Standard Square is not a Smooth Submanifold of R^2

In summary, the conversation discussed the problem of showing that the standard square in R^2 is not a smooth submanifold. A possible proof idea was presented, involving the use of tangent spaces and a smooth chart. The conversation also included an explanation of how this proof idea relates to the definition of an embedded submanifold.
  • #1
Bacle
662
1
"standard" Square is not a Smooth Submanifold of R^2

Hi, everyone:
I am trying to show the standard square in R^2, i.e., the figure made of the line
segments joining the vertices {(0,0),(0,1),(1,0),(1,1)} is not a submanifold of R^2.

Only idea I think would work here is using the fact that we can immerse (using inclusion)
the tangent space of a submerged manifold S into that of the ambient manifold M
, so that, at every p in S, T_pS is a subspace of T_pM .

Then the problem would be clearly at the vertices. I think we can choose a tangent
vectorX_p at, say, T_(0,0) S, and show that X_p cannot be identified with
a tangent vector in T_(0,0) R^2.

Seems promising, but it has not yet been rigorized for your protection.

Any ideas for making this statement more rigorous.?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


Immagine the square S is embedded. Then at a corner point of the square, there is a smooth chart of R² of the form D-->R² where D is a epsilon-open disk centered at the corner that maps the corner to 0 and D cap S to R\subset R²; the line (x,0).

Show that the inverse of this map is not differentiable at 0, thus spanning a contradiction. (the inverse of this map is actually the transition function btw this chart and the standard chart (R²,id) or R², which is supposed to be smooth by hypothesis. That'S why this is a contradiction.)
 
  • #3


Bacle said:
Then the problem would be clearly at the vertices. I think we can choose a tangent
vectorX_p at, say, T_(0,0) S, and show that X_p cannot be identified with
a tangent vector in T_(0,0) R^2.
This sounds like a workable proof idea. It probably helps name elements of the tangent space at (0,0) via limits of tangent vectors defined on the two adjacent sides. Why? We understand the sides, but the corners are mysterious, so we use what we know to help us understand what we don't know.
 
  • #4


quasar987 said:
Immagine the square S is embedded. Then at a corner point of the square, there is a smooth chart of R² of the form D-->R² where D is a epsilon-open disk centered at the corner that maps the corner to 0 and D cap S to R\subset R²; the line (x,0).
Maybe it's just too early in the morning, but that's not obvious to me. :frown:
 
  • #5


Oh? Well, one well-known definition\characterisation of an embedded submanifold N of a manifold M is that at every point q of N, there exists a chart (U,f) of M around q such that f(U cap N)=R^k x {0}.

Here, N=S and M=R^2, and from such a chart (U,f) around a corner point q, I think it is clear how we can construct a chart of domain D an epsilon-disk like in my post(?)
 

1. Why is a standard square not considered a smooth submanifold of R^2?

A standard square is not considered a smooth submanifold of R^2 because it contains corners, which are not smooth points on the surface. A smooth submanifold must have smooth points, meaning that the tangent plane at each point must be well-defined and consistent with the overall smoothness of the surface.

2. How does the lack of smoothness affect the properties of a standard square?

The lack of smoothness in a standard square affects its differentiability and regularity properties. Since corners are not smooth points, the surface is not differentiable at these points, and the tangent plane is not well-defined. This can lead to mathematical inconsistencies and difficulties in performing calculations and making conclusions about the surface.

3. Can a standard square be considered a smooth submanifold if the corners are rounded?

No, even if the corners of a standard square are rounded, it is still not considered a smooth submanifold. While rounding the corners may improve the differentiability and regularity properties of the surface, there will still be points where the tangent plane is not well-defined, leading to inconsistencies and difficulties in mathematical analysis.

4. What is the difference between a smooth submanifold and a piecewise smooth submanifold?

A smooth submanifold is a surface that is continuously differentiable and has a well-defined tangent plane at each point. A piecewise smooth submanifold, on the other hand, may have corners or breaks in its smoothness, but still satisfies certain smoothness conditions. In other words, a piecewise smooth submanifold is made up of smooth pieces that are connected in a non-smooth manner.

5. Are there any real-world applications where the smoothness of a submanifold is important?

Yes, the concept of smooth submanifolds is important in many fields of science and engineering, such as computer graphics, robotics, and fluid mechanics. In computer graphics, smooth surfaces are used to create more realistic and visually appealing 3D models. In robotics, smooth submanifolds are used to model and control the movements of robotic systems. In fluid mechanics, smooth submanifolds are used to study the behavior of fluid flow over surfaces, such as in aerodynamics and ship hydrodynamics.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Math Proof Training and Practice
3
Replies
80
Views
4K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
528
Back
Top