Can Vector Fields be Extended to Submanifolds?

WWGD
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
7,679
Reaction score
12,407
Hi: I am going over Lee's Riemm. mflds, and there is an exercise that asks:

Let M<M' (< is subset) be an embedded submanifold.


Show that any vector field X on M can be extended to a vector field on M'.

Now, I don't know if he means that X can be extended to the _whole_ of

M', because otherwise, there is a counterexample:


dt/t on (0,1) as a subset of IR cannot be extended to the whole of IR.


Anyone know?.


What Would Gauss Do?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you sure M is not supposed to be a closed submanifold?
 
Hi. I did not see this stated, and I cannot see if it is being assumed somehow.

Only conditions I saw where that M<M' , and M embedded submanifold of M',

and a V.Field is defined in M.



Re the second issue, of extensions, I guess these extensions are local, tho

not necessarily global, right?. The answer would seem to be yes pretty

clearly, but my intuition has failed me before.
 
WWGD said:
Hi: I am going over Lee's Riemm. mflds, and there is an exercise that asks:

Let M [be a submanofld of] M'. Show that any vector field X on M can be extended to a vector field on M'.

...there is a counterexample:

dt/t on (0,1) as a subset of IR cannot be extended to the whole of IR.

Consider the function with constant value one on (0,1). How many ways can you extend it to R?
 
Chris Hillman said:
Consider the function with constant value one on (0,1). How many ways can you extend it to R?

Thanks, Chris, I am not sure I get the hint; there are uncountably many ways,

for a continuous extension, most obvious extension being f==1 in IR (attach

a line segment of slope m, m in (-oo,oo) , maybe

smaller cardinality for smooth extensions . For smoothness I would imagine

some combination of e^-x 's attached to both ends, or maybe some other

bump functions ( Lee does not specify if X is C^1 , or C^k, C^oo).

All I can think of when I think of immersed submanifolds is slice coordinates, tho

this does not seem to make sense for 1-manifolds like (0,1) in IR.


Am I on the right track?.
 
Mrmph... never mind the hint, I was looking at the wrong textbook in Lee's excellent trilogy, my mistake! Unfortunately you are using the one I don't have, but can you state the what exercise you are attempting? I might be able to obtain a copy next week. I expect we will be able to figure it out!
 
Last edited:
Yes, this is Lee's Riemannian mflds, problem 2.3, part b, p.15 in my edition.

Thanks.
 
Back
Top