Definition
A Poisson bracket (or Poisson structure) on a smooth manifold M is a bilinear map
that satisfies the following three properties:
- It is skew-symmetric: {f,g} = - {g,f}.
- It obeys the Jacobi Identity: {f,{g,h}} + {g,{h,f}} + {h,{f,g}} = 0.
- It obeys Leibniz's Rule with respect to the first argument: {fg,h} = f{g,h} + g{f,h}.
By skew-symmetry, the Poisson bracket automatically satisfies Leibniz's Rule with respect to the second argument. The last property basically states that the map f ↦ {f,g} is a derivation on C∞(M) for any fixed g ∈ C∞(M). Every derivation δ on C∞(M) can be written as a directional derivative (x) = (df)x((Xδ)x), where x ∈ M, for some vector field Xδ. It follows that for g ∈ C∞(M), we obtain a vector field Xg such that {f,g}(x) = (df)x((Xg)x), where x ∈ M (written more briefly, {f,g} = df(Xg)). The vector field Xg is called the Hamiltonian vector field corresponding to g. Notice that
- ,
where <⋅,⋅> is the pairing between the cotangent and tangent bundles of M. Therefore, {f,g} depends only on the differentials df and dg. Any Poisson bracket yields a map from the cotangent bundle to the tangent bundle that sends df to Xf.
Read more about this topic: Poisson Manifold
Famous quotes containing the word definition:
“The definition of good prose is proper words in their proper places; of good verse, the most proper words in their proper places. The propriety is in either case relative. The words in prose ought to express the intended meaning, and no more; if they attract attention to themselves, it is, in general, a fault.”
—Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772–1834)
“The physicians say, they are not materialists; but they are:MSpirit is matter reduced to an extreme thinness: O so thin!—But the definition of spiritual should be, that which is its own evidence. What notions do they attach to love! what to religion! One would not willingly pronounce these words in their hearing, and give them the occasion to profane them.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)
“Beauty, like all other qualities presented to human experience, is relative; and the definition of it becomes unmeaning and useless in proportion to its abstractness. To define beauty not in the most abstract, but in the most concrete terms possible, not to find a universal formula for it, but the formula which expresses most adequately this or that special manifestation of it, is the aim of the true student of aesthetics.”
—Walter Pater (1839–1894)