Let $(M^n,g)$ be a Riemannian manifold, and $T$ a symmetric $(1,1)$-tensor field, i.e., $\langle T(X),Y\rangle = \langle X,T(Y)\rangle $. For convenience, denote $$\Delta_Tu=\sum_i\langle \nabla_{e_i}\nabla u, Te_i\rangle $$ and $$\mathrm{Ric}_T(X,Y)=\sum_i\langle R(X,e_i)(Te_i), Y\rangle , $$ where $u$ is a smooth function on $M$ and $\{e_i\}$ is a local ON frame field.

Now assume $T$ is a Codazzi operator, i.e., for any $X,Y\in \Gamma(TM)$, $(\nabla_XT)Y=(\nabla_YT)X$. We choose $\{e_i\}_{i=1}^n$ be a local orthonormal frame field of $M$ such that $\nabla_{\star }e_i=0$ at the considered point. For the distance function r(x) from a fixed point $x_0$, by the definition, we have ($\nabla_XT$ is symmetric since $T$ is symmetric) \begin{equation*} \begin{split} \Delta_{\nabla_{\partial_r}T}r=&\sum_{i=1}^n\langle \nabla_{e_i}\partial_r,(\nabla_{\partial_r}T)e_i\rangle=\sum_{i=1}^n\langle \nabla_{e_i}\partial_r,(\nabla_{e_i}T)\partial_r\rangle \\ =&\sum_{i=1}^ne_i\langle \partial_r,(\nabla_{e_i}T)\partial_r\rangle -\sum_{i=1}^n\langle \partial_r,(\nabla_{e_i}\nabla_{e_i}T)\partial_r\rangle -\sum_{i=1}^n\langle \partial_r,(\nabla_{e_i}T)(\nabla_{e_i}\partial_r)\rangle . \end{split} \end{equation*} However, \begin{equation*} \begin{split} \sum_{i=1}^n\langle \partial_r,(\nabla_{e_i}T)(\nabla_{e_i}\partial_r)\rangle =&\sum_{i=1}^n\langle (\nabla_{e_i}T)\partial_r,\nabla_{e_i}\partial_r\rangle \\ =&\sum_{i=1}^n\langle (\nabla_{\partial_r}T)e_i,\nabla_{e_i}\partial_r\rangle =\Delta_{\nabla_{\partial_r}T}r. \end{split} \end{equation*} Hence, we obtain \begin{equation} \begin{split} \Delta_{\nabla_{\partial_r}T}r=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^ne_i\langle \partial_r,(\nabla_{e_i}T)\partial_r\rangle -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^n\langle \partial_r,(\nabla_{e_i}\nabla_{e_i}T)\partial_r\rangle \end{split} \end{equation} We now compute the two terms of the R.H.S. of the above equality. Firstly, notice that $\nabla_{\partial_r}\partial_r=0$, we have \begin{equation} \begin{split} \sum_{i=1}^ne_i\langle \partial_r,(\nabla_{e_i}T)\partial_r\rangle =&\sum_{i=1}^ne_i\langle \partial_r,(\nabla_{\partial_r}T)e_i\rangle =\sum_{i=1}^ne_i\langle (\nabla_{\partial_r}T)\partial_r,e_i\rangle \\ =&\sum_{i=1}^ne_i (\partial_r\langle T\partial_r, e_i\rangle )-\sum_{i=1}^ne_i\langle T\partial_r,\nabla_{\partial_r}e_i\rangle \\ =&\sum_{i=1}^n\partial_r(e_i\langle T\partial_r,e_i\rangle )-\sum_{i=1}^n\langle T\partial_r, \nabla_{e_i}\nabla_{\partial_r}e_i\rangle \\ =&\sum_{i=1}^n\partial_r\langle (\nabla_{e_i}T)\partial_r,e_i\rangle +\sum_{i=1}^n\partial_r\langle T\nabla_{e_i}\partial_r, e_i\rangle \\ &+\sum_{i=1}^n\partial_r\langle T\partial_r,\nabla_{e_i}e_i\rangle -\sum_{i=1}^n\langle T\partial_r, \nabla_{e_i}\nabla_{\partial_r}e_i\rangle \\ =&\sum_{i=1}^n\langle (\nabla_{\partial_r}\nabla_{e_i}T)\partial_r,e_i\rangle +\partial_r(\Delta_Tr)\\ &+\sum_{i=1}^n\langle T\partial_r,\nabla_{\partial_r}\nabla_{e_i}e_i\rangle -\sum_{i=1}^n\langle T\partial_r, \nabla_{e_i}\nabla_{\partial_r}e_i\rangle \\ =&\sum_{i=1}^n\langle (\nabla_{\partial_r}\nabla_{e_i}T)\partial_r,e_i\rangle +\partial_r(\Delta_Tr)+\mathrm{Ric}(\partial_r, T\partial_r). \end{split} \end{equation} Secondly, \begin{equation} \begin{split} \sum_{i=1}^n\langle \partial_r,(\nabla_{e_i}\nabla_{e_i}T)\partial_r\rangle =&\sum_{i=1}^n\langle \partial_r,\nabla_{e_i}((\nabla_{e_i}T)\partial_r)\rangle -\sum_{i=1}^n\langle \partial_r,(\nabla_{e_i}T)\nabla_{e_i}\partial_r\rangle \\ =& \sum_{i=1}^n\langle \partial_r,\nabla_{e_i}((\nabla_{\partial_r}T)e_i)\rangle -\sum_{i=1}^n\langle \partial_r,(\nabla_{\nabla_{e_i}\partial_r}T)e_i\rangle \\ =&\sum_{i=1}^n\langle (\nabla_{e_i}\nabla_{\partial_r}T)e_i-(\nabla_{\nabla_{e_i}\partial_r}T)e_i,\partial_r\rangle \\ =&\sum_{i=1}^n\langle (\nabla_{\partial_r}\nabla_{e_i}T)e_i,\partial_r\rangle -\sum_{i=1}^n\langle (R(\partial_r,e_i)T)e_i,\partial_r\rangle \\ =&\sum_{i=1}^n\langle (\nabla_{\partial_r}\nabla_{e_i}T)e_i,\partial_r\rangle +\mathrm{Ric}(\partial_r,T\partial_r)-\mathrm{Ric}_T(\partial_r,\partial_r). \end{split} \end{equation} From the above three equalities we obtain \begin{equation*} \begin{split} \Delta_{\nabla_{\partial_r}T}r =\frac{1}{2}\partial_r(\Delta_Tr) +\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Ric}_T(\partial_r,\partial_r). \end{split} \end{equation*}

