Identity Involving Lie Derivative and Local Flows
I'm trying to show,
$$ frac{d}{dt} varphi_t^* omega = varphi_t^* left( mathcal{L}_{X_t} omega right)$$
but I have another question as well. Every case in which the lie derivative is mentioned, that notation $mathcal{L}_{X_t}$ has never been given interpretation and so I would like to understand this notation first.
Given $frac{d}{dt}bigr|_{t=0} varphi_t = X_p = X_{varphi_0(p)}$ and so $frac{d}{dt} varphi_t = X_{varphi_t(p)}$ which we can call $X_t$. And so,
$$mathcal{L}_{X_t} = mathcal{L}_{frac{d}{dt} varphi_t}$$
Is this correct?
Update: attempt to prove identity
differential-geometry differential-topology symplectic-geometry
New contributor
add a comment |
I'm trying to show,
$$ frac{d}{dt} varphi_t^* omega = varphi_t^* left( mathcal{L}_{X_t} omega right)$$
but I have another question as well. Every case in which the lie derivative is mentioned, that notation $mathcal{L}_{X_t}$ has never been given interpretation and so I would like to understand this notation first.
Given $frac{d}{dt}bigr|_{t=0} varphi_t = X_p = X_{varphi_0(p)}$ and so $frac{d}{dt} varphi_t = X_{varphi_t(p)}$ which we can call $X_t$. And so,
$$mathcal{L}_{X_t} = mathcal{L}_{frac{d}{dt} varphi_t}$$
Is this correct?
Update: attempt to prove identity
differential-geometry differential-topology symplectic-geometry
New contributor
When $(varphi_t)_t$ is the local flow of a time-dependent vector field, then $varphi_{t+s}neqvarphi_tcircvarphi_s$.
– C. Falcon
Jan 4 at 20:34
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear but, ${varphi_t}$ are induced by $X in mathcal{X}(M)$ and so by ODE theory, we do have this relation.
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:54
Oh, then the identity is really straightforward, see ktoi's answer. However, this is strange to write $X_t$ for a time-independant vector field...
– C. Falcon
Jan 4 at 20:59
I updated my "attempt to prove the identity" from some months ago and I came to the understanding that pull-backs commuted with limits. I never checked this off, but you two have helped tremendously and now I can move on.
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 21:01
add a comment |
I'm trying to show,
$$ frac{d}{dt} varphi_t^* omega = varphi_t^* left( mathcal{L}_{X_t} omega right)$$
but I have another question as well. Every case in which the lie derivative is mentioned, that notation $mathcal{L}_{X_t}$ has never been given interpretation and so I would like to understand this notation first.
Given $frac{d}{dt}bigr|_{t=0} varphi_t = X_p = X_{varphi_0(p)}$ and so $frac{d}{dt} varphi_t = X_{varphi_t(p)}$ which we can call $X_t$. And so,
$$mathcal{L}_{X_t} = mathcal{L}_{frac{d}{dt} varphi_t}$$
Is this correct?
Update: attempt to prove identity
differential-geometry differential-topology symplectic-geometry
New contributor
I'm trying to show,
$$ frac{d}{dt} varphi_t^* omega = varphi_t^* left( mathcal{L}_{X_t} omega right)$$
but I have another question as well. Every case in which the lie derivative is mentioned, that notation $mathcal{L}_{X_t}$ has never been given interpretation and so I would like to understand this notation first.
Given $frac{d}{dt}bigr|_{t=0} varphi_t = X_p = X_{varphi_0(p)}$ and so $frac{d}{dt} varphi_t = X_{varphi_t(p)}$ which we can call $X_t$. And so,
$$mathcal{L}_{X_t} = mathcal{L}_{frac{d}{dt} varphi_t}$$
Is this correct?
