What is the definition of Lie derivatives?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the definition and calculation of Lie derivatives in the context of differentiable functions on manifolds. It clarifies that the derivative of a function f with respect to a one-parameter group \varphi is expressed as D_{\varphi_x}f = X(x)f, where X(x) is a tangent vector. Participants debate the application of the chain rule, noting that it is improperly applied in this context since f is defined on a manifold, making the differential not simply d_xf. The notation used in the book is highlighted, emphasizing that tangent vectors are defined as equivalence classes, which leads to the conclusion that D_{\varphi_x}f = X(x)f is valid. Ultimately, the discussion underscores the importance of correctly interpreting the definitions and operations involved in the context of differential geometry.
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 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K