7
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand{\M}{\mathcal{M}}$ $\newcommand{\N}{\mathcal{N}}$ $\newcommand{\deriv}[2]{\frac{d#1}{d#2}}$ $\newcommand{\sAverage}[1]{\langle#1\rangle} $ $\newcommand{\IP}[2]{\sAverage{#1,#2}}$ $\newcommand{\Cof}{\text{Cof}}$ $\newcommand{\Hom}{\operatorname{Hom}}$ $\newcommand{\tr}{\operatorname{tr}}$ $\newcommand{\TM}{\operatorname{T\M}}$ $\newcommand{\TN}{\operatorname{T\N}}$ $\newcommand{\TstarM}{\operatorname{T^*\M}}$

There is a well-known folklore saying that "any linear algebraic construction/statement can be lifted to vector bundles" (e.g tensor products, direct sums, quotients etc).

I am interested in a metric version of this phenomena:

Does every statement about inner-prodcut spaces admit a vector bundle analog?

Specifically, I am interested in "derivations-type" results:

On various occasions, I need to compute derivatives of certain "geometric quantities" associated with bundle maps over a manifold. (examples are given below).

Often, I find it's easier to start with a finite dimensional analogous computation. The computation in the bundle context then becomes a routine adaptation of the original calculation, modulu some extra justifications (revolving around the compatiblity of connections with metrics).

Soft Question: Is there a way to "automate" this transfer? (I want to avoid repeating essentially the same calculation twice). In other words, is there a way to prove a "meta-theorem" which says that the result in the pointwise context carries over to the bundle context?

Main Example: Calculating the derivative of the determinant.

We want to prove the following:

Theorem 1: Let $f:\M \to \N$ be a smooth map between $d$-dimensional oriented Riemannian manifolds. Define $\Cof df= (-1)^{d-1} \star_{f^*TN}^{d-1} (\wedge^{d-1} df) \star_{TM}^1.$ Then for all $V \in \Gamma(\TM)$ $$ d(\det df)(V)= \IP{\Cof df}{\nabla_V df}_{\TM,f^*{\TN}} . $$


We start first with the "pointwise" analogy, where the vector spaces are fixed and only the linear map is changing:

Proposition: (The cofactor is the gradient of the determinant) Let $V,W$ be oriented $d$-dimensional inner product spaces. Then $$d(\det)_A(B)=\tr\left( \Cof A^T B \right)=\IP{\Cof A}{B}_{V,W}.$$

Specific question: Can we deduce the theorem from the proposition? (without using the proof of the proposition, like I am doing below).

One obvious way to achieve this would be to view $p \to \det(df_p)$ as the determinant of a changing map between fixed vector spaces. This can be done by representing $df$ w.r.t orthonormal frames. However, one then needs to track the derivative of this matrix in terms of $V$ which looks cumbersome. (I would say that even if this approach would work, it is less aesthetic - an invariant way would be better).

Edit:

As pointed out by Deane Yang, there is a more general version of theorem $1$ which is the right "bundle-analog" of the finite-dim proposition:

Theorem 2: Let $E$ and $F$ be rank $d$ oriented vector bundles over $\M$ with smooth metrics and compatible connections. Let $A:E \to F$ be a smooth bundle map. Define $\Cof A= (-1)^{d-1} \star_{F}^{d-1} (\wedge^{d-1} A) \star_{E}^1.$ Then for all $V \in \Gamma(\TM)$ $$ d(\det A)(V)= \IP{\Cof A}{\nabla_V A}_{E,F}. $$

The proof of theorem $2$ is exactly the same as the proof of theorem 1 (see below) - we just replace $df \to A$ everywhere (that proof does not use the fact $df$ is the differential of a map, just the bundle-structures).

