12

Everywhere I have looked, the jet bundle is defined as the fiber bundle of equivalence classes for the partial derivatives of functions from one manifold to another. However, it is easy to see that the 1-jet bundle for real functions on a manifold $M$ is actually just $\Bbb R \times T ^*M$, and a function $f \in C^\infty(M)$ will have its 1-jet given by $(f(p), \text d f_p)$. If $f : M \to N$ were instead a smooth function between manifolds, the differential is now a linear operator from $TM \to TN$, so at every point $p \in M$, we could identify it with a tensor in $T_p M \otimes T_{f(p)} ^* N$. Thus, the 1-jet bundle could be given by $N \times (TM \boxtimes TN)$ where $\boxtimes$ is the external tensor product bundle. More specifically, every element in $TM \boxtimes TN$ has the form $$ (p, q, L) \quad (p, q) \in M \times N, L \in T_p M \otimes T_q N, $$ so the 1-jet of $f$ could be written as $(f(p), (p, f(p), \text d f_p))$. Now I have two questions: is this construction correct? If it is, how could we generalize it to k-jet bundles?

Sophie
  • 298

1 Answers1

8

In principle, the constructions you suggest are correct, some of the details are not as far as I can see. For $J^1(M,\mathbb R)$, $T^*M\times\mathbb R$ looks correct. For $J^1(M,N)$ you should have $T^*M\boxtimes TN$. This is a bundle of $M\times N$, the components of the projection are the source and target projections of the jet and the fiber over $(p,q)$ is $L(T_pM,T_qN)$ which is exactly what you expect. But already here you can see that putting $N=\mathbb R$, you have to make some identifications to recover what you propose as a definition of $J^1(M,\mathbb R)$. It is not clear to me, why you would call such a description more straightforward. Of course, you can identify many jet bundles and jet space with more well known objects but probably the notion of jets is very flexible and universal.

I think it is important to realize in the beginning that there is a natural and universal notions of two maps having $k$th order contact in a point and this is the basic equivalence relation used in defining jets. This is often phrased in the way you state in the question (i.e. via Taylor developments in local coordinates), but there are other nice ways to phrase it, which are independent of coordinates. To describe $k$th order contact for functions $f,g:M\to N$ in $p\in M$, you can for example look at smooth curves $c:I\to M$ with $c(0)=p$ and smooth function $\phi:N\to\mathbb R$ an require that for all such choices you get $(\phi\circ f\circ c)^{(i)}(0)=(\phi\circ g\circ c)^{(i)}(0)$ for all $i=0,\dots k$. Alternatively, you can also require that $f(p)=g(p)$, $T_pf=T_pg$ and the iterated tangent maps $TTf$ and $TTg$ and so on for up to $k$ copies of $T$ agree in the fibers over $p$. Once this definition is there, you get a universal description of jets of all orders of functions between manifolds and sections of bundles, including functorial properties, etc. Say for a smooth function $h:N\to P$, and any $k$, you get a map $h_*:J^k(M,N)\to J^k(M,P)$ induced by $f\mapsto h\circ f$ and a map $h^*:J^k(P,M)\to J^k(N,M)$ induced by $g\mapsto f\circ g$. If you try to give explicit descriptions of jet bundles in the spirit of your question, then you'll need an ad hoc description of these induced maps in each case. And going to $k>1$, you would need iterated tangent bundles and their duals, which are not easy to handle either.

Andreas Cap
  • 22,675
  • I very much enjoyed your answer, could you provide a reference for the alternative iterated tangent bundle version? I hadnt come across it before. if you are curious, its to better understand this construction: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/841531/can-we-physically-interpret-frames-on-the-tangent-space-of-the-frame-bundle-of-s?noredirect=1#comment1911018_841531 – R. Rankin Jul 06 '25 at 07:04
  • There is not too much to say about the "iterated tangent bundle version". Since you can form $TM$ for any $M$, forming $TTM$ and iteratively $T^kM$ for all $k$ is no problem. If you write out the standard trivializations in the case of $TTM$ it is easy to see that $TTf$ encodes the second derivatives of $f$ and with a bit of care about the base points you get the necessary results. The best reference in that direction probably is the Kolar-Michor-Slovak book that you mention in the question you have linked to, which also contains other material on $TTM$. But there are many possibilities ... – Andreas Cap Jul 07 '25 at 07:45
  • then the relevant case local charts or diffeomorphisms does make sense as taking iterations of $FM$ or $F^k M$ ? locally seems really similar to the nonholonomic higher order frame bundles – R. Rankin Jul 08 '25 at 00:20
  • Iterating $F$ is much worse than just looking as non-holonomic frames. The fiber variables in $FM$ play a completely different role than the base variables. Also dimensions go up way to quickly in $F^kM$. There are concepts to form a jet prolongation of a principal fiber bundle (also discussed in the Kolar-Michor-Slovak book), a direct approach won't work here. – Andreas Cap Jul 09 '25 at 12:54
  • Thank you. I was led down this path initially via cordero, dodson and De Leons "Differential Geometry of Frame Bundles" where they describe a natural embedding of $J^{1} _{n}(FM)$ into FFM (around page 17) so i figured I can always reduce $F^k M$ to J$^k M$ I have the kolar Michor Slovak book in print, Ill have to dig into this. Im learning it all as i go Im coming from a physics background here, less formal math, but willing to learn always – R. Rankin Jul 10 '25 at 16:42
  • @Andreas_Cap if we consider a linear frame $e^a$ on M as a fibe rcoordinate on FM in the standard way then its compatible connection $\omega^{ab}$ defined by $de^a$ is just a fiber-wise frame and hence a fiber coordinate on fibers if FFM over FM. to which we can again define a frame again and so on...cant we just relate these all to higher order approximations of local charts on the base M? it almsot seems like jets are missing some of the possibilities $F^k M$ has – R. Rankin Sep 10 '25 at 04:50
  • what i mean is $(\partial \omega^{ab} / \partial e^a )(\partial e^a /\partial x^c) \neq (\partial \omega^{ab} / \partial x^c)$ they have different information? – R. Rankin Sep 10 '25 at 04:54