MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Following the notation of Moroianu's Lectures on Kähler Geometry, we let $(M,g,\Omega,J)$ denote the metric $g$, symplectic form $\Omega$, and complex structure $J$ of a Kähler manifold $M$, satisfying the compatibility condition $g(X,Y) = g(JX,JY) = \Omega(X,JY)$ for vector fields $X,Y$.

Supposing further that $V\lrcorner\ \Omega = dH$ for $H$ a real-valued (explicitly biholomorphic) Hamiltonian potential $H:M\to\mathbb R$, such that V is real-holomorphic (is this correct?) then we immediately have the following Lie derivative relations:

$$ \mathcal{L}_V \Omega = \mathcal{L}_V J = 0\quad\Rightarrow\quad \mathcal{L}_V g = 0 $$

or equivalently this proposition:

Proposition Every real-holomorphic Hamiltonian vector field on a Kähler manifold is Killing.

This proposition is (in essence) a Hamiltonian converse to the following proposition of Moroianu's

Proposition 9.5 (Moroianu) Every Killing vector field on a compact Kähler manifold is real holomorphic.

Three specific questions are asked:

Q1  Is the proposition $\mathcal{L}_V g = 0$ correct (for the assumptions given)?

Q2  Where can it be found in the literature?

Q3  Does it "trivially" imply $\mathcal{L}_V \mathcal{R} = 0$, where $\mathcal{R}$ is the scalar curvature?

Note: My numerical calculations suggest $\mathcal{L}_V \mathcal{R} \ne 0$. The practical question is simply which is buggy: the formal reasoning associated to the proposition, or the code, or the "trivial" expectation that Q3's answer is "yes"?

Deficiencies in my understanding of terms like "real-holomorphic" are plausible (and even likely). Answers/references/general advice are very welcome!

share|cite|improve this question
The current title of this question brings certain bits of pop culture to mind for some people, yes? – Yemon Choi Jun 14 '13 at 0:13
On further reflection, it appears that the requiring the Hamiltonian potential H to be biholomorphic and real may not (in general) suffice to ensure that the flow is real-holomorphic. I will grind out some (index-heavy) calculations to check this, but if anyone wants to post an answer, please do so! – John Sidles Jun 14 '13 at 2:01
@Yemon Choi: yes. – johndoe Jun 14 '13 at 9:15

If $\mathcal{L}_v J= 0$ and $\mathcal{L}_v \Omega= 0$, then $\mathcal{L}_v g=0$ so $v$ is a Killing vector field. Indeed, the property $\mathcal{L}_v J= 0$ is equivalent to the condition that the (local) flow of $v$ preserves $J$ and the property $\mathcal{L}_v \Omega= 0$ is equivalent to the condition that the (local) flow of $v$ preserves $\Omega$. Since $g$ is costructable by $J$ and $\Omega$, if both $J$ and $\Omega$ are preserved by the flow, then $g$ is preserved by the flow as well and the vector field is Killing.

Hamiltonian vector fields have the property $\mathcal{L}_v \Omega= 0$. If your definition of ``real-holomorphic'' implies $\mathcal{L}_v J= 0$, then the answer on your question is yes, yes, yes, ya, ya, ya.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.