Author: robin [ 04 May 2010, 04:28 ] Post subject: Exercise [14.04] In short, once we have defined the covariant derivative on scalar fields and vector fields, we can work out the action on more general tensor fields by induction using the identity: , where is either an arbitrary vector field or an arbitrary covector field, the choice being such that the convariant derivative of the contracted quantity is known. Since is arbirtrary we can then recover .Because it will be useful for later questions, I will work this out explicitly.For each coordinate vector field , define the coefficients: (Note that is tensorial in the and indices by construction, but in general it will not be tensorial in the index).Now for an arbitrary vector field we use the Leibniz rule and the rule for the action of a covariant derivative on a scalar field:We now calculate the covariant derivative of a covector field . The Leibniz rule gives:In coordinates this becomes:(n.b. I changed dummy indices on the term in the last step)Since this is true for any vector field we have:Using induction, it is then straightforward to show that for an arbitrary tensor field we get the following:I'll prove the inductive step in the case of an arbitrary covariant tensor. The general case is similar (except that you need to contract contravariant indices with a covector field instead of a vector field).Suppose we have proved the identity for covariant tensors with up to indices. The case for a covariant tensor with indices is handled by contracting with a vector field (where we have renamed dummy indices in the final step). This is true for any vector field and so the induction step is proven.

 Author: Smith [ 23 Aug 2010, 13:31 ] Post subject: Re: Exercise [14.04] The equations immediately preceding and following"Since this is true for any vector field we have:"need to have some indices fixed in the gamma term (a->c,c->a)

 Author: robin [ 24 Aug 2010, 06:28 ] Post subject: Re: Exercise [14.04] Yes, I noticed that a little while back and I've been meaning to fix it. Also in the final equation, to be consistent I should really have used the dummy index j_{q+1} throughout rather than k.When I first saw this I was planning to fix it when Latex was working on the forum again but now it seems to be permanently broken.It's nice to know that someone is actually checking this stuff!

 Page 1 of 1 Archived: 07 Aug 2014 Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Grouphttp://www.phpbb.com/