I'm studying Minkowski spacetime $\Bbb{M}$, and I would like to make the following statement about its symmetry transformations. Since $\Bbb{M}$ is the product manifold of time and space, it inherits their symmetries (i.e. translations, inversions, rotations); since it is the product manifold of $\Bbb{R}^{2}$ with the metric
$$(\eta_{\mu\nu})=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&-1\end{pmatrix}$$
and $\Bbb{R}^{2}$ with the metric
$$(-g_{ij})=\begin{pmatrix}-1&0\\0&-1\end{pmatrix}$$
it inherits the symmetries of $(\Bbb{R}^{2},\eta)$ too; since it doesn't matter which dimension is taken to be the minus-one signed one in $(\Bbb{R}^{2},\eta)$, this last product induces a total of three independent symmetries, i.e. the symmetries by boost transformations in the three directions. The statement I would like to make is: no symmetry transformation other than the former (and their compositions) is allowed (of course, as we know, this is the correct answer to the problem of the symmetries of Minkowski spacetime). How can I justify this statement without solving the equation
$$\Lambda^*\,\eta=\eta$$ ?
So, $\mathbb{R}^4$ paired with $\eta = \text{Diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)$ is an example of a Minkowski space. Thus, if we can analyze the question of isometries for this space then I expect you can lift the result via the diffeomorphism to the abstract case.
My idea is to follow the usual derivation of isometries in Euclidean three dimensional space. First, we show every isometry is the composition of an orthogonal transformation and translation (I expect this translates to Lorentz transformation [meaning $\Lambda$ such that $\Lambda^T \eta \Lambda = \eta$] and space time translation). Second, for vectors the push-forward kills the translational piece and leaves us with a Lorentz matrix for the Jacobian matrix driving the push-forward. So, the question of what isometries are given for $\eta$ acting on the tangent space to an event will boil down to analyzing what the set of Lorentz matrices looks like. That, in my view, is just linear algebra. This is a sketch. I'll fill in some of the details now and leave the hard part for later (unless this is not what you want in which case I will delete this)
The psuedo metric is defined by $d_{\eta}(p,q) = \sqrt{|\eta(q-p,q-p)|}$. An isometry of $\mathbb{R}^4$ is defined to be function $F: \mathbb{R}^4 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^4$ for which $d_{\eta}(F(p),F(q)) = d_{\eta}(p,q)$. We define a translation of space time by $T(p)=p+a$ where $p,a \in \mathbb{R}^4$. Clearly $T$ serves as an isometry since $T(q)-T(p)=q+a-(p+a)=q-p$. Likewise, we define a Lorentz Transformation to be $F(p) = \Lambda p$ where $\Lambda^T \eta \Lambda = \eta$. Here I abuse notation slightly in that $\eta(v,w) = v^T\eta w$ where $\eta$ on the LHS is a bilinear mapping yet $\eta$ on the RHS is a matrix $\text{Diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)$. Notice, $$ \eta(\Lambda v, \Lambda w) = (\Lambda v)^T\eta (\Lambda w) = v^T\Lambda^T\eta \Lambda w = v^T\eta w = \eta(v,w). $$ Hence, as a Lorentz transformation is linear $F(q)-F(p)=F(q-p)$ we have $$d_{\eta}(F(p),F(q)) = \sqrt{ | \eta(F(q-p),F(q-p))|} = \sqrt{ | \eta(q-p,q-p)|} = d_{\eta}(p,q). $$ It is easy to prove the composition of isometries is once again an isometry. What is harder is to show that any isometry can be written as a composition of a spacetime translation and a Lorentz transformation. My intuition is that I can mimic the standard Euclidean argument found in Chapter 3 of Barret O'neill's Elementary Differential Geometry to complete the story for isometries of points. Then the case of vectors will also be dealt with similarly to the story told in O'neill for the Euclidean case.
