Why such cotangent space have $dx_i$ instead of $d/dx_i$ as part of their basis?

403 Views Asked by At

DEFINTION OF TANGENT BUNDLE:
Given a smooth manifold $M \subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$ embedded as a hypersurface represented by the vanishing locus of a function $f \in C^{\infty}\left(\mathbb{R}^{n}\right)$ with the condition that $\nabla f \neq 0$, the tangent bundle is $$ T M=\left\{(x, v) \in T \mathbb{R}^{n}: f(x)=0, d f_{x}(v)=0\right\} $$

My question is since $d f_{x}(v)=\nabla f(x) \cdot v=0$ so doesnt this mean $v=(dx_1,...,dx_{n-1})$ assuming a point in $M$ has the local coordinate representation $(x_1,...,x_{n-1})$. I am writing $v=(dx_1,...,dx_{n-1})$ under the impression that if I expand $\nabla f(x) \cdot v$ I get the form $\sum df/dx_i \cdot dx_i$ and so I have grouped up $dx_i$ to form $v$, since as we know, gradient is perpendicular to the hypersurface so $v$ must be the tangent.

$ \Rightarrow$ $TM$ has the representation $(x_1,...,x_{n-1},dx_1,...,dx_{n-1})$

If this is the case, why do we write the 1-forms which belongs to the space of $T^*M$ as $$\alpha=\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \xi_{i} d x_{i}$$ where $\xi_i \in \mathbb{R}$. Shouldn't it be something like $$\alpha=\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \xi_{i} \frac{d}{d x_{i}}$$

Where did I go wrong?


The idea behind me asking this question is, I understand the directional derivative definition of tangent vectors (I might be wrong here), but as soon as I view it from the perspective of my manifold being represented by $f(x)=0$ on some bigger embedding then directional derivative seems to take up a different meaning.


Alternatively,

How does one derive that a 1-form can be expressed as $$\alpha=\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \xi_{i} d x_{i}$$

I should add that I am not a vigorous mathematician, so its very likely that I might be defining/interpreting something wrong.

2

There are 2 best solutions below

2
On BEST ANSWER

$\newcommand{\dd}{\partial}$There's an important distinction between "ambient" and "intrinsic" coordinates. This may not exactly answer your question, but is too long for a comment.

Let's look at the unit circle $M$ as an example: $$ f(x_{1}, x_{2}) = x_{1}^{2} + x_{2}^{2} - 1 = 0. $$ Neither ambient coordinate $x_{1}$ or $x_{2}$ is a global coordinate, but at each point of $M$, either $x_{1}$ or $x_{2}$ (or at most points, both) can be used as a local intrinsic coordinate.

Differentiating the preceding equation gives $$ df(x_{1}, x_{2}) = 2x_{1}\, dx_{1} + 2x_{2}\, dx_{2} = 0. $$ If $(x_{1}, x_{2})$ is a point of the circle, then a vector $v = (v_{1}, v_{2})$ in the plane is tangent to $M$ at $(x_{1}, x_{2})$ if and only if $$ df(x_{1}, x_{2}) v = 2x_{1}\, dx_{1}(v) + 2x_{2}\, dx_{2}(v) = 2x_{1}v_{1} + 2x_{2}v_{2} = 0. $$ The components of $v$ are not $dx_{1}$ and $dx_{2}$ themselves, but the values of these ambient coordinate $1$-forms on $v$. In this example, the vector $v$ is tangent to $M$ at $(x_{1}, x_{2})$ if and only if there is a real number $\lambda$ such that $(v_{1}, v_{2}) = \lambda(-x_{2}, x_{1})$.

What about coordinate vector fields? If we use $x_{1}$ as local coordinate (which we're free to do except at the points $(\pm1, 0)$ where the tangent line is vertical), then in this example $x_{2} = \sqrt{1 - x_{1}^{2}}$ on the upper semi-circle, or $x_{2} = -\sqrt{1 - x_{1}^{2}}$ on the lower semi-circle.

Since $\frac{\dd}{\dd x_{1}}$ has horizontal component $1$, we have $\frac{\dd}{\dd x_{1}} = (1, \mp\frac{x_{1}}{\sqrt{1 - x_{1}^{2}}})$, with the sign chosen depending on location. Every vector field on the circle may be written in an $x_{1}$-coordinate neighborhood as $v_{1}(x_{1})\, \frac{\dd}{\dd x_{1}}$ for some function $v_{1}$, or as $(x_{1}, v_{1}(x_{1}))$. (Note: There is only one summand because the circle is $1$-dimensional, even though there are two ambient coordinates.)

Expressing vector fields in terms of the local coordinate $x_{2}$ (which we may do except at $(0, \pm1)$) is similar.

These manifold coordinates obtained by restricting ambient coordinates are not especially elegant, but the point is to illustrate how coordinate notation works in this situation.

12
On

It's really all just choices of notation, so you have to be very explicit with your notation. However, you have a totally valid confusion here, and this is a common issue people have with the gradient.

Technically $\nabla f$ is a vector field, not a $1$-form, so it doesn't actually make sense to apply $\nabla f$ to a tangent vector. However, we can still take the dot product $\nabla f\cdot v$. It only makes sense to take dot products with vectors in the same vector space, so actually the basis vectors of $\nabla f$ and $v$ should be the same.

To make this more natural, we really want to use $df$, which is dual to $\nabla f$. In coordinates, $\nabla f$ is a column vector, while $df$ is a row vector. We can then apply $df$ to a tangent vector, and this corresponds to multiplying a $1\times n$ matrix with an $n\times 1$ matrix. So the basis of $df$ should be dual to that of $v$.