Confirm Mistake in Nakahara's Geometry, Topology, Physics

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Bballer152
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mistake
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a potential typo in Nakahara's "Geometry, Topology, and Physics," specifically on page 319 regarding the relationship between the complex dimension of a manifold and its complexified tangent space. Participants explore the implications of this potential error and the definitions involved in complexification.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests there is a typo involving an extra (1/2) in an equality related to the complex dimension of a manifold and its tangent space.
  • Another participant notes that the meaning of "complexified" is crucial, indicating that if it refers to tensoring with complex numbers, the dimensions involved may indeed be even.
  • A third participant agrees with the splitting of dimensions but questions the validity of the text's equation, arguing that the dimensions should align differently based on their understanding of complexification.
  • A later reply supports the initial claim of a typo, asserting that the complex dimension of the holomorphic tangent bundle should match that of the manifold, using the example of M = C to illustrate the point.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of the equations and definitions involved, with some agreeing on the presence of a typo while others focus on the implications of the definitions of complexification. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the correctness of the text.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the dependence on definitions of complexification and the implications of dimensionality, noting that the discussion does not resolve these complexities.

Bballer152
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Can someone please confirm that there is a typo in Nakahara's Geometry, Topology, and Physics, on page 319 (the last line of the page) in the line following equation 8.27. There is a string of equalities, all of which make sense except the last one. I believe there should be no (1/2) in front of dim_C M, or the C should be replaced by R (reals). You don't necessarily need even need to follow the whole argument to see this (I think). This equality implies that the complex dimension of M is equal to the complex dimension of the complexified tangent space of a point in M (with the tangent space being viewed already as a 2m dimensional real vector space). Plus, there is no reason for the complex dimension of M to be even, so this equation really means trouble. I didn't see this in the errata online, however, so I'm still a little worried that my understanding is completely flawed (hence why I'm hoping this is indeed a typo!). Thanks in advance for any clarification!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
it depends on the meaning of "complexified". I don';t have the book, but if you have a complex manifold, then as a real manifold it has even dimension, so its real tangent spaces are even real dimensional.

now if "complexify: means to tensor with the complex numbers, then you do get complex spaces of even complex dimension. In this approach one then decomposes that even complex dimensional space into (1,0) and (0,1) summands, i.e. holomorphic and antiholomorphic summands.

then the complex holomorphic tangent bundle is the (1,0) part, which now no longer need have even complex dimension. so read the definitions to see if this is what is going on.
 
Yes, that splitting is exactly what's going on, but that should still mean that dim_ℂT_pM^+=dim_ℂT_pM^-=\frac{1}{2}dim_ℂT_pM^ℂ=dim_ℂM as opposed to dim_ℂT_pM^+=dim_ℂT_pM^-=\frac{1}{2}dim_ℂT_pM^ℂ=\frac{1}{2}dim_ℂM, right? (The only difference is in the last equality). The +'s and -'s correspond to the (1,0) and (0,1) summands, respectively. The point is that if dim_ℂM=m, then dim_ℂT_pM^ℂ=2m, correct? We're taking the real 2m dimensional tangent space and then complexifying it, making it 4m real dimensional. Since m doesn't have to be even, I don't even see how the text's equation is meaningful, (let alone the fact that it simply doesn't equal what it says it should).
 
i think you are right and somebody put in an extra (1/2). i.e. obviously the complex dimension of the holomorphic tangent bundle should the complex dimension of the manifold. just take M = C for an example. or as you say, the number they have isn't even an integer in this case.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
14K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K