The question still remains- can we use the statement of the proposition to deduce theorem $2$, without looking at the proof. (This is not a trivial consequence of the proposition, where the two vector spaces, while different, are fixed).


proof of the proposition: Let $A_t$ be a smooth family of mappings in $\Hom(V,W)$: $A(0)=A,A'(0)=B$, and let $e_1,\dots,e_d$ be a positive orthonormal basis of $V$. $$ \det(A_t)= \star^d_W \circ \bigwedge^d A_t \circ \star^0_V(1)= \star^d_W \bigwedge^d A_t \big( e_1 \wedge \dots \wedge e_d \big)= \star^d_W \big( A_t e_1 \wedge \dots \wedge A_te_d \big) $$

Using the Leibniz rule we get: $$ \left. \deriv{\det A_t}{t} \right|_{t=0}= \star^d_W \left. \deriv{}{t} \right|_{t=0}\big( A_t e_1 \wedge \dots \wedge A_te_d \big) =$$ $$ \star^d_W \sum_{i=1}^d \big( A e_1 \wedge \dots \wedge Be_i \wedge \dots \wedge Ae_d \big) = \sum_{i=1}^d \star^d_W (-1)^{i-1} \big( Be_i \wedge A e_1 \wedge \dots \wedge \widehat Ae_i \wedge \dots \wedge Ae_d \big) $$ $$ =\sum_{i=1}^d \star^d_W (-1)^{i-1} \big( Be_i \wedge (-1)^{d-1} \star^1_W \star^{d-1}_W ( A e_1 \wedge \dots \wedge \widehat Ae_i \wedge \dots \wedge Ae_d) \big) = $$ $$(-1)^{i-1} (-1)^{d-1} \sum_{i=1}^d \star^d_W \big( Be_i \wedge \star^1_W \star^{d-1}_W ( A e_1 \wedge \dots \wedge \widehat Ae_i \wedge \dots \wedge Ae_d) \big) = $$ $$(-1)^{i-1} (-1)^{d-1} \sum_{i=1}^d \IP{Be_i}{ \star^{d-1}_W ( A e_1 \wedge \dots \wedge \widehat Ae_i \wedge \dots \wedge Ae_d)}_W = $$ $$ (-1)^{d-1} \sum_{i=1}^d \IP{Be_i}{ \star^{d-1}_W \big( \bigwedge^{d-1} A ( \star_V^1 e_i )\big)}_W=\sum_{i=1}^d \IP{Be_i}{ \big( (-1)^{d-1} \star^{d-1}_W \bigwedge^{d-1} A \star_V^1\big) e_i }_W=$$ $$\sum_{i=1}^d \IP{Be_i}{ \Cof A(e_i) }_W=\sum_{i=1}^d \IP{(\Cof A)^TBe_i}{ e_i }_V=\tr\left( \Cof A^TB \right)= \IP{\Cof A}{B}_{V,W}.$$


proof of Theorem $1$: We want to imitate the proof above:

A positive orthonormal frame $e_1,\dots,e_d$ of $\TM$ will replace the basis for $V$, covariant differentiation will replace the time derivation, so $A \to df,A'(0)=B \to \nabla_Vdf$. There are two obstacles with using this analogy verbatim:

  1. The $e_i$ cannot be chosen to be parallel w.r.t $\nabla^{\TM}$ if $\M$ is not flat, while in the original setting, the $e_i$ were constant vectors (time-independent).
  2. The derivative w.r.t time commuted with $\star_W$, since it was a fixed linear operator. This time we need to establish a stronger commutation property between Hodge duals and covariant differentiation.