Proof: Let $p \in \mathbb{R}^4$ and consider: $$ d_{\eta}(p,0) = d_{\eta}(F(p),F(0)) = d_{\eta}(F(p),0) \ \ \Rightarrow \ \ p^T\eta p = F(p)^T \eta F(p). $$ Where I squared both sides to obtain the implication above. Likewise, for $p,q \in \mathbb{R}^4$ consider: $$ d_{\eta}(p,q)^2 = (q-p)^T\eta (q-p) = q^T\eta q - 2q^T\eta p + p^T\eta p $$ where we noted $\eta^T=\eta$ hence $v^T\eta w = w^T \eta v$ to collect the terms with $p$ and $q$ into one summand. Likewise, $$ d_{\eta}(F(p),F(q))^2 = F(q)^T\eta F(q) - 2F(q)^T\eta F(p) + F(p)^T\eta F(p). $$ However, as $F$ is an isometry we have $d_{\eta}(p,q)^2 = d_{\eta}(F(p),F(q))^2$ and as $F(0)=0$ we also have $p^T\eta p = F(p)^T \eta F(p)$ and $q^T\eta q = F(q)^T \eta F(q)$ thus cancelling terms we deduce: $$ F(q)^T\eta F(p) = q^T\eta p $$ for all $p,q \in \mathbb{R}^4$. Notice that $\eta$ defines a bilinear form $\langle x,y \rangle = x^T \eta y$ for all $x,y \in \mathbb{R}^4$. It is easy to prove: $$ \langle cx+y, z \rangle = c\langle x,z \rangle+\langle y,z \rangle$$ Moreover, the standard basis is almost orthogonal, I suppose some would call the standard basis psuedo-orthogonal and you can prove: for $(e_i)_j = \delta_{ij}$ for $i,j =0,1,2,3$ $$ x = \langle x, e_0 \rangle e_0-\langle x, e_1 \rangle e_1-\langle x, e_2 \rangle e_2-\langle x, e_3 \rangle e_3$$ as $\langle e_0, e_0 \rangle = 1$ and $\langle e_i, e_i \rangle = -1$ for $i=1,2,3$. In particular, $v=w$ if and only if $\langle v, e_i \rangle =\langle w, e_i \rangle$ for $i=0,1,2,3$. Yet, as $\langle F(e_i), F(e_j) \rangle =\langle e_i, e_j \rangle$ we can likewise prove psuedo-orthogonality of the $F(e_0),F(e_1),F(e_2),F(e_3)$ basis and obtain the result that $v=w$ if and only if $\langle v, F(e_i) \rangle = \langle w, F(e_i) \rangle$ for $i=0,1,2,3$. With this in mind, consider: $$ \langle F(cx+y),F(z) \rangle = \langle cx+y,z \rangle = c\langle x,z \rangle +\langle y,z \rangle = c\langle F(x),F(z) \rangle +\langle F(y),F(z) \rangle$$ where I used linearity of $\langle, \rangle$ in the middle. Next, use linearity of the Minkowski product once more: $$ \langle F(cx+y),F(z) \rangle = \langle cF(x)+F(y),F(z) \rangle $$ Finally, set $z=e_o,e_1,e_2,e_3$ to obtain that $F(cx+y)=cF(x)+F(y)$ for all $x,y \in \mathbb{R}^4$. Thus there exists $\Lambda \in \mathbb{R}^{4 \times 4}$ for which $F(x) = \Lambda x$. But, $F(x)^T\eta F(y) = x^T\eta y$ for all $x,y$ hence $$ (\Lambda x)^T \eta (\Lambda y) = x^T\Lambda^T \eta \Lambda y = x^T\eta y$$ for all $x,y$ and it follows $\Lambda^T \eta \Lambda = \eta$. end of proof of Lemma. $\Box$
Proof: Let $F$ be an isometry and define $G(x) = F(x)-F(0)$ notice $G(0)=F(0)-F(0)=0$ and $G$ is formed by the composition of an isometry and a translation hence is again an isometry. By the Lemma, there exists a Lorentz matrix $\Lambda$ for which $G(x) = \Lambda x$ for all $x \in \mathbb{R}^4$. Thus $F(x)=\Lambda x+F(0)$. The question of uniqueness remains. Suppose $F(x) = \Lambda_1 x+a_1$ and $F(x) = \Lambda_2 x+a_2$ note $F(0)=a_1=a_2$. Thus, $\Lambda_1 x = \Lambda_2 x$ for all $x \in \mathbb{R}^4$ hence $\Lambda_1 = \Lambda_2$ and this concludes the proof of the theorem. $\Box$