Update: attempt to prove identity
differential-geometry differential-topology symplectic-geometry
differential-geometry differential-topology symplectic-geometry
New contributor
New contributor
edited Jan 4 at 20:33
Topology Guy
New contributor
asked Jan 4 at 19:27
Topology GuyTopology Guy
133
133
New contributor
New contributor
When $(varphi_t)_t$ is the local flow of a time-dependent vector field, then $varphi_{t+s}neqvarphi_tcircvarphi_s$.
– C. Falcon
Jan 4 at 20:34
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear but, ${varphi_t}$ are induced by $X in mathcal{X}(M)$ and so by ODE theory, we do have this relation.
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:54
Oh, then the identity is really straightforward, see ktoi's answer. However, this is strange to write $X_t$ for a time-independant vector field...
– C. Falcon
Jan 4 at 20:59
I updated my "attempt to prove the identity" from some months ago and I came to the understanding that pull-backs commuted with limits. I never checked this off, but you two have helped tremendously and now I can move on.
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 21:01
add a comment |
When $(varphi_t)_t$ is the local flow of a time-dependent vector field, then $varphi_{t+s}neqvarphi_tcircvarphi_s$.
– C. Falcon
Jan 4 at 20:34
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear but, ${varphi_t}$ are induced by $X in mathcal{X}(M)$ and so by ODE theory, we do have this relation.
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:54
Oh, then the identity is really straightforward, see ktoi's answer. However, this is strange to write $X_t$ for a time-independant vector field...
– C. Falcon
Jan 4 at 20:59
I updated my "attempt to prove the identity" from some months ago and I came to the understanding that pull-backs commuted with limits. I never checked this off, but you two have helped tremendously and now I can move on.
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 21:01
When $(varphi_t)_t$ is the local flow of a time-dependent vector field, then $varphi_{t+s}neqvarphi_tcircvarphi_s$.
– C. Falcon
Jan 4 at 20:34
When $(varphi_t)_t$ is the local flow of a time-dependent vector field, then $varphi_{t+s}neqvarphi_tcircvarphi_s$.
– C. Falcon
Jan 4 at 20:34
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear but, ${varphi_t}$ are induced by $X in mathcal{X}(M)$ and so by ODE theory, we do have this relation.
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:54
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear but, ${varphi_t}$ are induced by $X in mathcal{X}(M)$ and so by ODE theory, we do have this relation.
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:54
Oh, then the identity is really straightforward, see ktoi's answer. However, this is strange to write $X_t$ for a time-independant vector field...
– C. Falcon
Jan 4 at 20:59
Oh, then the identity is really straightforward, see ktoi's answer. However, this is strange to write $X_t$ for a time-independant vector field...
– C. Falcon
Jan 4 at 20:59
I updated my "attempt to prove the identity" from some months ago and I came to the understanding that pull-backs commuted with limits. I never checked this off, but you two have helped tremendously and now I can move on.
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 21:01
I updated my "attempt to prove the identity" from some months ago and I came to the understanding that pull-backs commuted with limits. I never checked this off, but you two have helped tremendously and now I can move on.
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 21:01
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Edit: The following answer assumes $varphi_t$ is the associated flow of $X,$ but for a general flow it is incorrect.
Edit 2: It seems like OP was asking about this case, in which case my answer would apply.
If $omega$ is some tensor field on $M$ and $X$ is a vector field, the Lie derivative is usually defined as,
$$ mathcal{L}_Xomega|_p = left.frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}t}right|_{t=0} varphi_t^* omega|_p = lim_{t rightarrow 0} frac1tleft(varphi_t^*(omega_{varphi(p)}) - omega_p right), $$
where $varphi_t$ is the associated flow of $X.$
From this, the identity follows essentially by definition, noting you can commute pullbacks with limits. Indeed assuming the flow exists up to some time $t_0,$ we have,
$$left.frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}t}right|_{t=t_0} varphi_t^*omega = left.frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}t}right|_{t=0} varphi_{t_0}^* varphi_t^*omega = left.varphi_{t_0}^* frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}t}right|_{t=0} varphi_t^*omega = varphi_{t_0}^* mathcal{L}_{X}omega. $$
I'll leave you to check the details on a pointwise level.
Now what I wrote isn't the same as what you asked, since I don't have $X_t$ appearing in my expression. I think this is because of how I interpret the pullback, namely I define,
$$ varphi^*omega|_p = varphi^*|_{varphi(p)} omega_{varphi(p)} in E_p,$$
where $E$ is whatever bundle $omega$ is a section of. If you define the pullback differently however, then you may find you'll need to differentiate with respect to $X_t$ when checking the above pointwise.
In general there's nothing special about $X_t = varphi_{-t}^*X$ however, all you're really doing is shifting the points over so everything lands where they should.
You are working with time-independent vector fields, while the question is for time-dependent for vector fields. In the latter case, your definition for the Lie derivative is no longer the right one and furtherfore $(varphi_t)_t$ is no longer a one-parameter subgroup.
– C. Falcon
Jan 4 at 20:26
Ah, thanks a lot. I wrote this down some time ago, could you check the edit in my question? Is that the limit thing you are referring to?
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:27
@C.Falcon I think you're right, I assumed $varphi_t$ was the associated flow of a vector field $X$ but reading the question that doesn't seem to be the case (though it's quite unclear what exactly is being asked). I'll edit my answer noting that.
– ktoi
Jan 4 at 20:41
@ktoi I'm sorry for the confusion. I made it clear now that $varphi_t$ were induced from $X$. I apologize, as I've been working in the field for the past few months, I assumed a lot of things when asking my question. Thank you both for your help.
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:57
1
@TopologyGuy I see, in that case your attempt seems fine (it is more or less what I posted after all). Since you tagged this question with the sympletic topology tag however, you may also need the time-dependent version at some point (e.g. to prove the Darboux theorem), so knowing about the general case would also be useful.
– ktoi
Jan 4 at 21:03
|
show 1 more comment
In order to prove the identity:
$$frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}t}{varphi_t}^*omega={varphi_t}^*(mathcal{L}_{X_t}omega),$$
Prove that it holds for functions ($0$-forms), it is just the chain rule,
Prove that if it holds for $omega$, then it holds for $mathrm{d}omega$, use that the exterior derivative commutes with the pullback and the Lie derivative,
Prove that if it holds for $omega$ and $omega'$, then it holds for $omegawedgeomega'$, use that the pullback of a wedge product is the wedge product of their pullbacks,
Conclude using that the algebra of differential forms is locally generated as an algebra by functions and differentials of functions.
Full computations can be found in Appendix B of An introduction to Contact Topology by H. Geiges.
Thanks for that. I'm fine with proving the identity that way since you do a similar thing for cartan's homotopy formula $mathcal{L}_X = d iota_X + iota_X d$. I was thinking there was some geometric intuition or "obvious" way to remember the identity, but it seems as though it is one just like the homotopy formula i.e just show that it works for all $k$-forms. Thanks again.
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:20
As a follow up, is my interpretation for $mathcal{L}_{X_t}$ correct?
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:21
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Topology Guy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062001%2fidentity-involving-lie-derivative-and-local-flows%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Edit: The following answer assumes $varphi_t$ is the associated flow of $X,$ but for a general flow it is incorrect.
Edit 2: It seems like OP was asking about this case, in which case my answer would apply.
If $omega$ is some tensor field on $M$ and $X$ is a vector field, the Lie derivative is usually defined as,
$$ mathcal{L}_Xomega|_p = left.frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}t}right|_{t=0} varphi_t^* omega|_p = lim_{t rightarrow 0} frac1tleft(varphi_t^*(omega_{varphi(p)}) - omega_p right), $$
where $varphi_t$ is the associated flow of $X.$
From this, the identity follows essentially by definition, noting you can commute pullbacks with limits. Indeed assuming the flow exists up to some time $t_0,$ we have,
$$left.frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}t}right|_{t=t_0} varphi_t^*omega = left.frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}t}right|_{t=0} varphi_{t_0}^* varphi_t^*omega = left.varphi_{t_0}^* frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}t}right|_{t=0} varphi_t^*omega = varphi_{t_0}^* mathcal{L}_{X}omega. $$
I'll leave you to check the details on a pointwise level.
Now what I wrote isn't the same as what you asked, since I don't have $X_t$ appearing in my expression. I think this is because of how I interpret the pullback, namely I define,
$$ varphi^*omega|_p = varphi^*|_{varphi(p)} omega_{varphi(p)} in E_p,$$
where $E$ is whatever bundle $omega$ is a section of. If you define the pullback differently however, then you may find you'll need to differentiate with respect to $X_t$ when checking the above pointwise.
In general there's nothing special about $X_t = varphi_{-t}^*X$ however, all you're really doing is shifting the points over so everything lands where they should.
You are working with time-independent vector fields, while the question is for time-dependent for vector fields. In the latter case, your definition for the Lie derivative is no longer the right one and furtherfore $(varphi_t)_t$ is no longer a one-parameter subgroup.
– C. Falcon
Jan 4 at 20:26
Ah, thanks a lot. I wrote this down some time ago, could you check the edit in my question? Is that the limit thing you are referring to?
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:27
@C.Falcon I think you're right, I assumed $varphi_t$ was the associated flow of a vector field $X$ but reading the question that doesn't seem to be the case (though it's quite unclear what exactly is being asked). I'll edit my answer noting that.
– ktoi
Jan 4 at 20:41
@ktoi I'm sorry for the confusion. I made it clear now that $varphi_t$ were induced from $X$. I apologize, as I've been working in the field for the past few months, I assumed a lot of things when asking my question. Thank you both for your help.
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:57
1
@TopologyGuy I see, in that case your attempt seems fine (it is more or less what I posted after all). Since you tagged this question with the sympletic topology tag however, you may also need the time-dependent version at some point (e.g. to prove the Darboux theorem), so knowing about the general case would also be useful.
– ktoi
Jan 4 at 21:03
|
show 1 more comment
Edit: The following answer assumes $varphi_t$ is the associated flow of $X,$ but for a general flow it is incorrect.
Edit 2: It seems like OP was asking about this case, in which case my answer would apply.
If $omega$ is some tensor field on $M$ and $X$ is a vector field, the Lie derivative is usually defined as,
$$ mathcal{L}_Xomega|_p = left.frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}t}right|_{t=0} varphi_t^* omega|_p = lim_{t rightarrow 0} frac1tleft(varphi_t^*(omega_{varphi(p)}) - omega_p right), $$
where $varphi_t$ is the associated flow of $X.$
From this, the identity follows essentially by definition, noting you can commute pullbacks with limits. Indeed assuming the flow exists up to some time $t_0,$ we have,
$$left.frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}t}right|_{t=t_0} varphi_t^*omega = left.frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}t}right|_{t=0} varphi_{t_0}^* varphi_t^*omega = left.varphi_{t_0}^* frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}t}right|_{t=0} varphi_t^*omega = varphi_{t_0}^* mathcal{L}_{X}omega. $$
I'll leave you to check the details on a pointwise level.
Now what I wrote isn't the same as what you asked, since I don't have $X_t$ appearing in my expression. I think this is because of how I interpret the pullback, namely I define,
$$ varphi^*omega|_p = varphi^*|_{varphi(p)} omega_{varphi(p)} in E_p,$$
where $E$ is whatever bundle $omega$ is a section of. If you define the pullback differently however, then you may find you'll need to differentiate with respect to $X_t$ when checking the above pointwise.
In general there's nothing special about $X_t = varphi_{-t}^*X$ however, all you're really doing is shifting the points over so everything lands where they should.
You are working with time-independent vector fields, while the question is for time-dependent for vector fields. In the latter case, your definition for the Lie derivative is no longer the right one and furtherfore $(varphi_t)_t$ is no longer a one-parameter subgroup.
– C. Falcon
Jan 4 at 20:26
Ah, thanks a lot. I wrote this down some time ago, could you check the edit in my question? Is that the limit thing you are referring to?
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:27
@C.Falcon I think you're right, I assumed $varphi_t$ was the associated flow of a vector field $X$ but reading the question that doesn't seem to be the case (though it's quite unclear what exactly is being asked). I'll edit my answer noting that.
– ktoi
Jan 4 at 20:41
@ktoi I'm sorry for the confusion. I made it clear now that $varphi_t$ were induced from $X$. I apologize, as I've been working in the field for the past few months, I assumed a lot of things when asking my question. Thank you both for your help.
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:57
1
@TopologyGuy I see, in that case your attempt seems fine (it is more or less what I posted after all). Since you tagged this question with the sympletic topology tag however, you may also need the time-dependent version at some point (e.g. to prove the Darboux theorem), so knowing about the general case would also be useful.
– ktoi
Jan 4 at 21:03
|
show 1 more comment
Edit: The following answer assumes $varphi_t$ is the associated flow of $X,$ but for a general flow it is incorrect.
Edit 2: It seems like OP was asking about this case, in which case my answer would apply.
If $omega$ is some tensor field on $M$ and $X$ is a vector field, the Lie derivative is usually defined as,
$$ mathcal{L}_Xomega|_p = left.frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}t}right|_{t=0} varphi_t^* omega|_p = lim_{t rightarrow 0} frac1tleft(varphi_t^*(omega_{varphi(p)}) - omega_p right), $$
where $varphi_t$ is the associated flow of $X.$
From this, the identity follows essentially by definition, noting you can commute pullbacks with limits. Indeed assuming the flow exists up to some time $t_0,$ we have,
$$left.frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}t}right|_{t=t_0} varphi_t^*omega = left.frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}t}right|_{t=0} varphi_{t_0}^* varphi_t^*omega = left.varphi_{t_0}^* frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}t}right|_{t=0} varphi_t^*omega = varphi_{t_0}^* mathcal{L}_{X}omega. $$
I'll leave you to check the details on a pointwise level.
Now what I wrote isn't the same as what you asked, since I don't have $X_t$ appearing in my expression. I think this is because of how I interpret the pullback, namely I define,
$$ varphi^*omega|_p = varphi^*|_{varphi(p)} omega_{varphi(p)} in E_p,$$
where $E$ is whatever bundle $omega$ is a section of. If you define the pullback differently however, then you may find you'll need to differentiate with respect to $X_t$ when checking the above pointwise.
In general there's nothing special about $X_t = varphi_{-t}^*X$ however, all you're really doing is shifting the points over so everything lands where they should.
Edit: The following answer assumes $varphi_t$ is the associated flow of $X,$ but for a general flow it is incorrect.
Edit 2: It seems like OP was asking about this case, in which case my answer would apply.
If $omega$ is some tensor field on $M$ and $X$ is a vector field, the Lie derivative is usually defined as,
$$ mathcal{L}_Xomega|_p = left.frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}t}right|_{t=0} varphi_t^* omega|_p = lim_{t rightarrow 0} frac1tleft(varphi_t^*(omega_{varphi(p)}) - omega_p right), $$
where $varphi_t$ is the associated flow of $X.$
From this, the identity follows essentially by definition, noting you can commute pullbacks with limits. Indeed assuming the flow exists up to some time $t_0,$ we have,
$$left.frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}t}right|_{t=t_0} varphi_t^*omega = left.frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}t}right|_{t=0} varphi_{t_0}^* varphi_t^*omega = left.varphi_{t_0}^* frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}t}right|_{t=0} varphi_t^*omega = varphi_{t_0}^* mathcal{L}_{X}omega. $$
I'll leave you to check the details on a pointwise level.
Now what I wrote isn't the same as what you asked, since I don't have $X_t$ appearing in my expression. I think this is because of how I interpret the pullback, namely I define,
$$ varphi^*omega|_p = varphi^*|_{varphi(p)} omega_{varphi(p)} in E_p,$$
where $E$ is whatever bundle $omega$ is a section of. If you define the pullback differently however, then you may find you'll need to differentiate with respect to $X_t$ when checking the above pointwise.
In general there's nothing special about $X_t = varphi_{-t}^*X$ however, all you're really doing is shifting the points over so everything lands where they should.
edited Jan 4 at 20:58
answered Jan 4 at 20:21
ktoiktoi
2,3481616
2,3481616
You are working with time-independent vector fields, while the question is for time-dependent for vector fields. In the latter case, your definition for the Lie derivative is no longer the right one and furtherfore $(varphi_t)_t$ is no longer a one-parameter subgroup.
– C. Falcon
Jan 4 at 20:26
Ah, thanks a lot. I wrote this down some time ago, could you check the edit in my question? Is that the limit thing you are referring to?
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:27
@C.Falcon I think you're right, I assumed $varphi_t$ was the associated flow of a vector field $X$ but reading the question that doesn't seem to be the case (though it's quite unclear what exactly is being asked). I'll edit my answer noting that.
– ktoi
Jan 4 at 20:41
@ktoi I'm sorry for the confusion. I made it clear now that $varphi_t$ were induced from $X$. I apologize, as I've been working in the field for the past few months, I assumed a lot of things when asking my question. Thank you both for your help.
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:57
1
@TopologyGuy I see, in that case your attempt seems fine (it is more or less what I posted after all). Since you tagged this question with the sympletic topology tag however, you may also need the time-dependent version at some point (e.g. to prove the Darboux theorem), so knowing about the general case would also be useful.
– ktoi
Jan 4 at 21:03
|
show 1 more comment
You are working with time-independent vector fields, while the question is for time-dependent for vector fields. In the latter case, your definition for the Lie derivative is no longer the right one and furtherfore $(varphi_t)_t$ is no longer a one-parameter subgroup.
– C. Falcon
Jan 4 at 20:26
Ah, thanks a lot. I wrote this down some time ago, could you check the edit in my question? Is that the limit thing you are referring to?
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:27
@C.Falcon I think you're right, I assumed $varphi_t$ was the associated flow of a vector field $X$ but reading the question that doesn't seem to be the case (though it's quite unclear what exactly is being asked). I'll edit my answer noting that.
– ktoi
Jan 4 at 20:41
@ktoi I'm sorry for the confusion. I made it clear now that $varphi_t$ were induced from $X$. I apologize, as I've been working in the field for the past few months, I assumed a lot of things when asking my question. Thank you both for your help.
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:57
1
@TopologyGuy I see, in that case your attempt seems fine (it is more or less what I posted after all). Since you tagged this question with the sympletic topology tag however, you may also need the time-dependent version at some point (e.g. to prove the Darboux theorem), so knowing about the general case would also be useful.
– ktoi
Jan 4 at 21:03
You are working with time-independent vector fields, while the question is for time-dependent for vector fields. In the latter case, your definition for the Lie derivative is no longer the right one and furtherfore $(varphi_t)_t$ is no longer a one-parameter subgroup.
– C. Falcon
Jan 4 at 20:26
You are working with time-independent vector fields, while the question is for time-dependent for vector fields. In the latter case, your definition for the Lie derivative is no longer the right one and furtherfore $(varphi_t)_t$ is no longer a one-parameter subgroup.
– C. Falcon
Jan 4 at 20:26
Ah, thanks a lot. I wrote this down some time ago, could you check the edit in my question? Is that the limit thing you are referring to?
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:27
Ah, thanks a lot. I wrote this down some time ago, could you check the edit in my question? Is that the limit thing you are referring to?
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:27
@C.Falcon I think you're right, I assumed $varphi_t$ was the associated flow of a vector field $X$ but reading the question that doesn't seem to be the case (though it's quite unclear what exactly is being asked). I'll edit my answer noting that.
– ktoi
Jan 4 at 20:41
@C.Falcon I think you're right, I assumed $varphi_t$ was the associated flow of a vector field $X$ but reading the question that doesn't seem to be the case (though it's quite unclear what exactly is being asked). I'll edit my answer noting that.
– ktoi
Jan 4 at 20:41
@ktoi I'm sorry for the confusion. I made it clear now that $varphi_t$ were induced from $X$. I apologize, as I've been working in the field for the past few months, I assumed a lot of things when asking my question. Thank you both for your help.
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:57
@ktoi I'm sorry for the confusion. I made it clear now that $varphi_t$ were induced from $X$. I apologize, as I've been working in the field for the past few months, I assumed a lot of things when asking my question. Thank you both for your help.
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:57
1
1
@TopologyGuy I see, in that case your attempt seems fine (it is more or less what I posted after all). Since you tagged this question with the sympletic topology tag however, you may also need the time-dependent version at some point (e.g. to prove the Darboux theorem), so knowing about the general case would also be useful.
– ktoi
Jan 4 at 21:03
@TopologyGuy I see, in that case your attempt seems fine (it is more or less what I posted after all). Since you tagged this question with the sympletic topology tag however, you may also need the time-dependent version at some point (e.g. to prove the Darboux theorem), so knowing about the general case would also be useful.
– ktoi
Jan 4 at 21:03
|
show 1 more comment
In order to prove the identity:
$$frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}t}{varphi_t}^*omega={varphi_t}^*(mathcal{L}_{X_t}omega),$$
Prove that it holds for functions ($0$-forms), it is just the chain rule,
Prove that if it holds for $omega$, then it holds for $mathrm{d}omega$, use that the exterior derivative commutes with the pullback and the Lie derivative,
Prove that if it holds for $omega$ and $omega'$, then it holds for $omegawedgeomega'$, use that the pullback of a wedge product is the wedge product of their pullbacks,
Conclude using that the algebra of differential forms is locally generated as an algebra by functions and differentials of functions.
Full computations can be found in Appendix B of An introduction to Contact Topology by H. Geiges.
Thanks for that. I'm fine with proving the identity that way since you do a similar thing for cartan's homotopy formula $mathcal{L}_X = d iota_X + iota_X d$. I was thinking there was some geometric intuition or "obvious" way to remember the identity, but it seems as though it is one just like the homotopy formula i.e just show that it works for all $k$-forms. Thanks again.
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:20
As a follow up, is my interpretation for $mathcal{L}_{X_t}$ correct?
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:21
add a comment |
In order to prove the identity:
$$frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}t}{varphi_t}^*omega={varphi_t}^*(mathcal{L}_{X_t}omega),$$
Prove that it holds for functions ($0$-forms), it is just the chain rule,
Prove that if it holds for $omega$, then it holds for $mathrm{d}omega$, use that the exterior derivative commutes with the pullback and the Lie derivative,
Prove that if it holds for $omega$ and $omega'$, then it holds for $omegawedgeomega'$, use that the pullback of a wedge product is the wedge product of their pullbacks,
Conclude using that the algebra of differential forms is locally generated as an algebra by functions and differentials of functions.
Full computations can be found in Appendix B of An introduction to Contact Topology by H. Geiges.
Thanks for that. I'm fine with proving the identity that way since you do a similar thing for cartan's homotopy formula $mathcal{L}_X = d iota_X + iota_X d$. I was thinking there was some geometric intuition or "obvious" way to remember the identity, but it seems as though it is one just like the homotopy formula i.e just show that it works for all $k$-forms. Thanks again.
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:20
As a follow up, is my interpretation for $mathcal{L}_{X_t}$ correct?
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:21
add a comment |
In order to prove the identity:
$$frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}t}{varphi_t}^*omega={varphi_t}^*(mathcal{L}_{X_t}omega),$$
Prove that it holds for functions ($0$-forms), it is just the chain rule,
Prove that if it holds for $omega$, then it holds for $mathrm{d}omega$, use that the exterior derivative commutes with the pullback and the Lie derivative,
Prove that if it holds for $omega$ and $omega'$, then it holds for $omegawedgeomega'$, use that the pullback of a wedge product is the wedge product of their pullbacks,
Conclude using that the algebra of differential forms is locally generated as an algebra by functions and differentials of functions.
Full computations can be found in Appendix B of An introduction to Contact Topology by H. Geiges.
In order to prove the identity:
$$frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}t}{varphi_t}^*omega={varphi_t}^*(mathcal{L}_{X_t}omega),$$
Prove that it holds for functions ($0$-forms), it is just the chain rule,
Prove that if it holds for $omega$, then it holds for $mathrm{d}omega$, use that the exterior derivative commutes with the pullback and the Lie derivative,
Prove that if it holds for $omega$ and $omega'$, then it holds for $omegawedgeomega'$, use that the pullback of a wedge product is the wedge product of their pullbacks,
Conclude using that the algebra of differential forms is locally generated as an algebra by functions and differentials of functions.
Full computations can be found in Appendix B of An introduction to Contact Topology by H. Geiges.
edited Jan 4 at 20:17
answered Jan 4 at 19:51
C. FalconC. Falcon
15.1k41950
15.1k41950
Thanks for that. I'm fine with proving the identity that way since you do a similar thing for cartan's homotopy formula $mathcal{L}_X = d iota_X + iota_X d$. I was thinking there was some geometric intuition or "obvious" way to remember the identity, but it seems as though it is one just like the homotopy formula i.e just show that it works for all $k$-forms. Thanks again.
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:20
As a follow up, is my interpretation for $mathcal{L}_{X_t}$ correct?
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:21
add a comment |
Thanks for that. I'm fine with proving the identity that way since you do a similar thing for cartan's homotopy formula $mathcal{L}_X = d iota_X + iota_X d$. I was thinking there was some geometric intuition or "obvious" way to remember the identity, but it seems as though it is one just like the homotopy formula i.e just show that it works for all $k$-forms. Thanks again.
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:20
As a follow up, is my interpretation for $mathcal{L}_{X_t}$ correct?
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:21
Thanks for that. I'm fine with proving the identity that way since you do a similar thing for cartan's homotopy formula $mathcal{L}_X = d iota_X + iota_X d$. I was thinking there was some geometric intuition or "obvious" way to remember the identity, but it seems as though it is one just like the homotopy formula i.e just show that it works for all $k$-forms. Thanks again.
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:20
Thanks for that. I'm fine with proving the identity that way since you do a similar thing for cartan's homotopy formula $mathcal{L}_X = d iota_X + iota_X d$. I was thinking there was some geometric intuition or "obvious" way to remember the identity, but it seems as though it is one just like the homotopy formula i.e just show that it works for all $k$-forms. Thanks again.
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:20
As a follow up, is my interpretation for $mathcal{L}_{X_t}$ correct?
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:21
As a follow up, is my interpretation for $mathcal{L}_{X_t}$ correct?
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:21
add a comment |
Topology Guy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Topology Guy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Topology Guy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Topology Guy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062001%2fidentity-involving-lie-derivative-and-local-flows%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
When $(varphi_t)_t$ is the local flow of a time-dependent vector field, then $varphi_{t+s}neqvarphi_tcircvarphi_s$.
– C. Falcon
Jan 4 at 20:34
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear but, ${varphi_t}$ are induced by $X in mathcal{X}(M)$ and so by ODE theory, we do have this relation.
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 20:54
Oh, then the identity is really straightforward, see ktoi's answer. However, this is strange to write $X_t$ for a time-independant vector field...
– C. Falcon
Jan 4 at 20:59
I updated my "attempt to prove the identity" from some months ago and I came to the understanding that pull-backs commuted with limits. I never checked this off, but you two have helped tremendously and now I can move on.
– Topology Guy
Jan 4 at 21:01