Is it trivial that the Levi-Civita connection can be pulled back to a isometric manifold?












3












$begingroup$


Let $M, N$ be Riemannian Manifolds and $phi: M to N$ a isometric diffeomorphism. We know that we have unique Levi-Civita Connections $nabla^M, nabla^N$ on $M, N$ respectively. One can check that $tildenabla^N_V W = phi^*nabla^N_{phi_* V}phi_* W$ satisfies the properties of a Levi-Civita connection and hence (by uniqueness) $tildenabla^N = nabla^M$.



However it seems to me that this should be trivial, since $M$ and $N$ are "the same" (when identified via $phi$) as far as their differentiable structures and metrics are concerned. Since the properties of a Levi-Civita connection are expressed using only "the language of Riemannian manifolds" (i.e. smooth functions, vector fields, the metric, etc.) it seems that it should be obvious that $tildenabla^N$ is a Levi-Civita connection on $M$.



To me this seems analogous to other trivial facts like




  1. The tangent bundles of diffeomorphic manifolds are isomorphic (as vector bundles)

  2. The centers of isomorphic groups are isomorphic


(Number 1 can actually be argued to follow from the functoriality of taking tangent spaces, but AFAIK there is no suitable functor that works for 2).



So is it a valid argument to say that the Levi-Civita connection can be pulled back to $M$ because the two manifolds are "the same in every relevant aspect"?



Also is there any way to generalize this kind of argument?



EDIT: It feels to me like this question (and the other two facts I stated) are an example of the following principle:



Since $phi$ preserves all structures on $M$ and $N$ (that is a Topological space, a smooth structure and a metric) and The Levi-Civita connections only depends on these structures they are equivalent (using $phi$ to "translate" them).



For the center of a group you would argue analogously, saying that it only depends on the group structure, which is preserved by group isomorphisms. Therefore the centers must be isomorphic (with the isomorphism given by the isomorphism on the groups). And so on...










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    In my opinion, your argument is perfectly legit.
    $endgroup$
    – Amitai Yuval
    Dec 10 '18 at 18:34
















3












$begingroup$


Let $M, N$ be Riemannian Manifolds and $phi: M to N$ a isometric diffeomorphism. We know that we have unique Levi-Civita Connections $nabla^M, nabla^N$ on $M, N$ respectively. One can check that $tildenabla^N_V W = phi^*nabla^N_{phi_* V}phi_* W$ satisfies the properties of a Levi-Civita connection and hence (by uniqueness) $tildenabla^N = nabla^M$.



However it seems to me that this should be trivial, since $M$ and $N$ are "the same" (when identified via $phi$) as far as their differentiable structures and metrics are concerned. Since the properties of a Levi-Civita connection are expressed using only "the language of Riemannian manifolds" (i.e. smooth functions, vector fields, the metric, etc.) it seems that it should be obvious that $tildenabla^N$ is a Levi-Civita connection on $M$.



To me this seems analogous to other trivial facts like




  1. The tangent bundles of diffeomorphic manifolds are isomorphic (as vector bundles)

  2. The centers of isomorphic groups are isomorphic


(Number 1 can actually be argued to follow from the functoriality of taking tangent spaces, but AFAIK there is no suitable functor that works for 2).



So is it a valid argument to say that the Levi-Civita connection can be pulled back to $M$ because the two manifolds are "the same in every relevant aspect"?



Also is there any way to generalize this kind of argument?



EDIT: It feels to me like this question (and the other two facts I stated) are an example of the following principle:



Since $phi$ preserves all structures on $M$ and $N$ (that is a Topological space, a smooth structure and a metric) and The Levi-Civita connections only depends on these structures they are equivalent (using $phi$ to "translate" them).



For the center of a group you would argue analogously, saying that it only depends on the group structure, which is preserved by group isomorphisms. Therefore the centers must be isomorphic (with the isomorphism given by the isomorphism on the groups). And so on...