We shall see that a miracle will happen - metricity shall come to our aid. $$ \det(df)= \star^d_{f^*T\N} \circ \bigwedge^d df \circ \star^0_{\TM}(1)= \star^d_{f^*T\N} \big( df(e_1) \wedge \dots \wedge df(e_d) \big),$$ So $$ V\det df = V \star^d_{f^*T\N}\big( df(e_1) \wedge \dots \wedge df(e_d) \big) \stackrel{(1)}{=} $$ $$ \star^d_{f^*T\N} \nabla_V \big( df(e_1) \wedge \dots \wedge df(e_d) \big)= \star^d_{f^*T\N} \sum_{i=1}^d \big( df(e_1) \wedge \dots \wedge \nabla_V \big(df(e_i)\big) \wedge \dots \wedge df(e_d) \big) = \star^d_{f^*T\N} \sum_{i=1}^d \big( df(e_1) \wedge \dots \wedge (\nabla_V df)e_i \wedge \dots \wedge df(e_d) \big) + $$ $$ \star^d_{f^*T\N} \sum_{i=1}^d \big( df(e_1) \wedge \dots \wedge df(\nabla_{V}e_i) \wedge \dots \wedge df(e_d) \big) \stackrel{(2)}{=} $$ $$ \IP{\Cof df}{\nabla_V df}_{\TM,f^*{\TN}}+ \star^d_{f^*T\N} \bigwedge^d df( \sum_{i=1}^d e_1 \wedge \dots \wedge \nabla_Ve_i \wedge \dots \wedge e_d)= \IP{\Cof df}{\nabla_V df}_{\TM,f^*{\TN}}+ \star^d_{f^*T\N} \bigwedge^d df\big( \nabla_V (e_1 \wedge \dots \wedge e_i \wedge \dots \wedge e_d) \big)=\IP{\Cof df}{\nabla_V df}_{\TM,f^*{\TN}}. $$

Where equality $(1)$ follows since metric connections and Hodge duals commute, and equality $(2)$ is exactly the formal repeatition of the calculation in the pointwise setting (where $A \to df,B \to \nabla_Vdf$).

Admittedly, this repeatition is not huge, but I have other examples on my mind where the computations are much longer, so a general "transfer-principle" would be nice to have.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Doesn't the manifold identity follow directly from the pointwise identity combined with the chain rule? $\endgroup$
    – Deane Yang
    Commented Apr 23, 2017 at 16:08
  • $\begingroup$ @DeaneYang Well, a naive application of the chain rule won't do it, right? Fix $p \in M$, and take a path $\alpha(t)$,$\alpha(0)=p,\dot \alpha(0)=V(p)$. Then $\big( V\det(df) \big)(p)=\frac{d}{dt}_{t=0}det(df_{\alpha(t)})$. But the problem is that this is not the derivative of a the determinant of a linear map between to fixed vector spaces. (The tangent spaces in the domain and codomain change with $t$ of course). As I said, one could take orthonormal frames and use representing matrices, but then we need to get back to the invariant interpretation somehow. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 23, 2017 at 16:29
  • $\begingroup$ Your question is essentially what's bothering me: I "feel" the two results are really close to each other, so there is supposed to be a way to go from one to the other, immediately, by a clever application of the chain rule or some other change of perspective. The analogy $A \to df,B \to \nabla_Vdf$ is very appealing. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 23, 2017 at 16:29
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, you do have two different vector spaces. So you have to use an invariant definition of the determinant of a linear map between two different vector spaces and differentiate that. Overall, it's a little more complicated to work with a map between two manifolds instead of bundles over a single manifold. I think that's the real difficulty. $\endgroup$
    – Deane Yang
    Commented Apr 23, 2017 at 16:54
  • $\begingroup$ I'm pretty sure there is a meta-theorem, even in this case, assuming you're writing everything invariantly and using the naturally induced connections. You should be able to reduce it to a statement about a bundle map between vector bundles $E$ and $F$ with inner products and compatible connections. Here, $E = T_*\mathcal{M}$, $F=f^*T_*\mathcal{N}$. $\endgroup$
    – Deane Yang
    Commented Apr 23, 2017 at 23:41

3 Answers 3

2
+50
$\begingroup$

The following is the meta-theorem I have in mind (I can't swear that what I've written is 100% correct):

Given $G < \mathrm{GL}(n)$, let $\Phi: \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ a smooth $G$-invariant function. Let $\Phi': \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow (\mathbb{R}^n)^*$ denote the differential of $\Phi$, defined to be $$ \langle\Phi'(x),v\rangle = \left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0}\Phi(x + tv). $$ Let $V$ be a rank $n$ vector bundle with structure group $G$ (using the same representation as above) and compatible connection $\nabla$. The function $\Phi$ induces naturally a function $\widehat\Phi: V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, which is equal to $\Phi$ on each fiber $V_x$. Similarly, $\Phi'$ induces a bundle map $\widehat\Phi': V \rightarrow V^*$.

