Symplectic connections are (locally) Levi-Civita connections











up vote
7
down vote

favorite
2












I was wondering... Is every symplectic connection $nabla$
on some symplectic manifold $(M,ω)$ the Levi-Civita connection of some metric $g$ on $M$? What about the local statement?










share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    7
    down vote

    favorite
    2












    I was wondering... Is every symplectic connection $nabla$
    on some symplectic manifold $(M,ω)$ the Levi-Civita connection of some metric $g$ on $M$? What about the local statement?










    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      7
      down vote

      favorite
      2









      up vote
      7
      down vote

      favorite
      2






      2





      I was wondering... Is every symplectic connection $nabla$
      on some symplectic manifold $(M,ω)$ the Levi-Civita connection of some metric $g$ on $M$? What about the local statement?










      share|cite|improve this question













      I was wondering... Is every symplectic connection $nabla$
      on some symplectic manifold $(M,ω)$ the Levi-Civita connection of some metric $g$ on $M$? What about the local statement?







      riemannian-geometry sg.symplectic-geometry connections






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Nov 26 at 21:56









      Valentino

      935




      935






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          10
          down vote













          For any Riemannian metric $g$ on a symplectic manifold $(M, omega)$ there exists (canonical) almost complex structure $J$ making these threetensors compatible (any one can be defined by other 2). compatible with $omega$, which means that $omega(_, J_)$ defines a Riemannian metric $widetilde{g}$. For such a compatible triple and the Levi-Civita connection $widetilde{nabla}$ the equation $widetilde{nabla} omega = 0$ is equivalent to $J$ being integrable thus making $(M,widetilde{g},omega, J)$ into Kähler manifold. There is plenty of symplectic manifolds which are not Kähler. So if there is metric $g$ for a non-Kähler Fedosov manifold $(M, omega, nabla)$ whose Levi-Civita connection is $nabla$ then it cannot be compatible with $omega.$






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • Oh, the question was so dumb! The answer for the local query is affirmative and is an immediate consequence of Darboux's theorem. Thank you, Vít Tuček!
            – Valentino
            Nov 26 at 23:39










          • Havin an easy answer doesn't make a question dumb. I think it's a good question and it's answer requires some nontrivial theorems.
            – Vít Tuček
            Nov 27 at 11:32










          • Wait... I was so excited that I didn't realize a lack of understanding of mine: why is it true that any Riemannian metric is the metric of some compatible triple?
            – Valentino
            Nov 27 at 13:40










          • See here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2084282/…
            – Paul Bryan
            Nov 30 at 4:55










          • @Valentino I don't know! The answer is wrong as it stands as the metric $g$ is in general NOT the compatible metric for $J$ and $omega$. I will revise the answer.
            – Vít Tuček
            Nov 30 at 10:45


















          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted










          I think I've got the answer, and it is "no", at least for the global question.



          When I started to try to understand the problem, I realized that to get some structure that is invariant by the connection we can (have to) fix the structure at some point and use parallel transport through picewise smooth paths to extend it. The resulting structure will be well-defined iff the initially fixed structure is invariant by the holonomy group at the point. The idea is then to construct some connection whose holonomy group at some point preserves some symplectic structure on the tangent space of the point but does not preserve any metric on such tanget space. To get the second feature, we may try to construct the connection in such a way that its holonomy group is unbounded. After some tries, I got the following:



          On $mathbb{R}^2$, we consider the connection $nabla$ given by begin{align*} nabla_{frac{partial}{partial x}}frac{partial}{partial x} & = yfrac{partial}{partial x} & nabla_{frac{partial}{partial x}}frac{partial}{partial y} & = 0 \
          nabla_{frac{partial}{partial y}}frac{partial}{partial y} & = xfrac{partial}{partial y} & nabla_{frac{partial}{partial y}}frac{partial}{partial x} & = 0.
          end{align*}



          The curvature $R$ of $nabla$ at $(0,0)$ is given by $R(frac{partial}{partial x}, frac{partial}{partial y}) = begin{bmatrix}
          -1 & 0 \
          0 & 1
          end{bmatrix} in GL(mathbb{R}^2) = GL(T_{(0,0)}mathbb{R}^2)$
          , and all its covariant derivatives are of the form $begin{bmatrix}
          -c & 0 \
          0 & c
          end{bmatrix}$
          at such point. Because of that and of the connectedness of $Hol(nabla, (0,0))$ (simply-connectedness of $mathbb{R}^2$), Ambrose-Singer's theorem implies that the canonical symplectic form of $T_{(0,0)}mathbb{R}^2 = mathbb{R}^2$ is invariant by $Hol(nabla, (0,0))$. On the other hand, $Hol(nabla, (0,0))$ contains the exponential of $tR(frac{partial}{partial x}, frac{partial}{partial y})$ for every $t in mathbb{R}$, and is therefore an unbounded subset of $GL(T_{(0,0)}mathbb{R}^2)$. As such, it doesn't fix any metric on $T_{(0,0)}mathbb{R}^2$.