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    In my opinion, your argument is perfectly legit.
    $endgroup$
    – Amitai Yuval
    Dec 10 '18 at 18:34














3












3








3


1



$begingroup$


Let $M, N$ be Riemannian Manifolds and $phi: M to N$ a isometric diffeomorphism. We know that we have unique Levi-Civita Connections $nabla^M, nabla^N$ on $M, N$ respectively. One can check that $tildenabla^N_V W = phi^*nabla^N_{phi_* V}phi_* W$ satisfies the properties of a Levi-Civita connection and hence (by uniqueness) $tildenabla^N = nabla^M$.



However it seems to me that this should be trivial, since $M$ and $N$ are "the same" (when identified via $phi$) as far as their differentiable structures and metrics are concerned. Since the properties of a Levi-Civita connection are expressed using only "the language of Riemannian manifolds" (i.e. smooth functions, vector fields, the metric, etc.) it seems that it should be obvious that $tildenabla^N$ is a Levi-Civita connection on $M$.



To me this seems analogous to other trivial facts like




  1. The tangent bundles of diffeomorphic manifolds are isomorphic (as vector bundles)

  2. The centers of isomorphic groups are isomorphic


(Number 1 can actually be argued to follow from the functoriality of taking tangent spaces, but AFAIK there is no suitable functor that works for 2).



So is it a valid argument to say that the Levi-Civita connection can be pulled back to $M$ because the two manifolds are "the same in every relevant aspect"?



Also is there any way to generalize this kind of argument?



EDIT: It feels to me like this question (and the other two facts I stated) are an example of the following principle:



Since $phi$ preserves all structures on $M$ and $N$ (that is a Topological space, a smooth structure and a metric) and The Levi-Civita connections only depends on these structures they are equivalent (using $phi$ to "translate" them).



For the center of a group you would argue analogously, saying that it only depends on the group structure, which is preserved by group isomorphisms. Therefore the centers must be isomorphic (with the isomorphism given by the isomorphism on the groups). And so on...










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Let $M, N$ be Riemannian Manifolds and $phi: M to N$ a isometric diffeomorphism. We know that we have unique Levi-Civita Connections $nabla^M, nabla^N$ on $M, N$ respectively. One can check that $tildenabla^N_V W = phi^*nabla^N_{phi_* V}phi_* W$ satisfies the properties of a Levi-Civita connection and hence (by uniqueness) $tildenabla^N = nabla^M$.



However it seems to me that this should be trivial, since $M$ and $N$ are "the same" (when identified via $phi$) as far as their differentiable structures and metrics are concerned. Since the properties of a Levi-Civita connection are expressed using only "the language of Riemannian manifolds" (i.e. smooth functions, vector fields, the metric, etc.) it seems that it should be obvious that $tildenabla^N$ is a Levi-Civita connection on $M$.



To me this seems analogous to other trivial facts like




  1. The tangent bundles of diffeomorphic manifolds are isomorphic (as vector bundles)

  2. The centers of isomorphic groups are isomorphic


(Number 1 can actually be argued to follow from the functoriality of taking tangent spaces, but AFAIK there is no suitable functor that works for 2).



So is it a valid argument to say that the Levi-Civita connection can be pulled back to $M$ because the two manifolds are "the same in every relevant aspect"?



Also is there any way to generalize this kind of argument?



EDIT: It feels to me like this question (and the other two facts I stated) are an example of the following principle:



Since $phi$ preserves all structures on $M$ and $N$ (that is a Topological space, a smooth structure and a metric) and The Levi-Civita connections only depends on these structures they are equivalent (using $phi$ to "translate" them).



For the center of a group you would argue analogously, saying that it only depends on the group structure, which is preserved by group isomorphisms. Therefore the centers must be isomorphic (with the isomorphism given by the isomorphism on the groups). And so on...







proof-verification differential-geometry soft-question category-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 10 '18 at 20:31







0x539

















asked Dec 10 '18 at 18:19









0x5390x539

1,408518




1,408518












  • $begingroup$
    In my opinion, your argument is perfectly legit.
    $endgroup$
    – Amitai Yuval
    Dec 10 '18 at 18:34


















  • $begingroup$
    In my opinion, your argument is perfectly legit.
    $endgroup$
    – Amitai Yuval
    Dec 10 '18 at 18:34
















$begingroup$
In my opinion, your argument is perfectly legit.
$endgroup$
– Amitai Yuval
Dec 10 '18 at 18:34




$begingroup$
In my opinion, your argument is perfectly legit.
$endgroup$
– Amitai Yuval
Dec 10 '18 at 18:34










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

One can certainly argue that an isometry preserves the Levi-Civita connection insofar as it preserves the metric and commutes with the evaluation and Lie bracket of vector fields. However, this isn't some kind of magical contentless proof, and in particular it's not clear to me what kind of argument you're trying to generalize.