Now, my question is that when $T=\mathrm{Id}_{TM}$ the above equation becomes \begin{equation*} \begin{split} \partial_r(\Delta_r)+\mathrm{Ric}(\partial_r,\partial_r)=0. \end{split} \end{equation*} But it is well known that the Bochner formula for the distance function \begin{equation*} \begin{split} |\mathrm{Hess}r|^2+\partial_r(\Delta_r)+\mathrm{Ric}(\partial_r,\partial_r)=0. \end{split} \end{equation*} This obtain a contradiction.

What is wrong with the above derivation? Thanks in advence.

  • $\begingroup$ I don't see how you get the following equality. Can you explain a bit more? \begin{equation} \begin{split} &\sum_{i=1}^ne_i (\partial_r\langle T\partial_r, e_i\rangle )-\sum_{i=1}^ne_i\langle T\partial_r,\nabla_{\partial_r}e_i\rangle \\ =&\sum_{i=1}^n\partial_r(e_i\langle T\partial_r,e_i\rangle )-\sum_{i=1}^n\langle T\partial_r, \nabla_{e_i}\nabla_{\partial_r}e_i\rangle \end{split}\end{equation} $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Dec 18 '18 at 15:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am not very sure if this question is suitable for MO $\endgroup$ – Praphulla Koushik Dec 18 '18 at 17:47
  • $\begingroup$ $\langle T\partial_r,e_i\rangle $ is a function and $\{e_i\}$ is normal frame.@Willie Wong $\endgroup$ – G. Zhao Dec 18 '18 at 18:33
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, my question may be a little superficial, I will take a warning from it later. @Praphulla Koushik $\endgroup$ – G. Zhao Dec 18 '18 at 20:21

Let me re-do the computation using index notation.

Your goal is to compute $\partial_r (\Delta_T r)$ which we can rewrite as

$$ \nabla^c( T^{ab} \nabla^2_{ab} r) \nabla_c r = \nabla^c T^{ab} \nabla^2_{ab} r \nabla_c r + T^{ab} (\nabla^c \nabla_a \nabla_b r) \nabla_c r$$

The first term on the right is $\Delta_{\nabla_{\partial_r} T} r$. So we focus our attention on the second term.

$$ \nabla^c\nabla_a \nabla_b r = \nabla_a\nabla^c \nabla_b r + [\nabla^c, \nabla_a ] \nabla_b r $$

So (the $\pm$ is just me forgetting which sign is the right one)

$$ T^{ab} (\nabla^c\nabla_a \nabla_b r) \nabla_c r = T^{ab}(\nabla_a \nabla^c \nabla_b r) \nabla_c r \pm \mathrm{Ric}_T(\partial_r, \partial_r) $$

The term in the middle is

$$ \nabla_a \nabla^c \nabla_b r \nabla_c r = \nabla_a (\underbrace{\nabla^c \nabla_b r \cdot \nabla_c r}_{ = 0}) - \nabla^c \nabla_b r \nabla_a \nabla_c r.$$

The term that $=0$ is so due to the fact that $\nabla r$ is geodesic. So your identity should be

$$ \partial_r (\Delta_T r) + \mathrm{Ric}_T(\partial_r, \partial_r) = \Delta_{\nabla_{\partial_r} T} r - T^{ab} g^{cd} \nabla^2_{bd} r \nabla^2_{ac} r $$

which now reduces correctly to Bochner's identity when $T = g$.

Remark Notice that nowhere in this derivation is either of the property you started with, namely that $T$ is symmetric and $T$ is Codazzi, used.

  • $\begingroup$ Prof. Wong, thanks a lot for your answer. But, in fact, I already know the equality that you derived. It can also be derived directly from the formula concerning $\Delta_T$. See the formula (2.1) in \url{ac.els-cdn.com/S0362546X18301573/…}. My goal is to know what $\Delta_Tr$ is going to be when $T$ is Codazzi. That's why I asked this question to find out where my computation was wrong. Anyway, thank you very much. $\endgroup$ – G. Zhao Dec 18 '18 at 20:01

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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