Originally posted by turin
But now it does make sense to me that the points in the manifold exist, period. The coordinate system is a way to keep track of them, like assigning an index to the elements of a set?
yeah, this sounds good. the points in the manifold are the points, and there may be many different coordinate systems that you can use to label the point, but we think of the point existing in some sense independently of which coordinate system we use.
Since the points are not discrete elements, we can't use an index (at least not like i = 1,2,3,...), so we use a continuous variable and call it a coordinate. Just like I could index the elements of a set differently, I can use a different coordinate.
yep
But now I am confused about why one needs two coordinates instead of one.
you need n coordinates, where n is the dimension of the manifold.
Is there no way to use just one coordinate to indicate points.
only if the manifold is 1 dimensional (a curve)
I am having trouble shifting my mind from elements of a set needing only one index and points in a manifold needing more than one coordinate.
if you label the elements of the set A with an index i, then you would use two indices (i,j) to label the elements of the set AxA. in the same sense, you need one real number to specify a point on the line (=R), 2 real numbers to specify a point on the plane (=RxR), etc.
i guess in a set theoretic sense, you don t actually
need two indices. the cartesian product of two sets has the same cardinality, so you could count the elements of the new set with the same index, if you had a mind to, but this would muck up the other nice properties of the set, so it is much preferred to just stick to the double index concept.
(I am at this point going to assume that my analogy was correct that points:manifold::elements:set)
yes, its a good analogy
In a vector space, I've got the idea of linear independence dictating how many independent vectors I will need in my basis to span the vector space, so the dimension is clear. I don't see the same indicator in a manifold.
perhaps it would be useful to know the definition of a manifold. leaving out some technical details, the definition is this: an n-dimensional manifold is a space X such that for any point x in X, there is a neigborhood of x U and a continuous invertible map with continuous inverse (homeomorphism) between U and R
n
in other words, if you look at a manifold up closely enough, it looks like R
n. these local homeomorphisms are the charts of the manifold, they are the coordinates.
Can you explain the collection of functions a bit?
perhaps it would be useful to see an example. a sphere can be written as the map (u,v)\mapsto(\sin u\cos v,\sin u\sin v,cos v). here u and v are the coordinates. there are two of them because a sphere is a 2 dimensional manifold
But I thought that the tangent planes for any two points, no matter how close they are, have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
thats right. nothing at all (unless you like chroots approximations above. i don t.)
Unless I'm allowed to, in some sense, take the tangent plane with me, then I have to go from one to another. But, if adjacent tangent planes have nothing to do with each other, then this process seems disjoint, abrupt, or something. There just seems to be a discontinuity here, but I can't put my finger on it. I'll have to let this idea soak in my mind, too.
i m not sure what exactly you re saying here. i can assure you that, for example, if you have a smooth curve on the manifold, then this curve will have a tangent vector which is in the tangent space to the manifold at each point the curve passes through. furthermore, this tangent vector to the curve will vary from tangent space to tangent space, as the curve goes along, in a smooth way.
there is no discontinuity. perhaps it would be useful to know the following fact: a smooth manifold, together with the tangent space at each point, considered as one larger set, is also a smooth manifold. this manifold is called the tangent bundle.