Given any section $v$ of $V$, let $f(x) = \widehat\Phi(v(x))$. Then given any tangent vector $t \in T_x\mathcal{M}$, $$ \langle df(x), t\rangle = \langle \widehat\Phi'(v(x)), \nabla_tv(x)\rangle. $$

I think this (or something like it) can be proved by using a curve passing through $x$ and tangent to $t$ and a $G$-frame parallel translated along the curve and writing the section $v$ in terms of the frame.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. An interesting point is that your theorem holds for any metric compatible connection. I wonder whether it is obvious that the exression $ \langle \widehat\Phi'(v(x)), \nabla_tv(x)\rangle$ is indeed independent of the connection (as long as it is metric). A similar "converse" phenomena happens for the codifferential $\delta$: If you fix a connection $\nabla$ on a bundle $E$, then for any $\nabla$-compatible metric, you get the same $\delta$ . $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 26, 2017 at 6:53
  • $\begingroup$ (This is discussed here). $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 26, 2017 at 6:53
1
$\begingroup$

I think everything can be reduced to the following (stated without proofs):

Let $E$ and $F$ be rank $n$ oriented vector bundles over $\mathcal{M}$ with smooth inner products and compatible connections. Let $\omega$ be the section of $\Lambda^nE$ such that $$ \omega = e_1\wedge\cdots\wedge e_n $$ for any local positively oriented orthonormal frame $e_1, \cdots, e_n$ of $E$. Define $\eta \in \Gamma(\Lambda^nF)$ similarly. Compatibility of the connection with the inner product on each bundle implies that $\nabla \omega = 0$ and $\nabla\eta = 0$.

A smooth bundle map $A: E\rightarrow F$ naturally induces a map $A: \Lambda^nE \rightarrow \Lambda^nF$. Let $\det A$ be the real-valued function such that $$ A(\omega) = (\det A)\eta. $$ Define the cofactor of $A$ to be a bundle map $A^c: F\rightarrow E$, which agrees with the standard definition of the cofactor matrix, when $A$ is written with respect to local orthonormal frames of $E$ and $F$. In particular, $A^cA = (\det A)1_E$.

Then, given any smooth vector field $V$ on $\mathcal{M}$, $$ \langle d(\det A),V\rangle = \tr A^c\nabla_VA, $$ where $\nabla$ is the connection on $F\otimes E^*$ induced by the connections on $E$ and $F$. In general, anything invariant formula involving derivatives of maps or tensors of finite dimensional vector spaces translates into a corresponding formula involving vector bundles, where differentiation is replaced by covariant differentiation. A compatible inner product is needed on the bundles, if the vector space formula relies on inner products, too.

In your example, I believe this gives the right formula when $E = T_*\mathcal{M}$ and $F=f^*T_*\mathcal{N}$. Note that the connection on $F$ is the pullback of the Levi-Civita connection on $N$, so, if $x^1, \dots, x^d$ are local coordinates on $\mathcal{M}$ and $y^1, \dots, y^d$ on $\mathcal{N}$, then $$ \nabla_{X_i}Y_\alpha = \frac{\partial f^\beta}{\partial x^i}\Gamma^\gamma_{\alpha\beta}Y_\gamma, $$ where $$ X_i = \frac{\partial}{\partial x^i},\ Y_\alpha = \frac{\partial}{\partial y^\alpha}, $$ and $\Gamma^\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ are the Christoffel symbols for the metric on $Y$.

