7
$\begingroup$

I'm trying understand a computation on page 371 of Besse's book on Einstein Manifolds.

I already know the curvature operator $R:\bigwedge^2\to\bigwedge^2$ may be written in block diagonal form relative to the direct sum decomposition: $$R=\begin{pmatrix}A&B\\C&D\end{pmatrix}$$ where $A=A^*,C=B^*,D=D^*$. And, $$\begin{pmatrix}A&0\\0&D\end{pmatrix}-s/12=W,\mbox{the Weyl tensor}$$ The two components of the Weyl tensor $W^+=A-s/12,W^-=D-s/12$ are called the self-dual and the anti-self-dual parts respectively.

Now, pay attetion in this part:

$$p_1(M)=-\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\int_MTr(R\wedge R)$$ where $R$ is considered as a matrix of 2-forms. Since $B$ and $B^*$ are acting on orthogonal spaces(this part is OK), $$\begin{matrix}Tr(R\wedge R)&=&Tr(A\wedge A)+Tr(D\wedge D)\\&=&-2(|W^+|^2-|W^-|^2)\omega_g\end{matrix}$$ because $\alpha\wedge\alpha=|\alpha|^2\omega_g$ if $\alpha$ is sel-dual.

My questions are:

1) What $Tr(R\wedge R)$ stand for?

2) How compute $Tr(R\wedge R)$, and why the term -2 appears in the expression?

I greatly appreciate any response, observation or correction!

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Just before the formula on page 371 there is a reference to Kobayashi-Nomizu. Have you tried to read that? $\endgroup$ Mar 4, 2014 at 23:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The question isn't readable without the book, which isn't even named. :/ $\endgroup$ Mar 4, 2014 at 23:21

2 Answers 2

5
$\begingroup$

The confusion is caused by using $R$ to denote two different things.

In Section 13.6, Besse introduces $R$ as a $6$-by-$6$ matrix of (scalar) curvature coefficients, which is the matrix of the linear transformation $\Lambda^2\to\Lambda^2$ induced by the curvature operator with respect to a basis adapted to the standard self-dual-and-anti-self-dual splitting of $\Lambda^2$. When you square this $R$ (which is the same as $R\wedge R$ since the entries are scalars), you will get a symmetric $6$-by-$6$ matrix whose trace is quadratic in the coefficients of the curvature matrix (and, in fact, it will be a positive definite quadratic form on the space of curvature tensors, not what you want at all). Note that you could see that the entries of $A$ and $D$ couldn't be $2$-forms because, if they were, it wouldn't make any sense to subtract $s/12$, which is clearly a scalar. (Actually, it doesn't make any sense anyway because $A$ and $D$ are $3$-by-$3$ matrices, but, never mind. This was only meant to be a heuristic indication of the real formulae anyway.)

Meanwhile, in that passage of Section 13.8, Besse is instead using $R$ to denote a skew-symmetric $4$-by-$4$ matrix of $2$-forms, or, more invariantly, a $2$-form with values in the skew-symmetric endomorphisms of the tangent bundle of $M$. (The entries of $A$, $B$, $C$, and $D$ appears as coefficients of the $2$-form entries in this $R$.) At this point, $R\wedge R$ is a symmetric $4$-by-$4$ matrix of $4$-forms, and the trace is a $4$-form on $M$. As for the appearance of the factors of $2$, that is wrapped up with Besse's choice of the norms on $W_\pm$ as spaces of linear transformations $\Lambda^2_\pm\to\Lambda^2_\pm$. These norms are unique up to a choice of a constant, but one has to make that choice consistently in order for the formulae to work out correctly.

