8
$\begingroup$

Recently I came across the following problem. Here's the setting:

Let $(M^n,g)$ be a Riemannian manifold, $\nabla$ the Levi-Civita connection, and $U$ a coordinate neighbourhood with coordinates $\{x^i\}$. $X = X^i \frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}$ is a vector field. We denote by $\nabla_i$ the derivative $\nabla_\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}$. Denote also $X^i_j := \nabla_j X^i$. Consider $\{ X^i, X^j_k\}$ to be unknown functions and show that the system $\begin{align} \nabla_i X^j &= X_i^j \\ \nabla_k X_i^j &= -R_{pki}^j X^p \end{align}$ with conditions $X_{ij} = -X_{ji}$, where $X_{ij} = X_i^kg_{kj}$, is completely integrable iff $M^n$ is of constant curvature. In this case the solution depends on $\frac{n(n+1)}{2}$ arbitrary constants.

The vectors in the solution space would be the Killing vector fields. The part with the number of constants is clear, but I couldn't acquire the curvature condition, no matter how I tried to attack it. Applying Frobenius' theorem didn't do the job for me, so I suppose I am making a mistake somewhere, be it logical, or computational. The problem is taken from Kentaro Yano's book "Integral Formulas in Riemannian Geometry", Marcel Dekker Inc., NY, 1970, p.35, Problem 19. Similar problems (21, 23, 25) follow, concerning different infinitesimal transformations. According to the convention of the book, the Riemannian curvature tensor is defined as $R_{ijk}^l \frac{\partial}{\partial x^l}= R(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i},\frac{\partial}{\partial x^j})\frac{\partial}{\partial x^k}$

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ You probably copied your equation wrong: for the equation with Riemann, did you want the final factor to be $X^p$ instead? Also, the way the question is written is strange: if you assume $X_{ij} = - X_{ji}$, then by definition the deformation tensor for $X$ vanishes, which implies that $X$ is Killing. When that happens the equation on $\nabla_k X^j_i$ is simply Jacobi's equation for Killing vector fields. In other words, the assumption that $X_{ij} = -X_{ji}$ implies the rest of the system, and I can't imagine why the exercise is formulated that way. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 7, 2017 at 19:16
  • $\begingroup$ You are right about the index, but this was a typo only in the post (I edited it). Otherwise, the system is obviously trivial once we know that $X$ is Killing. I assume the idea is to first arrive at the curvature condition to illustrate what the extreme case is, and apply the symmetry $X_{ij} = - X_{ji}$ afterwards. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 7, 2017 at 22:06

1 Answer 1

8
$\begingroup$

The system of PDEs in the original post actually defines a connection $D$ on the bundle $\mathcal{E} = TM \oplus \mathfrak{so}(TM)$, by $$ D_X \begin{pmatrix} Y \\ A \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \nabla_X Y + A(X)\\ \nabla_X A - R(X,Y) \end{pmatrix} $$ for all vector fields $X,Y$ and field $A$ of skewsymmetric endomorphisms of $TM$. Killing vectors are in bijective correspondence with $D$-parallel sections of $\mathcal{E}$, a result due to Kostant and rediscovered by Geroch, who coined the term Killing transport.

Complete integrability is simply the flatness of $D$. The curvature of $D$ is not difficult to calculate and one finds that $D$ is flat if and only if $R(X,Y)Z = \lambda \left( g(Y,Z)X - g(X,Z)Y \right)$, for some $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$. This is precisely the statement that the metric has constant sectional curvature.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you! I tried to use the same result, but couldn't formulate it as cleanly, and got lost somewhere in the index notation. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 7, 2017 at 22:11
  • $\begingroup$ I believe it should be $-A(X)$ instead of $A(Y)$ in the first row. I ran the computations and the result followed. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 9, 2017 at 16:09
  • $\begingroup$ @StefanVasilev It's supposed to be $A(X)$, but the sign is correct. For a Killing vector $Y$, $A = - \nabla Y$. My conventions for Riemann follow Besse. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 9, 2017 at 20:28

You must log in to answer this question.

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