Simple question about definition of tangent bundle

pellman
Messages
683
Reaction score
6
So I'm trying to learn about fibre bundles and I am looking at the example of a tangent bundle.

Given a differentiable manifold M. Denote the tangent space at p \in M by T_p M. Is the definition of the tangent bundle

TM = \lbrace (p, T_p M)|p \in M \rbrace

or is it

TM = \lbrace (p, V)|p \in M , V \in T_p M\rbrace?


Maybe I'm splitting hairs but there should be standard definition of one or the other, right?

I can discuss further why I think it matters but first let's just see if anyone is certain about the answer.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
pellman said:
Is the definition of the tangent bundle
I feel I should point out that the definition of a bundle over M is a continuous map of topological spaces with codomain M. In other words, you need to specify:

1. A topological space E, which consists of
1a. A set of points |E|
1b. A topology on |E|
2. A continuous function E --> M (often called the 'projection map', or the 'structure map')
TM = \lbrace (p, T_p M)|p \in M \rbrace
Assuming you use the obvious projection map, this is a very boring bundle: the projection is bijective! And if you include the local triviality condition, the projection is actually a homeomorphism!

TM = \lbrace (p, V)|p \in M , V \in T_p M\rbrace?
Assuming you use the obvious projection map and choose the appropriate topology, this is indeed a tangent bundle. (There are many tangent bundles; they're just all isomorphic)
 
Hurkyl, you da man. Thanks for the quick response.

So bijective is bad? That's part of what I don't get. I'm following Nakahara. You can see the page I am on here http://books.google.com/books?id=cH...&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

So when he says \pi^{-1}(p)=T_p M he's being very loose with the inverse notation, right? \pi^{-1} doesn't really exist, since \pi((p,V))=p for every V \in T_p M?
 
pellman said:
So bijective is bad? That's part of what I don't get.
It would be -- roughly speaking such a bundle has only one section. If it were the tangent bundle, that would mean that there is exactly one vector field.

So when he says \pi^{-1}(p)=T_p M
He's using the "inverse image" function, and being (very slightly) liberal with equality, since with the definition you gave, the fiber should be \{ p \} \times T_p M.
 
Ok. That gives me enough to press on. I'm sure I will get it when I see other examples. Thanks again.
 
Hello! There is a simple line in the textbook. If ##S## is a manifold, an injectively immersed submanifold ##M## of ##S## is embedded if and only if ##M## is locally closed in ##S##. Recall the definition. M is locally closed if for each point ##x\in M## there open ##U\subset S## such that ##M\cap U## is closed in ##U##. Embedding to injective immesion is simple. The opposite direction is hard. Suppose I have ##N## as source manifold and ##f:N\rightarrow S## is the injective...
Back
Top