Differential structure on a half-cone

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the differential structure of a half-cone represented in Euclidean space, specifically its properties and the challenges in defining a differential manifold structure due to the apex's lack of a tangent plane. Participants explore the implications of various mappings and topological considerations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that a homeomorphism exists between the half-cone and ##\mathbb{R}^2## through projection, but expresses concern about the apex's tangent plane.
  • Another participant questions why the lack of a tangent plane at the apex is a problem, arguing that the structure is not induced from the cone as a subset of ##\mathbb{R}^3##.
  • A participant elaborates on the inclusion map ##\iota: S \mapsto \mathbb{R}^3##, proposing that it provides the half-cone with a subspace topology and questioning if this structure is compatible with the standard differential structure of ##\mathbb{R}^3##.
  • Several participants challenge the notion of the inclusion map defining a chart, noting that a chart must map to an open set in ##\mathbb{R}^2## and that the image in ##\mathbb{R}^3## is not open.
  • There is a discussion about the definition of a chart and its requirements, with participants clarifying that the inclusion map does not satisfy these conditions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of using the inclusion map to define a differential structure on the half-cone. There is no consensus on whether the proposed mappings and topological considerations adequately establish a differential manifold structure.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations regarding the definitions of charts and the requirements for open sets in the context of differential structures. The discussion remains focused on the implications of these definitions without reaching a resolution.

cianfa72
Messages
3,011
Reaction score
313
Hi,

consider an "half-cone" represented in Euclidean space ##R^3## in cartesian coordinates ##(x,y,z)## by: $$(x,y,\sqrt {x^2+y^2})$$
It does exist an homeomorphism with ##R^2## through, for instance, the projection ##p## of the half-cone on the ##R^2## plane. You can use ##p^{-1}## to get a differential manifold structure on it.

It seems good, but I've some problem with it because of lack of tangent plane on the apex with coordinates ##(0,0,0)## when we think it living in ##R^3##.

Can you help me ? thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Why is that a problem? The structure is not induced from the cone as a subset of ##\mathbb R^3##.
 
martinbn said:
Why is that a problem? The structure is not induced from the cone as a subset of ##\mathbb R^3##.
I try to elaborate a bit.

Consider the inclusion map ##\iota: S \mapsto \mathbb R^3## between the cone as subset ##S = \{x,y,\sqrt {x^2+y^2}\}## of ##\mathbb R^3## and ##\mathbb R^3## itself. Using ##\iota^{-1}## we can provide ##S## with the subspace topology induced by standard ##\mathbb R^3## topology.

Now I believe ##\iota: S \mapsto \mathbb R^3## is homeomorphism with its image in ##\mathbb R^3## thus this way we can provide a differential structure on the half-cone (not sure if it is actually the same as that defined by the half-cone projection on the ##\mathbb R^2## plane)

If what said is correct, I suppose the so defined differential structure on the half-cone ##S## is actually compatible with the ##\mathbb R^3## standard differential structure. Is that right ?
 
cianfa72 said:
Now I believe ##\iota: S \mapsto \mathbb R^3## is homeomorphism with its image in ##\mathbb R^3## thus this way we can provide a differential structure on the half-cone
How does it provide a differential structure?
 
martinbn said:
How does it provide a differential structure?
Sorry I'm a newbie on this topic, not sure to fully understand your question.
However following the definition of differential manifold, it should be suffice to define a "compatible" atlas for the half-cone ##S## and if the atlas contains just one chart (as in this case - see before) it alone basically defines the manifold as a differentiable manifold, do you ?
 
But what is that one chart? The embedding in ##\mathbb R^3## is not a chart.
 
martinbn said:
But what is that one chart? The embedding in ##\mathbb R^3## is not a chart.
Maybe I'm wrong...but the inclusion map ##\iota: S \mapsto \mathbb R^3## does not allow to define the chart ##(S,\iota)## on ##S## itself ?
 
No, a chart has to map it to ##\mathbb R^2##. Besides the image in ##\mathbb R^3## is not an open set.
 
martinbn said:
No, a chart has to map it to ##\mathbb R^2##. Besides the image in ##\mathbb R^3## is not an open set.
Just to check if I got it correctly: the inclusion map ##\iota## is good to endow the half-cone with ##\mathbb R^3## subspace topology, however it does not define a chart also because ##S## is not an open set in ##\mathbb R^3##.
Thus for the very fact that ##S## is not open in ##\mathbb R^3## it does not exist a chart to map it on ##\mathbb R^3##, right ?
 
  • #10
By the definition of a chart the image has to be an open subset.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
7K