4

Let $\alpha$ be a tensor field on a manifold $M$, compact and without boundary. Denote by $\mathrm{Diff}(M,\alpha)$ the group of diffeomorphisms of $M$ preserving $\alpha$, i.e. $f:M\to M$ such that $f^*\alpha=\alpha$.

I am interested in the Lie algebra of this group; the tangent space at the identity is given by a subset of vector fields, those satisfying $\mathcal{L}_X\alpha=0$.

I am trying to prove that this set of vector fields is a Lie subalgebra of the vector fields on $M$; in other words, I want to show that if $X$ and $Y$ preserve $\alpha$ then also $\mathcal{L}_{[X,Y]}\alpha=0$. One possible way to do it is to express the flow of $[X,Y]$ using the flows of $X$ and $Y$, as $$\mathcal{L}_{[X,Y]}\alpha=\partial_{t=0}\Phi^{[X,Y]}_t{}^*\alpha.$$ It might be difficult to express $\Phi^{[X,Y]}_t$ as a combination of $\Phi^X_t$ and $\Phi^Y_t$, but in fact we just have to do it to first order in $t$, as is explained in this question, for example. Writing $$\Phi_t^{[X,Y]}=\Phi^X_{\sqrt{t}}\circ\Phi^Y_{\sqrt{t}}\circ\Phi^X_{-\sqrt{t}}\circ\Phi^Y_{-\sqrt{t}}+O(t^2)$$ it seems to follow easily that $\partial_{t=0}\Phi^{[X,Y]}_t{}^*\alpha=0$, since each of the flows preserves $\alpha$. So, a first question is: is this reasoning correct?

I am however interested in proving the identity directly, through a computation in local coordinates. This is motivated by the fact that, in the context of symplectic geometry, it is possible to directly compute in coordinates for example that Hamiltonian vector fields form a Lie algebra, even showing identites like $[X^\omega_f,X^\omega_g]=X^\omega_{\{f,g\}}$ (up to a sign depending on your conventions).

So, let's say that $\alpha$ is a closed $2$-form, and $X$ and $Y$ are vector fields such that $\alpha_{ij}X^i\mathrm{d}x^j$ and $\alpha_{ij}Y^i\mathrm{d}x^j$ are closed; how do I compute that also $$\alpha_{ij}\left(X^k\partial_k Y^i-Y^k\partial_kX^i\right)\mathrm{d}x^j$$ is closed?

As $\alpha_{ij}\partial_kX^i$ is symmetric in $j$ and $k$ (and the same holds for $Y$), we have $$\alpha_{ij}X^k\partial_k Y^i=\partial_j(X^k Y^i)\alpha_{ik}+\alpha_{ij}Y^k\partial_kX^i$$ so that $$\alpha_{ij}\left(X^k\partial_k Y^i-Y^k\partial_kX^i\right)\mathrm{d}x^j=\partial_j(X^k Y^i)\alpha_{ik}\mathrm{d}x^j.$$ At this point however I am unable to check that the differential of this expression vanishes. We get then at my second question: can you proceed from here to show that $\mathrm{d}\left([X,Y]\lrcorner\alpha\right)=0$?

  • Why is $\alpha_{ij}\partial_kX^i$ symmetric in $j$ and $k$? The answer to your question is to use the coordinate free definition of the exterior derivative. – Deane May 29 '22 at 11:07
  • 3
    Do you know that $\mathcal{L}_{[X,Y]} = \mathcal{L}_X\mathcal{L}_Y - \mathcal{L}_Y\mathcal{L}_X$? – Didier May 29 '22 at 13:37
  • @Didier thank you for the comment. Yes, I know of that property of the Lie derivative, this is similar to what I had in mind when writing "express the flow of $[X,Y]$ using the flows of $X$ and $Y$".

    I realize it is strange to ask for help to prove an expression using local coordinate computations when one already has a coordinate-free proof, but somehow I am frustrated by not being able to see something that should be a simple identity by direct computation.

    – Johnny Lemmon May 29 '22 at 15:57
  • @Deane knowing that $X\lrcorner\alpha$ is closed we get $0=\partial_k(\alpha_{ij}X^i)\mathrm{d}x^k\wedge\mathrm{d}x^j=(\partial_k\alpha_{ij}),X^i\mathrm{d}x^k\wedge\mathrm{d}x^j+\alpha_{ij}\partial_kX^i\mathrm{d}x^k\wedge\mathrm{d}x^j$. As $\alpha$ is closed, it should follow that $\partial_k\alpha_{ij}$ is symmetric in $k$ and $j$, right? From this then it seems to follow that $\alpha_{ij}\partial_kX^i\mathrm{d}x^k\wedge\mathrm{d}x^j=0$, so that $\alpha_{ij}\partial_kX^i$ is symmetric in $j$ and $k$. Does this make sense? – Johnny Lemmon May 29 '22 at 16:03
  • In first sentence of your comment, how do you get the second equality? The left side is a 2-form but right side is a 1-form. So equality makes no sense. And you have to use the product rule in your calculation. – Deane May 29 '22 at 16:57
  • @Deane all I did to get the second equality was to apply the product rule to $\partial_k(\alpha_{ij}X^i)$. I don't understand your comment about the right hand side being a $1$-form, these to me all look like different ways to write the $2$-form $\mathrm{d}(X\lrcorner\alpha)$. What am I missing? Maybe the problem is caused by having a long formula displayed, I noticed that sometimes this causes issues when viewing the site from mobile. – Johnny Lemmon May 29 '22 at 17:38
  • A 2-form should be a linear combination of $dx^a\wedge dx^b$, where $1 \le a,b \le \dim M$. The right side is a linear combination of $dx^a$, where $1 \le a \le \dim M$, which implies it is a 1-form. – Deane May 29 '22 at 18:55
  • 1
    That $\alpha$ is closed does not imply that $\partial_k\alpha_{ij}=\partial_j\alpha_{ik}$. You should write out carefully the formula for the exterior derivative of a 2-form. – Deane May 29 '22 at 19:17
  • @Deane of course you are right. That was a very silly mistake on my part! Thank you for pointing it out, I will try to see if correcting this solves the problem. – Johnny Lemmon May 30 '22 at 06:18

0 Answers0