Differentiability of a function on a manifold

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the differentiability of functions defined on manifolds, specifically addressing the independence of differentiability from the choice of coordinate charts. The context includes theoretical aspects of calculus on manifolds as presented in Nakahara's book, with participants exploring the implications and nuances of the definitions involved.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an argument that the differentiability of a function f:M→N is independent of the coordinate chart used, providing a detailed coordinate transformation approach.
  • Another participant acknowledges the correctness of the initial argument but cautions that not all manifolds are C∞, suggesting a limitation in the generality of the claim.
  • A third participant points out inaccuracies in the initial post, emphasizing that the discussion should focus on differentiability at specific points rather than universally, and notes complications in the relationship between different coordinate systems.
  • This participant also mentions that the subtleties of the proofs regarding the relationship between coordinate systems may not be essential for beginners in differential geometry.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the accuracy of the initial argument, with some agreeing on the general idea while others highlight specific inaccuracies and limitations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these inaccuracies and the broader applicability of the differentiability concept.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved issues regarding the assumptions about the nature of manifolds (e.g., C∞ vs. other differentiability classes) and the implications of coordinate chart restrictions on the differentiability of functions.

"Don't panic!"
Messages
600
Reaction score
8
I am currently working through Nakahara's book, "Geometry, Topology and Physics", and have reached the stage at looking at calculus on manifolds. In the book he states that "The differentiability of a function f:M\rightarrow N is independent of the coordinate chart that we use". He shows this is true in M and then leaves it as an exercise to show that it is also true in N. Here is my attempt, please could someone tell me if what I've done is correct, and if not, what the correct way is?

Let f:M\rightarrow N be a map from an m-dimensional manifold to an n-dimensional manifold N. A point p\in M is mapped to a point f(p)\in N, namely f:p\mapsto f(p). Take a chart (U,\phi) on M and (V,\psi) on N, where p\in U and f(p)\in V. Then f has the following coordinate presentation: \psi\circ f\circ\phi^{-1}:\mathbb{R}^{m}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}
If we write \phi (p)=\lbrace x^{\mu}\rbrace =x and \psi(f(p))=\lbrace y^{\alpha}\rbrace = y, then y=\psi\circ f\circ \phi^{-1} (x) is a vector-valued function of m variables.The differentiability of f is independent of the coordinate chart in N. Indeed, let (V_{1},\psi_{1}) and (V_{2},\psi_{2}) be two overlapping charts in N. Take a point q=f(p)\in V_{1}\cap V_{2}, whose coordinates by \psi_{1} are \lbrace y_{1}^{\mu}\rbrace, while those \psi_{2} are \lbrace y_{2}^{\nu}\rbrace. When expressed in terms of \lbrace y_{1}^{\mu}\rbrace, f takes the form y_{1} =\psi_{1}\circ f\circ\phi^{-1} while in \lbrace y_{2}^{\nu}\rbrace, it takes the form y_{2} =\psi_{2}\circ f\circ\phi^{-1} =\psi_{2}\circ\left(\psi^{-1}_{1}\circ\psi_{1}\right)\circ f\circ\phi^{-1}= \left(\psi_{2}\circ\psi^{-1}_{1}\right)\circ\psi_{1}\circ f\circ\phi^{-1} Now, by definition, \psi_{2}\circ\psi^{-1}_{1} is C^{\infty}, and therefore if \psi_{1}\circ f\circ\phi^{-1} is C^{\infty} with respect to y_{1}^{\mu} and \psi_{2}\circ\psi^{-1}_{1} is C^{\infty} with respect to y_{2}^{\nu}, then \psi_{2}\circ f\circ\phi^{-1}=\left(\psi_{2}\circ\psi^{-1}_{1}\right)\circ\psi_{1}\circ f\circ\phi^{-1} is also C^{\infty} with respect to y_{2}^{\nu}.

Would this be correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, that looks correct, but remember that not all manifolds are ## C^{\infty} ##
 
There are some inaccuracies, but you seem to have the right idea. Your post should be talking about an f that's "differentiable at p", and not necessarily "differentiable" (i.e. differentiable at p for all p).

If x and y are coordinate systems with p in their domains, then ##f\circ x^{-1}## is typically not equal to ##f\circ y^{-1}\circ y\circ x^{-1}##, because ##y^{-1}\circ y## is the identity map on the domain of ##y##, which typically doesn't include the entire domain of ##x##. So ##f\circ y^{-1}\circ y\circ x^{-1}## is a restriction of ##f\circ x^{-1}## to a smaller domain. This is irrelevant when we consider the partial derivatives of these functions, but it's a bit of a pain to prove that. (I don't think someone who's learning differential geometry should spend too much time on these subtleties, because they don't contribute much to your understanding).
 
Ah, ok. Thanks for your help Fredrik, there's so much to take in, but I think it's slowly starting to become clearer!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K