          $ textit{edit:}$ using Levi-Civita's formula, it is easy to conclude that the connection $nabla$ defined above is not the Levi-Civita connection of any metric, even locally.
          With that in mind, Darboux's theorem shows us that for every symplectic manifold there exist some open subset $U$ of the manifold and some symplectic connection $nabla$ defined on $U$ such that $nabla$ is not the Levi-Civita connection of any metric on $U$.



          By using partitions of unity, we conclude, then, that $textbf{every symplectic manifold admits}$ $textbf{a symplectic connection that is not a}$ $textbf{Levi-Civita connection.}$






          share|cite|improve this answer










          New contributor




          Valentino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.


















            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: "504"
            };
            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',
            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%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f316280%2fsymplectic-connections-are-locally-levi-civita-connections%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            10
            down vote













            For any Riemannian metric $g$ on a symplectic manifold $(M, omega)$ there exists (canonical) almost complex structure $J$ making these threetensors compatible (any one can be defined by other 2). compatible with $omega$, which means that $omega(_, J_)$ defines a Riemannian metric $widetilde{g}$. For such a compatible triple and the Levi-Civita connection $widetilde{nabla}$ the equation $widetilde{nabla} omega = 0$ is equivalent to $J$ being integrable thus making $(M,widetilde{g},omega, J)$ into Kähler manifold. There is plenty of symplectic manifolds which are not Kähler. So if there is metric $g$ for a non-Kähler Fedosov manifold $(M, omega, nabla)$ whose Levi-Civita connection is $nabla$ then it cannot be compatible with $omega.$






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • Oh, the question was so dumb! The answer for the local query is affirmative and is an immediate consequence of Darboux's theorem. Thank you, Vít Tuček!
              – Valentino
              Nov 26 at 23:39










            • Havin an easy answer doesn't make a question dumb. I think it's a good question and it's answer requires some nontrivial theorems.
              – Vít Tuček
              Nov 27 at 11:32










            • Wait... I was so excited that I didn't realize a lack of understanding of mine: why is it true that any Riemannian metric is the metric of some compatible triple?
              – Valentino
              Nov 27 at 13:40










            • See here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2084282/…
              – Paul Bryan
              Nov 30 at 4:55










            • @Valentino I don't know! The answer is wrong as it stands as the metric $g$ is in general NOT the compatible metric for $J$ and $omega$. I will revise the answer.
              – Vít Tuček
              Nov 30 at 10:45















            up vote
            10
            down vote













            For any Riemannian metric $g$ on a symplectic manifold $(M, omega)$ there exists (canonical) almost complex structure $J$ making these threetensors compatible (any one can be defined by other 2). compatible with $omega$, which means that $omega(_, J_)$ defines a Riemannian metric $widetilde{g}$. For such a compatible triple and the Levi-Civita connection $widetilde{nabla}$ the equation $widetilde{nabla} omega = 0$ is equivalent to $J$ being integrable thus making $(M,widetilde{g},omega, J)$ into Kähler manifold. There is plenty of symplectic manifolds which are not Kähler. So if there is metric $g$ for a non-Kähler Fedosov manifold $(M, omega, nabla)$ whose Levi-Civita connection is $nabla$ then it cannot be compatible with $omega.$






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • Oh, the question was so dumb! The answer for the local query is affirmative and is an immediate consequence of Darboux's theorem. Thank you, Vít Tuček!
              – Valentino
              Nov 26 at 23:39










            • Havin an easy answer doesn't make a question dumb. I think it's a good question and it's answer requires some nontrivial theorems.
              – Vít Tuček
              Nov 27 at 11:32










            • Wait... I was so excited that I didn't realize a lack of understanding of mine: why is it true that any Riemannian metric is the metric of some compatible triple?
              – Valentino
              Nov 27 at 13:40










