- #1
Bacle
- 662
- 1
Hi, everyone:
I am going over J.Lee's Smooth Manifolds, Chapter 3; specifically, Lemmas
3.1, 3.4, in which he states properties of derivations. Lee calls linear maps L with the
Leibniz property (i.e L(fg)(a)=f(a)L(g)+g(a)L(f) ) derivations, when these maps are
defined in a subset of R^n, and he calls these same maps tangent vectors when these
maps are defined on the tangent space of a general (abstract) manifold. So far, so good.
**Now** , what I find confusing is this: that the lemmas are cited separately,
as if the two lemmas need different proofs; I don't see why different proofs
are necessary.
The two properties cited (same properties cited in lemmas 3.1, 3.4 respectively;
a),b) below are in lemma 3.1, and a'), b') are in lemma 3.4) )
are : (f is in C^oo(M) , a is a point in R^n , p is any point on the manifold M)
a) If f is a constant function, then Lf=0
b) If f(a)=g(a) , then L(fg)(a)=0
a') If f is a constant function, then Xf=0
b') If f(p)=g(p)=0 , then X(fg)(p)=0
The proof for a),b) are straightforward :
a) L(c)=X(1c)=1X(c)+cX(1)=cX(1)+cX(1)
b) L(fg)(p)=f(p)L(g)+g(p)L(f)
Now, why do we need separate proofs of the same facts for a') and b').?
Thanks.
I am going over J.Lee's Smooth Manifolds, Chapter 3; specifically, Lemmas
3.1, 3.4, in which he states properties of derivations. Lee calls linear maps L with the
Leibniz property (i.e L(fg)(a)=f(a)L(g)+g(a)L(f) ) derivations, when these maps are
defined in a subset of R^n, and he calls these same maps tangent vectors when these
maps are defined on the tangent space of a general (abstract) manifold. So far, so good.
**Now** , what I find confusing is this: that the lemmas are cited separately,
as if the two lemmas need different proofs; I don't see why different proofs
are necessary.
The two properties cited (same properties cited in lemmas 3.1, 3.4 respectively;
a),b) below are in lemma 3.1, and a'), b') are in lemma 3.4) )
are : (f is in C^oo(M) , a is a point in R^n , p is any point on the manifold M)
a) If f is a constant function, then Lf=0
b) If f(a)=g(a) , then L(fg)(a)=0
a') If f is a constant function, then Xf=0
b') If f(p)=g(p)=0 , then X(fg)(p)=0
The proof for a),b) are straightforward :
a) L(c)=X(1c)=1X(c)+cX(1)=cX(1)+cX(1)
b) L(fg)(p)=f(p)L(g)+g(p)L(f)
Now, why do we need separate proofs of the same facts for a') and b').?
Thanks.