f is defined on a manifold, so the differential of f is not } d_xf. ) <br /> \end{align*}
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
953
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K