            • See here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2084282/…
              – Paul Bryan
              Nov 30 at 4:55










            • @Valentino I don't know! The answer is wrong as it stands as the metric $g$ is in general NOT the compatible metric for $J$ and $omega$. I will revise the answer.
              – Vít Tuček
              Nov 30 at 10:45













            up vote
            10
            down vote










            up vote
            10
            down vote









            For any Riemannian metric $g$ on a symplectic manifold $(M, omega)$ there exists (canonical) almost complex structure $J$ making these threetensors compatible (any one can be defined by other 2). compatible with $omega$, which means that $omega(_, J_)$ defines a Riemannian metric $widetilde{g}$. For such a compatible triple and the Levi-Civita connection $widetilde{nabla}$ the equation $widetilde{nabla} omega = 0$ is equivalent to $J$ being integrable thus making $(M,widetilde{g},omega, J)$ into Kähler manifold. There is plenty of symplectic manifolds which are not Kähler. So if there is metric $g$ for a non-Kähler Fedosov manifold $(M, omega, nabla)$ whose Levi-Civita connection is $nabla$ then it cannot be compatible with $omega.$






            share|cite|improve this answer














            For any Riemannian metric $g$ on a symplectic manifold $(M, omega)$ there exists (canonical) almost complex structure $J$ making these threetensors compatible (any one can be defined by other 2). compatible with $omega$, which means that $omega(_, J_)$ defines a Riemannian metric $widetilde{g}$. For such a compatible triple and the Levi-Civita connection $widetilde{nabla}$ the equation $widetilde{nabla} omega = 0$ is equivalent to $J$ being integrable thus making $(M,widetilde{g},omega, J)$ into Kähler manifold. There is plenty of symplectic manifolds which are not Kähler. So if there is metric $g$ for a non-Kähler Fedosov manifold $(M, omega, nabla)$ whose Levi-Civita connection is $nabla$ then it cannot be compatible with $omega.$







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited yesterday

























            answered Nov 26 at 22:31









            Vít Tuček

            4,93411748




            4,93411748












            • Oh, the question was so dumb! The answer for the local query is affirmative and is an immediate consequence of Darboux's theorem. Thank you, Vít Tuček!
              – Valentino
              Nov 26 at 23:39










            • Havin an easy answer doesn't make a question dumb. I think it's a good question and it's answer requires some nontrivial theorems.
              – Vít Tuček
              Nov 27 at 11:32










            • Wait... I was so excited that I didn't realize a lack of understanding of mine: why is it true that any Riemannian metric is the metric of some compatible triple?
              – Valentino
              Nov 27 at 13:40










            • See here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2084282/…
              – Paul Bryan
              Nov 30 at 4:55










            • @Valentino I don't know! The answer is wrong as it stands as the metric $g$ is in general NOT the compatible metric for $J$ and $omega$. I will revise the answer.
              – Vít Tuček
              Nov 30 at 10:45


















            • Oh, the question was so dumb! The answer for the local query is affirmative and is an immediate consequence of Darboux's theorem. Thank you, Vít Tuček!
              – Valentino
              Nov 26 at 23:39










            • Havin an easy answer doesn't make a question dumb. I think it's a good question and it's answer requires some nontrivial theorems.
              – Vít Tuček
              Nov 27 at 11:32










            • Wait... I was so excited that I didn't realize a lack of understanding of mine: why is it true that any Riemannian metric is the metric of some compatible triple?
              – Valentino
              Nov 27 at 13:40










            • See here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2084282/…
              – Paul Bryan
              Nov 30 at 4:55










            • @Valentino I don't know! The answer is wrong as it stands as the metric $g$ is in general NOT the compatible metric for $J$ and $omega$. I will revise the answer.
              – Vít Tuček
              Nov 30 at 10:45
















            Oh, the question was so dumb! The answer for the local query is affirmative and is an immediate consequence of Darboux's theorem. Thank you, Vít Tuček!
            – Valentino
            Nov 26 at 23:39




            Oh, the question was so dumb! The answer for the local query is affirmative and is an immediate consequence of Darboux's theorem. Thank you, Vít Tuček!
            – Valentino
            Nov 26 at 23:39












            Havin an easy answer doesn't make a question dumb. I think it's a good question and it's answer requires some nontrivial theorems.
            – Vít Tuček
            Nov 27 at 11:32