Last quick personal comment: I find the Hodge star operator really confusing to work with and often try to avoid it.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I agree with everything you said. Working with a map between different manifolds is not a problem, because we can indeed view $df$ as a map between bundles over $M$, and use the induced connection. (Of course, this is what I did in my proof, it was just the special case where $A=df$ ($A$ is the bundle map in your notation). My point is that even this reduction to maps between bundles (with metric and connection structures) is not a trivial consequence from the finite dimensional statement, where the two vector spaces, while different, are fixed. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 24, 2017 at 6:37
  • $\begingroup$ Indeed, the "same" proof should work (I demonstrated one possible approach) but some (admittedly not very hard) justifications need to be addressed (where the metricity come in etc). An ideal situation, from my perspective would be to find a way to view the bundle calculation as a derivative of a the determinant between fixed vector spaces (then the result would really "transfer automatically"). However, I am becoming more and more convinced that this is not possible in any "natural way", so in some sense, there are no "further shortcuts", and my/our approach is "the best" that can be done. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 24, 2017 at 6:37
  • $\begingroup$ Perhaps one can try to state a meta-theorem that says "every finite dim result carries to the manifold/bundle context", but the phrasing would probably be very abstract, and not very helpful(?) (This was the essence of the question actually, I was hoping someone might come with such an approach). $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 24, 2017 at 6:43
  • $\begingroup$ I'll try to state a meta-theorem, when I get a chance. It's essentially the chain rule. And it's useful. $\endgroup$
    – Deane Yang
    Commented Apr 24, 2017 at 13:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I wanted to thank you again for your proposals in this question. You have suggested a bundle version statement regarding the gradient of the determinant of a bundle map. I am going to use it in a paper, as a minor lemma in deriving an Euler-Lagrange equation. Of course, I am going to give you credit in the paper. If you have any objections, or would like explicit citations, please tell me. BTW, I have now learned enough about bundles, so I fully understand your meta-theorem here. It's really nice. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 1, 2018 at 17:41
0
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand{\M}{\mathcal{M}}$ $\newcommand{\Hom}{\operatorname{Hom}}$ $\newcommand{\tr}{\operatorname{tr}}$ $\newcommand{\TM}{\operatorname{T\M}}$ $\newcommand{\sAverage}[1]{\langle#1\rangle} $ $\newcommand{\IP}[2]{\sAverage{#1,#2}}$ $\newcommand{\Cof}{\text{Cof}}$

Here is a sort of "meta-theorem:

Background:

Let $V,W$ be oriented $d$-dimensional inner product spaces, and let $\phi:\Hom(V,W) \to \mathbb{R}$ a smooth function which is "defined canonically" using only the structures of metric and orientation. We call such a function $\phi$ a geometric function.

(This notion needs to be made more precise).

Examples: $A \to \det A,A \to \tr A,A \to \text{ the i-th coefficient of the characteristic polynomial of $A$}$

Recall the gradient of $\phi$ is defined by requiring $$d\phi_A(B)=\IP{\nabla \phi(A)}{B}_{V,W}. $$

Note $\nabla \phi$ can be viewed as a map $\Hom(V,W) \to \Hom(V,W)$, and this is also "canonically defined".


Statement:

Let $E$ and $F$ be rank $d$ oriented vector bundles over $\M$ with smooth metrics and compatible connections.

Let $\phi$ be a geometric function. Then $\phi$ induces a map $$ \tilde \phi :\Hom(E,F) \to C^{\infty}(\M),$$ by acting pointwise.

Similarly, $\nabla \phi$ induces a map:

$$ \widetilde{\nabla \phi} :\Hom(E,F) \to \Hom(E,F).$$

Then, for all $V \in \Gamma(\TM),A \in \Hom(E,F)$

$$ V\cdot \tilde \phi(A)=\IP{\widetilde{\nabla \phi}(A)}{\nabla^{\Hom(E,F)}_VA}_{E,F}.$$

I am not sure how to prove this. (I tried using the chain rule and pullback connection along a path but failed. I think the definition of goemetric function should be made precise in order to establish the proof).

Further comments:

  1. In the example of $\phi(A)=\det A$, we recover theorem $2$ from the question, since $ \nabla \phi(A)=\Cof A$.
  2. This metha-theorem can probably be generalized to geometric maps, that is maps from $\Hom(V,W)$ which takes values in spaces "constructed from $V,W$ and $\mathbb{R}$" (not only $\mathbb{R}$). A natural exmaple is the cofactor itself: $A \to \Cof A$ is a map $\Hom(V,W) \to \Hom(V,W)$
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .