Show that any affine connection $nabla$ on $mathbb{R}^n$ is of the form $nabla=D+Gamma$.











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Show that any affine connection $nabla$ on $mathbb{R}^n$ is of the form $nabla=D+Gamma$, where $D$ is the Euclidean connection and $Gamma:mathcal{X}(mathbb{R}^n) times mathcal{X}(mathbb{R}^n) rightarrow mathcal{X}(mathbb{R}^n)$ is any $C^{infty}(mathbb{R}^n)$-bilinear map.



Showing that $D+Gamma$ is an affine connection is easy, but I don't know how to show the converse. I mean, what's special about $mathbb{R}^n$?










share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    2
    down vote

    favorite












    Show that any affine connection $nabla$ on $mathbb{R}^n$ is of the form $nabla=D+Gamma$, where $D$ is the Euclidean connection and $Gamma:mathcal{X}(mathbb{R}^n) times mathcal{X}(mathbb{R}^n) rightarrow mathcal{X}(mathbb{R}^n)$ is any $C^{infty}(mathbb{R}^n)$-bilinear map.



    Showing that $D+Gamma$ is an affine connection is easy, but I don't know how to show the converse. I mean, what's special about $mathbb{R}^n$?










    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite











      Show that any affine connection $nabla$ on $mathbb{R}^n$ is of the form $nabla=D+Gamma$, where $D$ is the Euclidean connection and $Gamma:mathcal{X}(mathbb{R}^n) times mathcal{X}(mathbb{R}^n) rightarrow mathcal{X}(mathbb{R}^n)$ is any $C^{infty}(mathbb{R}^n)$-bilinear map.



      Showing that $D+Gamma$ is an affine connection is easy, but I don't know how to show the converse. I mean, what's special about $mathbb{R}^n$?










      share|cite|improve this question













      Show that any affine connection $nabla$ on $mathbb{R}^n$ is of the form $nabla=D+Gamma$, where $D$ is the Euclidean connection and $Gamma:mathcal{X}(mathbb{R}^n) times mathcal{X}(mathbb{R}^n) rightarrow mathcal{X}(mathbb{R}^n)$ is any $C^{infty}(mathbb{R}^n)$-bilinear map.



      Showing that $D+Gamma$ is an affine connection is easy, but I don't know how to show the converse. I mean, what's special about $mathbb{R}^n$?







      manifolds riemannian-geometry vector-fields connections






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Nov 21 at 21:49









      bbw

      38617




      38617






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted










          This follows from the general result that the difference of two affine connections provide such a bilinear map (tensor) $Gamma$. The nontrivial part is to explain why it is $C^infty$-linear in the second argument (which is not the case for the connections themselves). But by the Leibniz rule, for any $C^infty$ function $f$ and vector fields $X,Y$ we have



          $$begin{align}(nabla - D)(X,fY) &= nabla(X,fY) - D(X,fY) \&= (Xf)Y + fnabla(X,Y) - (Xf)Y - fD(X,Y) \ &= f(nabla - D)(X,Y),end{align}$$



          so the $C^infty$-bilinearity is a consequence of the fact that the "constant terms" (those independent of the connection) cancel each other out in the difference.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • Oh how could I forgot the equivalence $nabla=D+Gamma Leftrightarrow nabla - D=Gamma$. Thank you for you answer.
            – bbw
            Nov 21 at 23:19













          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',
          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
          });


          }
          });














           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3008422%2fshow-that-any-affine-connection-nabla-on-mathbbrn-is-of-the-form-nabl%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted










          This follows from the general result that the difference of two affine connections provide such a bilinear map (tensor) $Gamma$. The nontrivial part is to explain why it is $C^infty$-linear in the second argument (which is not the case for the connections themselves). But by the Leibniz rule, for any $C^infty$ function $f$ and vector fields $X,Y$ we have



          $$begin{align}(nabla - D)(X,fY) &= nabla(X,fY) - D(X,fY) \&= (Xf)Y + fnabla(X,Y) - (Xf)Y - fD(X,Y) \ &= f(nabla - D)(X,Y),end{align}$$



          so the $C^infty$-bilinearity is a consequence of the fact that the "constant terms" (those independent of the connection) cancel each other out in the difference.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • Oh how could I forgot the equivalence $nabla=D+Gamma Leftrightarrow nabla - D=Gamma$. Thank you for you answer.
            – bbw
            Nov 21 at 23:19

















          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted










          This follows from the general result that the difference of two affine connections provide such a bilinear map (tensor) $Gamma$. The nontrivial part is to explain why it is $C^infty$-linear in the second argument (which is not the case for the connections themselves). But by the Leibniz rule, for any $C^infty$ function $f$ and vector fields $X,Y$ we have



          $$begin{align}(nabla - D)(X,fY) &= nabla(X,fY) - D(X,fY) \&= (Xf)Y + fnabla(X,Y) - (Xf)Y - fD(X,Y) \ &= f(nabla - D)(X,Y),end{align}$$



          so the $C^infty$-bilinearity is a consequence of the fact that the "constant terms" (those independent of the connection) cancel each other out in the difference.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • Oh how could I forgot the equivalence $nabla=D+Gamma Leftrightarrow nabla - D=Gamma$. Thank you for you answer.
            – bbw
            Nov 21 at 23:19















          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted






          This follows from the general result that the difference of two affine connections provide such a bilinear map (tensor) $Gamma$. The nontrivial part is to explain why it is $C^infty$-linear in the second argument (which is not the case for the connections themselves). But by the Leibniz rule, for any $C^infty$ function $f$ and vector fields $X,Y$ we have



          $$begin{align}(nabla - D)(X,fY) &= nabla(X,fY) - D(X,fY) \&= (Xf)Y + fnabla(X,Y) - (Xf)Y - fD(X,Y) \ &= f(nabla - D)(X,Y),end{align}$$



          so the $C^infty$-bilinearity is a consequence of the fact that the "constant terms" (those independent of the connection) cancel each other out in the difference.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          This follows from the general result that the difference of two affine connections provide such a bilinear map (tensor) $Gamma$. The nontrivial part is to explain why it is $C^infty$-linear in the second argument (which is not the case for the connections themselves). But by the Leibniz rule, for any $C^infty$ function $f$ and vector fields $X,Y$ we have



          $$begin{align}(nabla - D)(X,fY) &= nabla(X,fY) - D(X,fY) \&= (Xf)Y + fnabla(X,Y) - (Xf)Y - fD(X,Y) \ &= f(nabla - D)(X,Y),end{align}$$



          so the $C^infty$-bilinearity is a consequence of the fact that the "constant terms" (those independent of the connection) cancel each other out in the difference.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Nov 22 at 12:32

























          answered Nov 21 at 22:49









          Alex Provost

          15.1k22250




          15.1k22250












          • Oh how could I forgot the equivalence $nabla=D+Gamma Leftrightarrow nabla - D=Gamma$. Thank you for you answer.
            – bbw
            Nov 21 at 23:19




















          • Oh how could I forgot the equivalence $nabla=D+Gamma Leftrightarrow nabla - D=Gamma$. Thank you for you answer.
            – bbw
            Nov 21 at 23:19


















          Oh how could I forgot the equivalence $nabla=D+Gamma Leftrightarrow nabla - D=Gamma$. Thank you for you answer.
          – bbw
          Nov 21 at 23:19






          Oh how could I forgot the equivalence $nabla=D+Gamma Leftrightarrow nabla - D=Gamma$. Thank you for you answer.
          – bbw
          Nov 21 at 23:19




















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded



















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3008422%2fshow-that-any-affine-connection-nabla-on-mathbbrn-is-of-the-form-nabl%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          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







          Popular posts from this blog

          Berounka

          Sphinx de Gizeh

          Different font size/position of beamer's navigation symbols template's content depending on regular/plain...