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!(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I have been working through Wald'sGeneral Relativitybook 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]

ProofWe 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!

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

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!

# Question about theorem 2.2.1 in Wald's General Relativity

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**