I Clarification about submanifold definition in ##\mathbb R^2##

cianfa72
Messages
2,856
Reaction score
302
TL;DR
Clarification about submanifold definition and diffeomorphisms involved in ##\mathbb R^2##
Hi,
a clarification about the following: consider a smooth curve ##γ:\mathbb R→\mathbb R^2##. It is a injective smooth map from ##\mathbb R## to ##\mathbb R^2##. The image of ##\gamma## (call it ##\Gamma##) is itself a smooth manifold with dimension 1 and a regular/embedded submanifold of ##\mathbb R^2##.

Since it is a regular submanifold there is a global chart ##(\phi, \mathbb R^2)## such that ##\Gamma## is represented as ##(x,0),x∈\mathbb R##. Restricting such a chart to ##\Gamma## we get the manifold structure on it w.r.t. the inclusion map ##i:\Gamma ↪\mathbb R^2## is an embedding. So far so good.

My point is: is the above map ##γ:\mathbb R→\mathbb R^2## a diffeomorphism onto its image ? I believe the answer is positive.
##\Gamma## indeed is diffeomorphic to ##\mathbb R## by definition of chart. Now the composition ##g = \phi \circ \gamma## is a continuous injective map ##g: \mathbb R \rightarrow \mathbb R##. By virtue of Invariance of domain theorem ##g## is an homeomorphism hence the map ##\gamma## is actually a differentiable homeomorphism onto its image (i.e. a diffeomorphism onto the image).
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I haven't done differential geometry in a while, so sorry if I say something wrong here. I think since ##g## isn't the identity map, you haven't proven that the inverse of ##\gamma## is differentiable.

Consider the map ##\gamma: x\to (x^3,0)##. Then the inverse is easy to compute as ##(z,0)\to z^{1/3}##. This is not differentiable. There are obviously choices of ##\phi:\Gamma\to \mathbb{R}## for which ##\phi \circ \gamma## is smooth (e.g. ##\phi(z,0)=z##), but this doesn't mean ##\gamma## is a diffeomorphism.
 
Office_Shredder said:
I haven't done differential geometry in a while, so sorry if I say something wrong here. I think since ##g## isn't the identity map, you haven't proven that the inverse of ##\gamma## is differentiable.
Ah yes, that makes sense. Indeed from Invariance of domain theorem it follows that ##g## is a smooth homeomorphism ##g: \mathbb R \rightarrow \mathbb R## (i.e. it is a differentiable/smooth homeomorphism however we cannot claim the inverse map ##g^{-1}## is a differentiable/smooth map too).

So, from a general point of view, even though the image ##\Gamma## of a smooth curve ##\gamma## is a regular/embedded submanifold of ##\mathbb R^2##, the map ##\gamma## itself may or may not be a diffeomorphism onto its image ##\Gamma##.
 
Last edited:
I think ##\gamma## is locally a diffeomorphism with its image whenever its derivative is an injective linear map.
 
Office_Shredder said:
I think ##\gamma## is locally a diffeomorphism with its image whenever its derivative is an injective linear map.
Yes, that is the definition of smooth immersion: if ##\gamma## is an immersion from ##\mathbb R## in ##\mathbb R^2## then it is a local diffeomorphism.
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit confused by the conditions on the existence of coordinate basis given by Frobenius's theorem. Namely, let's take a n-dimensional smooth manifold and a set of n smooth vector fields defined on it. Suppose they are pointwise linearly independent and do commute each other (i.e. zero commutator/Lie bracket). That means they span the entire tangent space at any point and since commute, they define a local coordinate basis. What does this mean? Well, starting from any point on the...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
2K