Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generated
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

Mean-curvature variation and the stationary lapse equation

Statement

Let (M,g) be a smooth time-oriented Lorentzian four-manifold, and let Fs be a smooth local variation through spacelike embeddings of a smooth spacelike hypersurface Σ=F0(Σ), with F0 the inclusion. Write n for the future unit normal, h for the induced metric, k(U,V)=−g(∇Un,V), and H=div⁡gn=−tr⁡hk. Let the variational vector field be V=an+X, where X is tangent and a=−g(V,n). Then the derivative at s=0 of the pulled-back mean curvature is Δha−(∣k∣h2+Ric⁡(n,n))a+X(H). Here Δh=div⁡hgrad⁡h and ∣k∣h2=hijhpqkipkjq.

If H=0 on Σ and a Killing field T decomposes along it as T=Nn+X, then ΔhN=(∣k∣h2+Ric⁡(n,n))N. This local identity asserts no boundary values or normalization at an end.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

The spacelike hypersurface data give the future normal, induced metric, sign convention for k, mean curvature and normal–tangential decomposition. Spacelike sections, maximality and lapse–shift data

[F2]

The mean-curvature map pulls the mean curvature of each admissible spacelike graph back to the original hypersurface. Normal graphs and the nonlinear mean-curvature map

[F3]

A Killing field has local flow preserving g, and the curvature convention is R(U,V)W=∇U∇VW−∇V∇UW−∇[U,V]W, with Ric⁡bd=Rabad. The Killing condition and curvature convention are supplied by the stationary data; flow invariance follows from vanishing metric Lie derivative on each local flow domain. Stationary Lorentzian data and tensor conventions A tensor field is flow-invariant exactly when its Lie derivative vanishes

[F4]

The smooth nondegenerate metric has a unique torsion-free metric-compatible connection, extended to tensor fields. Existence and uniqueness of the metric-selected connection of a nondegenerate metric, and its extension to tensor fields

[F5]

For the smooth induced Riemannian metric h, the intrinsic operators satisfy h(grad⁡ha,U)=U(a), Hess⁡ha(U,W)=h(∇Uhgrad⁡ha,W), and div⁡hZ=tr⁡(U↦∇UhZ), where ∇h is the Levi–Civita connection of h. Thus Δha=tr⁡hHess⁡ha=div⁡hgrad⁡ha. Gradient hessian and divergence connection formulas Laplace–Beltrami operator as the trace of the Hessian

[F6]

The curvature tensor of a smooth time-oriented Lorentzian four-manifold with its metric-selected connection has the algebraic curvature symmetries, in particular R(U,W)Z=−R(W,U)Z, with the curvature and Ricci conventions used here. The algebraic symmetries of the curvature tensor and the symmetry of the Ricci and Einstein tensors

Proof

Given: The variation and geometric data in the Statement.

Goal: Derive the variation formula and its consequence for a maximal hypersurface moved by a Killing flow.

1.1givenF1F4F5

First suppose V=an. In local coordinates xi on Σ, put ei=∂iFs and Kij=g(∇ein,ej)=−kij at s=0. Differentiating g(n,n)=−1 and g(n,ei)=0, using torsion-freeness and [∂s,ei]=0, gives ∇∂sn=grad⁡ha at s=0. Metric compatibility also gives h˙ij=2aKij and h˙ij=−2aKij.

2.1F1F3F4F5F6step 1.1

Commuting the covariant derivatives by the curvature convention and differentiating Kij gives K˙ij=∇ih∇jha+a g(R(n,ei)n,ej)+aKipKpj, where ∇h is the Levi–Civita connection of h. Using tr⁡hHess⁡ha=Δha from F5, tracing this identity and including h˙ijKij yields H˙=Δha−a∣k∣h2+ahijg(R(n,ei)n,ej). The displayed Ricci convention and the curvature symmetries of the metric-compatible torsion-free connection give hijg(R(n,ei)n,ej)=−Ric⁡(n,n), proving the formula for a normal variation.

3.1givenF2step 2.1

For a general variation, locally reparametrize the domain by a time-dependent diffeomorphism whose initial velocity cancels X. The resulting variation has initial velocity an; differentiating the scalar pullback under the inverse reparametrization adds X(H). This proves the stated formula for arbitrary V; the graph mean-curvature map uses the same pullback convention.

4.1givenF1F3F4step 3.1∎

By F3 the local flow of a Killing field consists of local isometries. Transporting ∇ by a local isometry gives a torsion-free metric-compatible connection, which equals ∇ by uniqueness in F4. The flow starts at the identity and hence preserves future direction on its local flow domain. It therefore carries the future normal and mean curvature of Σ to those of the image hypersurface. Its pulled-back mean curvature is therefore constant in the flow parameter. Its variational field is T=Nn+X; if H=0, then X(H)=0, and the variation formula gives the stated lapse equation. The calculation is local and imposes no boundary or asymptotic condition.

External input

Gourgoulhon records the maximal-slicing lapse equation under the 3+1 Einstein-equation conventions; the more general geometric variation above is derived locally.

Depends on

Used by · 8

Dependency tree · 2 levels

Each result is drawn at its shortest distance from this item. Arrows run from prerequisites to the items that use them; this item has a heavier outline. External source nodes link directly to the cited text. The view shows up to two dependency steps; open a prerequisite to continue.

External dependencies

E. Gourgoulhon, 3+1 Formalism and Bases of Numerical Relativity (2007) · Section 9.2.2, equations (9.4) and (9.15), printed pp. 153–155

A maximal slicing has zero mean curvature and obeys the displayed elliptic lapse equation when the maximal condition is maintained.

Hypotheses: The 3+1 foliation and Einstein-equation conventions used in the cited section.

Reading limits: Consulted Section 9.2.2, equations (9.4) and (9.15), printed pp. 153 and 155 (PDF pages 153 and 155). These equations record maximal slicing and its elliptic lapse equation under the stated Einstein-equation conventions. This is background only; the full geometric variation formula and its sign conventions are proved locally below.

Sources