Your examples are examples of functors (in the case of the center, it's only a functor on the category of groups and isomorphisms,) and functors preserve isomorphisms, but at some point you still have to actually check that your construction is functorial. That said, if this is of interest to you, then you could certainly argue that the Levi-Civita connection gives a functor from the category of Riemannian manifolds with isometries to the category of smooth manifolds equipped with a connection on their tangent bundle and diffeomorphisms mapping the connections into each other.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    If you want to view the center as a "mapping" from Groups with isomorphisms to abelian groups isn't the functoriality equivalent to proving that isomorphic groups have isomorphic centers? So that wouldn't yield a proof of the latter fact.
    $endgroup$
    – 0x539
    Dec 10 '18 at 20:04










  • $begingroup$
    @0x539 Well, yes, that's kind of my point. I don't see any meaningful way in which these claims are "truly" trivial, or purely formal-they're just things you have to prove which are pretty easy.
    $endgroup$
    – Kevin Carlson
    Dec 11 '18 at 0:29











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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3034286%2fis-it-trivial-that-the-levi-civita-connection-can-be-pulled-back-to-a-isometric%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









3












$begingroup$

One can certainly argue that an isometry preserves the Levi-Civita connection insofar as it preserves the metric and commutes with the evaluation and Lie bracket of vector fields. However, this isn't some kind of magical contentless proof, and in particular it's not clear to me what kind of argument you're trying to generalize.



Your examples are examples of functors (in the case of the center, it's only a functor on the category of groups and isomorphisms,) and functors preserve isomorphisms, but at some point you still have to actually check that your construction is functorial. That said, if this is of interest to you, then you could certainly argue that the Levi-Civita connection gives a functor from the category of Riemannian manifolds with isometries to the category of smooth manifolds equipped with a connection on their tangent bundle and diffeomorphisms mapping the connections into each other.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    If you want to view the center as a "mapping" from Groups with isomorphisms to abelian groups isn't the functoriality equivalent to proving that isomorphic groups have isomorphic centers? So that wouldn't yield a proof of the latter fact.
    $endgroup$
    – 0x539
    Dec 10 '18 at 20:04










  • $begingroup$
    @0x539 Well, yes, that's kind of my point. I don't see any meaningful way in which these claims are "truly" trivial, or purely formal-they're just things you have to prove which are pretty easy.
    $endgroup$
    – Kevin Carlson
    Dec 11 '18 at 0:29
















3












$begingroup$

One can certainly argue that an isometry preserves the Levi-Civita connection insofar as it preserves the metric and commutes with the evaluation and Lie bracket of vector fields. However, this isn't some kind of magical contentless proof, and in particular it's not clear to me what kind of argument you're trying to generalize.



Your examples are examples of functors (in the case of the center, it's only a functor on the category of groups and isomorphisms,) and functors preserve isomorphisms, but at some point you still have to actually check that your construction is functorial. That said, if this is of interest to you, then you could certainly argue that the Levi-Civita connection gives a functor from the category of Riemannian manifolds with isometries to the category of smooth manifolds equipped with a connection on their tangent bundle and diffeomorphisms mapping the connections into each other.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    If you want to view the center as a "mapping" from Groups with isomorphisms to abelian groups isn't the functoriality equivalent to proving that isomorphic groups have isomorphic centers? So that wouldn't yield a proof of the latter fact.
    $endgroup$
    – 0x539
    Dec 10 '18 at 20:04










  • $begingroup$
    @0x539 Well, yes, that's kind of my point. I don't see any meaningful way in which these claims are "truly" trivial, or purely formal-they're just things you have to prove which are pretty easy.
    $endgroup$
    – Kevin Carlson
    Dec 11 '18 at 0:29














3












3








3





$begingroup$

One can certainly argue that an isometry preserves the Levi-Civita connection insofar as it preserves the metric and commutes with the evaluation and Lie bracket of vector fields. However, this isn't some kind of magical contentless proof, and in particular it's not clear to me what kind of argument you're trying to generalize.



