Question about theorem 2.2.1 in Wald's General Relativity

  • Thread starter CJ2116
  • Start date
  • #1
68
31
Hi everyone, first of all I have been a lurker here for years and have benefited greatly from many of the discussions in the math and physics sections. Thanks, I have received a lot of helpful information from these forums!

I have been working through Wald's General Relativity book and I am having trouble following the reasoning behind one part of a theorem. From page 15, the theorem and part of the proof is (For those who don't have the book):

Let M be an n-dimensional manifold. Let [itex]p \in M[/itex] and let [itex]V_p[/itex] denote the tangent space at p. Then dim [itex]V_p=n[/itex]

Proof We shall show that dim [itex]V_p=n[/itex] by constructing a basis of [itex]V_p[/itex], i.e. by finding n linearly independent tangent vectors that span [itex]V_p[/itex]. Let [itex]\psi : O \rightarrow U\subset R^n[/itex] be a chart with [itex]p\in O[/itex]. If [itex]f\in \mathfrak{F}[/itex], then by definition [itex]f\circ \psi^{-1}:U\rightarrow R[/itex] is [itex]C^{\infty}[/itex]. For [itex]\mu=1,...,n[/itex] define [itex]X_{\mu}:\mathfrak{F}\rightarrow R[/itex] by
$$X_{\mu}(f)=\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}}(f\circ \psi^{-1})\bigg|_{\psi (p)}$$
$$\vdots$$

I can't seem to figure out how the term [itex]\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}}(f\circ \psi^{-1})\bigg|_{\psi (p)}[/itex] is a mapping from [itex]\mathfrak{F}\rightarrow R[/itex]. [itex]f\circ \psi^{-1}[/itex] was defined to be a mapping from [itex]U\rightarrow R[/itex]. In other words, I don't see why these last two terms should be equal. I think I am missing something obvious here. Is there maybe some sort of chain rule argument?

Thanks, any pointer in the right direction would be greatly appreciated!
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
haushofer
Science Advisor
Insights Author
2,503
900
You have [itex]f o \ \psi^{-1}(\psi(p)) = f(p) [/itex].
 
Last edited:
  • #3
68
31
Wow, that was more embarrassingly obvious than I thought!:blushing:

Thanks for the reply!
 
  • #4
haushofer
Science Advisor
Insights Author
2,503
900
Don't worry. It is easy to drown in all those formalities ;)
 

Related Threads on Question about theorem 2.2.1 in Wald's General Relativity

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
971
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
85
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
693
Replies
10
Views
3K
Top