What Does d/dt g(t) and d/dt D_X Y Mean in Riemannian Manifold Calculations?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Sajet
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of derivatives in the context of Riemannian manifolds, specifically focusing on the notation related to the smooth family of metrics and the Levi-Civita connection. Participants are trying to clarify the meaning of expressions involving derivatives of metrics and connections, as well as their implications in calculations related to Ricci flow.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that \(\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \nabla_X Y\) refers to \(\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \nabla_X^t Y\), where \(\nabla^t\) is the Levi-Civita connection with respect to \(g_t\).
  • There is confusion regarding the expression \(\langle \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \nabla_X Y, Z\rangle\) and its equivalence to \(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}g(\nabla_X Y, Z) - h(\nabla_X Y, Z)\).
  • Participants discuss the interpretation of \(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}g(\nabla_X Y, Z)\) as \(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}(g_t(\nabla_X Y, Z))\) and contrast it with \(h(\nabla_X Y, Z)\) interpreted as \(\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}g\right)(\nabla_X Y, Z)\).
  • One participant suggests that the first term on the right side of the equation could be expanded into three terms using the product rule, with the derivative acting on different factors.
  • Another participant questions the definition of \(\frac{\partial g}{\partial t}(X, Y)\) and its relationship to the expressions being discussed, indicating a potential misunderstanding of the notation.
  • There is a mention of using the product rule for derivatives when calculating \(\frac{d}{dt}g(X,Y)\), leading to a breakdown of the terms involved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing interpretations of the notation and the steps involved in the calculations. There is no consensus on the meaning of the expressions or the definitions being used, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of understanding the notation and definitions used in the context of Riemannian geometry, particularly in relation to the Ricci flow equation. There are unresolved questions about the specific steps in the derivative calculations and the implications of the definitions provided.

Sajet
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
Hi!

I'm reading this script* and I fail to understand a rather simple calculation. I assume the problem lies in me not understanding the notation that is used, and I was unable to figure it out or find it in literature.

We have a smooth family of metrics g = g_t on a Riemannian manifold, and we set h := \frac{\partial}{\partial t}g_t.

First question:

\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \nabla_X Y: Does this mean \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \nabla_X^t Y, where \nabla^t is the Levi-Civita connection w.r.t g_t?

Second question:

The script says:

\langle \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \nabla_X Y, Z\rangle = \frac{\partial}{\partial t}g(\nabla_X Y, Z\rangle - h(\nabla_X Y, Z)

I don't understand this step. Also I don't see the difference between the two terms

\frac{\partial}{\partial t}g(\nabla_X Y, Z\rangle and

h(\nabla_X Y, Z)

In class we defined

\frac{\partial g}{\partial t}(X, Y) := \frac{\partial}{\partial t}(g_t(X, Y)).

Therefore those two terms seem the same to me.

I would appreciate any help :)

* http://homepages.warwick.ac.uk/~maseq/RFnotes.html , p. 32.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sajet said:
Does this mean \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \nabla_X^t Y, where \nabla^t is the Levi-Civita connection w.r.t g_t?
That's what I would guess too. (I don't see what else it could mean).

Sajet said:
\langle \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \nabla_X Y, Z\rangle = \frac{\partial}{\partial t}g(\nabla_X Y, Z\rangle - h(\nabla_X Y, Z)

I don't understand this step.
I haven't done this sort of thing in a while, but I think that the first term on the right is equal to a sum of three terms (as if we're taking the derivative of a product of three functions), with the d/dt acting on a different "factor" in each term. The term with d/dt acting on the Z is zero.

Sajet said:
Also I don't see the difference between the two terms

\frac{\partial}{\partial t}g(\nabla_X Y, Z\rangle and

h(\nabla_X Y, Z)
I interpret the first one as $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(g(\nabla_X Y, Z)\right)$$ and the second one as
$$\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}g\right)(\nabla_X Y, Z).$$
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= Thank you!

Fredrik said:
I interpret the first one as $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(g(\nabla_X Y, Z)\right)$$ and the second one as
$$\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}g\right)(\nabla_X Y, Z).$$

So what exactly is the difference between them?

I would interpret:

$$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(g(\nabla_X Y, Z)\right)$$

as $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t} (t \mapsto \left(g_t(\nabla_X Y, Z)\right))$$

But then, how is the other one different? As I said, we defined:

\frac{\partial g}{\partial t}(X, Y) := \frac{\partial}{\partial t}(g_t(X, Y))

Which would lead me to the same equation as the first one?
 
##\left(\frac{d}{d t}g\right)(\nabla_X Y, Z)## is just one of the three terms you get when you compute ##\frac{d}{d t}\left(g(\nabla_X Y, Z)\right)##.

I don't understand your definition. Are you sure the left-hand side isn't supposed to be ##\frac{d}{dt}g(X,Y)##? That would make sense if it's not really a definition, and your teacher was just trying to explain that the notation ##\frac{d}{dt}g(X,Y)## is to be interpreted as ##\frac{d}{dt}\left(g(X,Y)\right)## and not as ##\left(\frac{d}{dt}g\right)(X,Y)##.
 
Mhh, the definition is definitely the same in my notes. It was supposed to define what exactly is meant when writing ##\frac{\partial g}{\partial t}## in the Ricci Flow-equation.

Would you mind telling me what those three terms are when I compute ##\frac{d}{d t}\left(g(\nabla_X Y, Z)\right)##? Maybe my problem is that I don't understand how this derivative is calculated.
 
For all vector fields X,Y, we have
$$g(X,Y)=g(X,Y)=g(X^\mu\partial_\mu,Y^\nu\partial_\nu) =g_{\mu\nu}X^\mu Y^\nu,$$ where the ##\partial_\mu## are the tangent vector fields associated with an arbitrary coordinate system. The right-hand side is just a product of three functions, so if we want to compute a derivative of the left-hand side, we can use the product rule on the right-hand side.
$$\frac{d}{dt}g(X,Y) =\left(\frac{d}{dt}g_{\mu\nu}\right) X^\mu Y^\nu + g_{\mu\nu}\left(\frac{d}{dt}X^\mu\right) Y^\nu + g_{\mu\nu}X^\mu \left(\frac{d}{dt}Y^\nu\right).$$
 
Ah, I didn't think of that. Thanks for all your help!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K