Your examples are examples of functors (in the case of the center, it's only a functor on the category of groups and isomorphisms,) and functors preserve isomorphisms, but at some point you still have to actually check that your construction is functorial. That said, if this is of interest to you, then you could certainly argue that the Levi-Civita connection gives a functor from the category of Riemannian manifolds with isometries to the category of smooth manifolds equipped with a connection on their tangent bundle and diffeomorphisms mapping the connections into each other.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



One can certainly argue that an isometry preserves the Levi-Civita connection insofar as it preserves the metric and commutes with the evaluation and Lie bracket of vector fields. However, this isn't some kind of magical contentless proof, and in particular it's not clear to me what kind of argument you're trying to generalize.



Your examples are examples of functors (in the case of the center, it's only a functor on the category of groups and isomorphisms,) and functors preserve isomorphisms, but at some point you still have to actually check that your construction is functorial. That said, if this is of interest to you, then you could certainly argue that the Levi-Civita connection gives a functor from the category of Riemannian manifolds with isometries to the category of smooth manifolds equipped with a connection on their tangent bundle and diffeomorphisms mapping the connections into each other.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Dec 10 '18 at 19:13









Kevin CarlsonKevin Carlson

33.2k23372




33.2k23372












  • $begingroup$
    If you want to view the center as a "mapping" from Groups with isomorphisms to abelian groups isn't the functoriality equivalent to proving that isomorphic groups have isomorphic centers? So that wouldn't yield a proof of the latter fact.
    $endgroup$
    – 0x539
    Dec 10 '18 at 20:04










  • $begingroup$
    @0x539 Well, yes, that's kind of my point. I don't see any meaningful way in which these claims are "truly" trivial, or purely formal-they're just things you have to prove which are pretty easy.
    $endgroup$
    – Kevin Carlson
    Dec 11 '18 at 0:29


















  • $begingroup$
    If you want to view the center as a "mapping" from Groups with isomorphisms to abelian groups isn't the functoriality equivalent to proving that isomorphic groups have isomorphic centers? So that wouldn't yield a proof of the latter fact.
    $endgroup$
    – 0x539
    Dec 10 '18 at 20:04










  • $begingroup$
    @0x539 Well, yes, that's kind of my point. I don't see any meaningful way in which these claims are "truly" trivial, or purely formal-they're just things you have to prove which are pretty easy.
    $endgroup$
    – Kevin Carlson
    Dec 11 '18 at 0:29
















$begingroup$
If you want to view the center as a "mapping" from Groups with isomorphisms to abelian groups isn't the functoriality equivalent to proving that isomorphic groups have isomorphic centers? So that wouldn't yield a proof of the latter fact.
$endgroup$
– 0x539
Dec 10 '18 at 20:04




$begingroup$
If you want to view the center as a "mapping" from Groups with isomorphisms to abelian groups isn't the functoriality equivalent to proving that isomorphic groups have isomorphic centers? So that wouldn't yield a proof of the latter fact.
$endgroup$
– 0x539
Dec 10 '18 at 20:04












$begingroup$
@0x539 Well, yes, that's kind of my point. I don't see any meaningful way in which these claims are "truly" trivial, or purely formal-they're just things you have to prove which are pretty easy.
$endgroup$
– Kevin Carlson
Dec 11 '18 at 0:29




$begingroup$
@0x539 Well, yes, that's kind of my point. I don't see any meaningful way in which these claims are "truly" trivial, or purely formal-they're just things you have to prove which are pretty easy.
$endgroup$
– Kevin Carlson
Dec 11 '18 at 0:29


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3034286%2fis-it-trivial-that-the-levi-civita-connection-can-be-pulled-back-to-a-isometric%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

Plaza Victoria

In PowerPoint, is there a keyboard shortcut for bulleted / numbered list?

How to put 3 figures in Latex with 2 figures side by side and 1 below these side by side images but in...