            Havin an easy answer doesn't make a question dumb. I think it's a good question and it's answer requires some nontrivial theorems.
            – Vít Tuček
            Nov 27 at 11:32












            Wait... I was so excited that I didn't realize a lack of understanding of mine: why is it true that any Riemannian metric is the metric of some compatible triple?
            – Valentino
            Nov 27 at 13:40




            Wait... I was so excited that I didn't realize a lack of understanding of mine: why is it true that any Riemannian metric is the metric of some compatible triple?
            – Valentino
            Nov 27 at 13:40












            See here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2084282/…
            – Paul Bryan
            Nov 30 at 4:55




            See here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2084282/…
            – Paul Bryan
            Nov 30 at 4:55












            @Valentino I don't know! The answer is wrong as it stands as the metric $g$ is in general NOT the compatible metric for $J$ and $omega$. I will revise the answer.
            – Vít Tuček
            Nov 30 at 10:45




            @Valentino I don't know! The answer is wrong as it stands as the metric $g$ is in general NOT the compatible metric for $J$ and $omega$. I will revise the answer.
            – Vít Tuček
            Nov 30 at 10:45










            up vote
            2
            down vote



            accepted










            I think I've got the answer, and it is "no", at least for the global question.



            When I started to try to understand the problem, I realized that to get some structure that is invariant by the connection we can (have to) fix the structure at some point and use parallel transport through picewise smooth paths to extend it. The resulting structure will be well-defined iff the initially fixed structure is invariant by the holonomy group at the point. The idea is then to construct some connection whose holonomy group at some point preserves some symplectic structure on the tangent space of the point but does not preserve any metric on such tanget space. To get the second feature, we may try to construct the connection in such a way that its holonomy group is unbounded. After some tries, I got the following:



            On $mathbb{R}^2$, we consider the connection $nabla$ given by begin{align*} nabla_{frac{partial}{partial x}}frac{partial}{partial x} & = yfrac{partial}{partial x} & nabla_{frac{partial}{partial x}}frac{partial}{partial y} & = 0 \
            nabla_{frac{partial}{partial y}}frac{partial}{partial y} & = xfrac{partial}{partial y} & nabla_{frac{partial}{partial y}}frac{partial}{partial x} & = 0.
            end{align*}



            The curvature $R$ of $nabla$ at $(0,0)$ is given by $R(frac{partial}{partial x}, frac{partial}{partial y}) = begin{bmatrix}
            -1 & 0 \
            0 & 1
            end{bmatrix} in GL(mathbb{R}^2) = GL(T_{(0,0)}mathbb{R}^2)$
            , and all its covariant derivatives are of the form $begin{bmatrix}
            -c & 0 \
            0 & c
            end{bmatrix}$
            at such point. Because of that and of the connectedness of $Hol(nabla, (0,0))$ (simply-connectedness of $mathbb{R}^2$), Ambrose-Singer's theorem implies that the canonical symplectic form of $T_{(0,0)}mathbb{R}^2 = mathbb{R}^2$ is invariant by $Hol(nabla, (0,0))$. On the other hand, $Hol(nabla, (0,0))$ contains the exponential of $tR(frac{partial}{partial x}, frac{partial}{partial y})$ for every $t in mathbb{R}$, and is therefore an unbounded subset of $GL(T_{(0,0)}mathbb{R}^2)$. As such, it doesn't fix any metric on $T_{(0,0)}mathbb{R}^2$.





            $ textit{edit:}$ using Levi-Civita's formula, it is easy to conclude that the connection $nabla$ defined above is not the Levi-Civita connection of any metric, even locally.
            With that in mind, Darboux's theorem shows us that for every symplectic manifold there exist some open subset $U$ of the manifold and some symplectic connection $nabla$ defined on $U$ such that $nabla$ is not the Levi-Civita connection of any metric on $U$.



            By using partitions of unity, we conclude, then, that $textbf{every symplectic manifold admits}$ $textbf{a symplectic connection that is not a}$ $textbf{Levi-Civita connection.}$






            share|cite|improve this answer










            New contributor




            Valentino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






















              up vote
              2
              down vote



              accepted










              I think I've got the answer, and it is "no", at least for the global question.



              When I started to try to understand the problem, I realized that to get some structure that is invariant by the connection we can (have to) fix the structure at some point and use parallel transport through picewise smooth paths to extend it. The resulting structure will be well-defined iff the initially fixed structure is invariant by the holonomy group at the point. The idea is then to construct some connection whose holonomy group at some point preserves some symplectic structure on the tangent space of the point but does not preserve any metric on such tanget space. To get the second feature, we may try to construct the connection in such a way that its holonomy group is unbounded. After some tries, I got the following:



              On $mathbb{R}^2$, we consider the connection $nabla$ given by begin{align*} nabla_{frac{partial}{partial x}}frac{partial}{partial x} & = yfrac{partial}{partial x} & nabla_{frac{partial}{partial x}}frac{partial}{partial y} & = 0 \
              nabla_{frac{partial}{partial y}}frac{partial}{partial y} & = xfrac{partial}{partial y} & nabla_{frac{partial}{partial y}}frac{partial}{partial x} & = 0.
              end{align*}



              The curvature $R$ of $nabla$ at $(0,0)$ is given by $R(frac{partial}{partial x}, frac{partial}{partial y}) = begin{bmatrix}
              -1 & 0 \
              0 & 1
              end{bmatrix} in GL(mathbb{R}^2) = GL(T_{(0,0)}mathbb{R}^2)$
              , and all its covariant derivatives are of the form $begin{bmatrix}
              -c & 0 \
              0 & c
              end{bmatrix}$
              at such point. Because of that and of the connectedness of $Hol(nabla, (0,0))$ (simply-connectedness of $mathbb{R}^2$), Ambrose-Singer's theorem implies that the canonical symplectic form of $T_{(0,0)}mathbb{R}^2 = mathbb{R}^2$ is invariant by $Hol(nabla, (0,0))$. On the other hand, $Hol(nabla, (0,0))$ contains the exponential of $tR(frac{partial}{partial x}, frac{partial}{partial y})$ for every $t in mathbb{R}$, and is therefore an unbounded subset of $GL(T_{(0,0)}mathbb{R}^2)$. As such, it doesn't fix any metric on $T_{(0,0)}mathbb{R}^2$.





              $ textit{edit:}$ using Levi-Civita's formula, it is easy to conclude that the connection $nabla$ defined above is not the Levi-Civita connection of any metric, even locally.
              With that in mind, Darboux's theorem shows us that for every symplectic manifold there exist some open subset $U$ of the manifold and some symplectic connection $nabla$ defined on $U$ such that $nabla$ is not the Levi-Civita connection of any metric on $U$.



              By using partitions of unity, we conclude, then, that $textbf{every symplectic manifold admits}$ $textbf{a symplectic connection that is not a}$ $textbf{Levi-Civita connection.}$






              share|cite|improve this answer










              New contributor




              Valentino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                up vote
                2
                down vote



                accepted







                up vote
                2
                down vote



                accepted






                I think I've got the answer, and it is "no", at least for the global question.



                When I started to try to understand the problem, I realized that to get some structure that is invariant by the connection we can (have to) fix the structure at some point and use parallel transport through picewise smooth paths to extend it. The resulting structure will be well-defined iff the initially fixed structure is invariant by the holonomy group at the point. The idea is then to construct some connection whose holonomy group at some point preserves some symplectic structure on the tangent space of the point but does not preserve any metric on such tanget space. To get the second feature, we may try to construct the connection in such a way that its holonomy group is unbounded. After some tries, I got the following:



                On $mathbb{R}^2$, we consider the connection $nabla$ given by begin{align*} nabla_{frac{partial}{partial x}}frac{partial}{partial x} & = yfrac{partial}{partial x} & nabla_{frac{partial}{partial x}}frac{partial}{partial y} & = 0 \
                nabla_{frac{partial}{partial y}}frac{partial}{partial y} & = xfrac{partial}{partial y} & nabla_{frac{partial}{partial y}}frac{partial}{partial x} & = 0.
                end{align*}



                The curvature $R$ of $nabla$ at $(0,0)$ is given by $R(frac{partial}{partial x}, frac{partial}{partial y}) = begin{bmatrix}
                -1 & 0 \
                0 & 1
                end{bmatrix} in GL(mathbb{R}^2) = GL(T_{(0,0)}mathbb{R}^2)$
                , and all its covariant derivatives are of the form $begin{bmatrix}
                -c & 0 \
                0 & c
                end{bmatrix}$
                at such point. Because of that and of the connectedness of $Hol(nabla, (0,0))$ (simply-connectedness of $mathbb{R}^2$), Ambrose-Singer's theorem implies that the canonical symplectic form of $T_{(0,0)}mathbb{R}^2 = mathbb{R}^2$ is invariant by $Hol(nabla, (0,0))$. On the other hand, $Hol(nabla, (0,0))$ contains the exponential of $tR(frac{partial}{partial x}, frac{partial}{partial y})$ for every $t in mathbb{R}$, and is therefore an unbounded subset of $GL(T_{(0,0)}mathbb{R}^2)$. As such, it doesn't fix any metric on $T_{(0,0)}mathbb{R}^2$.





                $ textit{edit:}$ using Levi-Civita's formula, it is easy to conclude that the connection $nabla$ defined above is not the Levi-Civita connection of any metric, even locally.
                With that in mind, Darboux's theorem shows us that for every symplectic manifold there exist some open subset $U$ of the manifold and some symplectic connection $nabla$ defined on $U$ such that $nabla$ is not the Levi-Civita connection of any metric on $U$.



                By using partitions of unity, we conclude, then, that $textbf{every symplectic manifold admits}$ $textbf{a symplectic connection that is not a}$ $textbf{Levi-Civita connection.}$






                share|cite|improve this answer










                New contributor




                Valentino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.









                I think I've got the answer, and it is "no", at least for the global question.



                When I started to try to understand the problem, I realized that to get some structure that is invariant by the connection we can (have to) fix the structure at some point and use parallel transport through picewise smooth paths to extend it. The resulting structure will be well-defined iff the initially fixed structure is invariant by the holonomy group at the point. The idea is then to construct some connection whose holonomy group at some point preserves some symplectic structure on the tangent space of the point but does not preserve any metric on such tanget space. To get the second feature, we may try to construct the connection in such a way that its holonomy group is unbounded. After some tries, I got the following:



                On $mathbb{R}^2$, we consider the connection $nabla$ given by begin{align*} nabla_{frac{partial}{partial x}}frac{partial}{partial x} & = yfrac{partial}{partial x} & nabla_{frac{partial}{partial x}}frac{partial}{partial y} & = 0 \
                nabla_{frac{partial}{partial y}}frac{partial}{partial y} & = xfrac{partial}{partial y} & nabla_{frac{partial}{partial y}}frac{partial}{partial x} & = 0.
                end{align*}



                The curvature $R$ of $nabla$ at $(0,0)$ is given by $R(frac{partial}{partial x}, frac{partial}{partial y}) = begin{bmatrix}
                -1 & 0 \
                0 & 1
                end{bmatrix} in GL(mathbb{R}^2) = GL(T_{(0,0)}mathbb{R}^2)$
                , and all its covariant derivatives are of the form $begin{bmatrix}
                -c & 0 \
                0 & c
                end{bmatrix}$
                at such point. Because of that and of the connectedness of $Hol(nabla, (0,0))$ (simply-connectedness of $mathbb{R}^2$), Ambrose-Singer's theorem implies that the canonical symplectic form of $T_{(0,0)}mathbb{R}^2 = mathbb{R}^2$ is invariant by $Hol(nabla, (0,0))$. On the other hand, $Hol(nabla, (0,0))$ contains the exponential of $tR(frac{partial}{partial x}, frac{partial}{partial y})$ for every $t in mathbb{R}$, and is therefore an unbounded subset of $GL(T_{(0,0)}mathbb{R}^2)$. As such, it doesn't fix any metric on $T_{(0,0)}mathbb{R}^2$.





                $ textit{edit:}$ using Levi-Civita's formula, it is easy to conclude that the connection $nabla$ defined above is not the Levi-Civita connection of any metric, even locally.
                With that in mind, Darboux's theorem shows us that for every symplectic manifold there exist some open subset $U$ of the manifold and some symplectic connection $nabla$ defined on $U$ such that $nabla$ is not the Levi-Civita connection of any metric on $U$.



                By using partitions of unity, we conclude, then, that $textbf{every symplectic manifold admits}$ $textbf{a symplectic connection that is not a}$ $textbf{Levi-Civita connection.}$







                share|cite|improve this answer










                New contributor




                Valentino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.









                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Dec 1 at 16:33





















                New contributor




                Valentino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.









                answered Dec 1 at 4:07









                Valentino

                935




                935




                New contributor




                Valentino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.





                New contributor





                Valentino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.






                Valentino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


                    • 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.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • 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.


                    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%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f316280%2fsymplectic-connections-are-locally-levi-civita-connections%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

                    If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

                    Alcedinidae

                    Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]