one elementary result that you see when you first learn differential geometry is that the pushforward of the Lie bracket of two vector fields is the Lie bracket of the pushforward of the two vector fields, i.e.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

let [itex]\phi[/itex] be a diffeomorphism from manifold M to N, and letv,wbe two vector fields on M. then

[tex]

\phi_*[\mathbf{v},\mathbf{w}]=[\phi_*\mathbf{v},\phi_*\mathbf{w}]

[/tex]

where the Lie bracket is defined by its action on [itex]C^\infty(M)[/itex]:

[tex]

[\mathbf{v},\mathbf{w}](f)=\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{w}(f))-\mathbf{w}(\mathbf{v}(f))

[/tex]

this amounts to saying that the Lie bracket is a natural object. I assume that the proof of this statement is elementary, every textbook i have leaves this proof as an exercise (actually, some books do prove the corresponding more general statement in the case that [itex]\phi[/itex] is not a bijection, in which case there is no well defined pushforward operation)

but for some reason, i have never been able to prove this statement. it should be just a straightforward application of the definitions, so my inability to do it bothers me. let me show you what happens when i try to prove it, in the hopes that someone can spot my mistake. or if someone just knows the answer, feel free to pipe up.

first the left-hand side:

[tex]\phi_*[\mathbf{v},\mathbf{w}](g)=[\mathbf{v},\mathbf{w}](\phi^*g)=\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{w}(\phi^*g))-\mathbf{w}(\mathbf{v}(\phi^*g))

[/tex]

where [itex]g\in C^\infty(N)[/itex]

now the right-hand side

[tex]

[\phi_*\mathbf{v},\phi_*\mathbf{w}](g)=\phi_*\mathbf{v}(\phi_*\mathbf{w}(g))-\phi_*\mathbf{w}(\phi_*\mathbf{v}(g))

[/tex]

and i can t go much past this point. when i try to move the [itex]\phi[/itex] around using the identities of the pullback and the pushforward:

[tex]

\begin{gather*}

\phi^*g=g\circ\phi\\

\phi_*\mathbf{v}(g)=\mathbf{v}(\phi^*g)

\end{gather*}

[/tex]

i usually end up with a nonsensical expression. for example, continuing with the last line above:

[tex]

\phi_*\mathbf{w}(\phi_*\mathbf{v}(g))=\phi_*\mathbf{w}(\mathbf{v}(\phi^*g))

[/tex]

this last expression, that i obtained by naïvely applying the definition of the pushforward (presumably incorrectly), is meaningless, since it has a vector in N trying to act on a function in [itex]C^\infty(M)[/itex], which is, of course, not the proper domain of definition for a vector on N.

i believe that the error i made above has something to do with keeping track of where on the manifold the various objects are to be evaluated. many textbooks choose to make this explicit by carrying a subscript for the point of evaluation, a practice that seemed pointless to me, but i think here one sees the wisdom in it.

anyway, with or without that error, i have been unable to make the two expressions equal, so, anyone know how this one goes?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Pushforward of Lie bracket

Loading...

Similar Threads - Pushforward bracket | Date |
---|---|

A Pushforward of Smooth Vector Fields | Jan 12, 2018 |

A Pushforward map | Sep 24, 2017 |

I Lie bracket on a manifold | Sep 9, 2017 |

A Pullback, Pushforward: why? | Mar 8, 2017 |

I Coordinates of Pushforwards ... General Case | Feb 29, 2016 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**