Added remark (at the request of the OP): The point is that, with respect to any local orthonormal coframing, the first Pontrjagin form has to be of the form $p_1 = Q(R)\omega$ where $Q(R)$ is quadratic in the entries of the $6$-by-$6$ matrix $R$ and $\omega$ is the local volume form associated to the coframing. Because of the way that $\mathrm{SO}(4)$ acts on $R$ under change of oriented coframe, $p_1$ must be of the form $$ p_1 = (c_1\ s^2 + c_2\ |B|^2 + c_3\ |W_+|^2 + c_4\ |W_-|^2)\ \omega $$ for some universal constants $c_i$ (since $R$ breaks up into 4 inequivalent representation of $\mathrm{SO}(4)$). Now, $p_1$ doesn't depend on a choice of orientation, nor does $s$ nor $B$, but moving to a different orientation will switch $W_+$ and $W_-$ and will also replace $\omega$ by $-\omega$. It follows that the only way the right hand side will be uninfluenced by the choice of orientation is if it is of the form $c\bigl(|W_+|^2-|W_-|^2\bigr)\ \omega$ for some universal constant $c$. The constant $c$ must be positive because $p_1(\mathbb{CP}^2)=3$, and $\mathbb{CP}^2$ has $W_- = 0$. (You can now determine that $4\pi^2c = 1$ by simply doing the integral on $\mathbb{CP}^2$, if you want. Of course, this depends on which norm you chose for $W_\pm$; I'm assuming you choose it to agree with Besse's choice. :) )

I think that one is expected to write out the translation between the two meanings and figure out which choice of norm on $W_\pm$ is meant when one is learning the subject.

Remark: The notation in Besse's Sections 13.6 and 13.8 appears to be drawn, with little modification, from the famous 1978 paper "Self-Duality in Four-dimensional Riemannian geometry" by Atiyah, Hitchin, and Singer. However, the use of $\mathrm{tr}(R\wedge R)$ in the formula in Besse 13.8 seems to have been spliced in from the standard formula for the first Pontrjagin form; it is not in AHS where, instead, a different expression appears. I suspect that Besse also copied the choice of norm for the Weyl tensor from AHS, since they get the very same coefficient.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ I understand your explanation, I think the 2 factor appears because the basis is just ortogonal (It's necessary divide by $\sqrt{2}$ the terms of the basis to obtain a ortonormal basis),but do you know why the "-" sign appears, in my mind the sign is the opposite. Another question is why the terms $B$ and $B^*$ don't appears in the result? The Besse's explanation is not clear to me, more specifically, why $R\wedge R$ annihilates the terms $B$ and $B^*$? $\endgroup$
    – Geom math
    Mar 5, 2014 at 18:41
  • $\begingroup$ Sure. I know `why' the sign appears and why $B$ and $B^*$ don't. Briefly, the sign in front of $|W_+|^2$ must be negative because $\mathbb{CP}^2$ with its canonical orientation is self dual. And $|B|^2$ can't appear in the formula for equivariance reasons (I'll add a few words of explanation about this in the answer above). $\endgroup$ Mar 5, 2014 at 19:05
  • $\begingroup$ Any chance you could say a brief word about why the universal quadratic expression is a priori a sum/difference of squares coming from the irreducible components and doesn't involve "mixed" terms, say, inner products between different irreducible components? I presume it's immanent in the representation theory but I'm a rube on the subject at the moment (and for the foreseeable future). $\endgroup$ Feb 21, 2018 at 4:19
  • $\begingroup$ @BrianKlatt: Yes, it's a consequence of the representation theory. No 'cross term' could be invariant under change of frame, so it can't appear. The point is that, if $V$ and $W$ are non-isomorphic irreducible representations of a compact group $G$, then there cannot be a nonzero $G$-invariant bilinear mapping $V\times W\to \mathbb{R}$, because then you'd have an isomorphism $V\to W^*\simeq W$. $\endgroup$ Feb 21, 2018 at 8:17
  • $\begingroup$ @RobertBryant Oh, it's just Schur's Lemma then, thanks. $\endgroup$ Feb 21, 2018 at 17:47
1
$\begingroup$

This is valid for any vector bundle $B$. One considers $R$ as a 2-form with coefficients in endomorphisms of a bundle $B$. Then $R\wedge R$ is a 4-form with coefficients in endomorphisms, and the trace is a 4-form (closed, by Bianchi identity).

The cohomology class of this form is your characteristic class, by Chern-Weil formula (which is a generalization of Gauss-Bonnet), see the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontryagin_class

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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