Hypersurfaces of R^n are Orientable

  • Thread starter WWGD
  • Start date
In summary: I would like to see the proof in Milnor's book (but I am open to other sources) and perhaps we could read it together.In summary, the conversation discusses the result that every closed hypersurface of ##\mathbb{R}^n## is orientable, and how this result can be used to show that ##\mathbb{RP}^n## cannot be embedded in ##\mathbb{R}^{n+1}##. There is a mention of a theorem stating that every hypersurface can be represented as ##f^{-1}(0)##, and a question about how Alexander duality plays a role in the proof. The expert summarizer provides a simplified version of Alexander Duality that
  • #1
WWGD
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,003
10,420
Anyone know how to prove the result that every closed hypersurface of ## \mathbb R^n ## , i.e., any closed (n-1)-submanifold of ## \mathbb R^n ## is orientable? Note that if we assume this is true, this shows ## \mathbb RP^n ## cannot be embedded in ## \mathbb R^{n+1} ##

EDIT: there is a result that every hypersurface can be represented as ## f^{-1}(0)## , where I think ##f## is at least an immersion. I heard this has to see too with Alexander duality but I don't see clearly where this duality comes into place, though.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Correct this if it s wrong but I think it works.

If the compact smooth manifold ##M ## is embedded in ## R^{n+1}## then it has a tubular neighborhood, ## T ## ,with boundary another compact manifold,N.
The Z cohomology of the pair ## (T,N) ## is equal to the cohomology of ##S^{n+1}## since ##S^{n+1}## is homeomorphic to the Thom space of the normal bundle of ##M## in ## R^{n+1}##. This is proved using Excision.

The exact homology of the pair, (T,N), is

## 0 ← H^{n+1}(S^n) ← H^n(N) ← H^n(M) ← H^n(S^{n+1}) ← ... ##

which is ## 0 ← Z ← H^n(N) ← H^n(M) ← 0 ← ... ##

If ##M## is non orientable then ## N ## is connected so that ##H^n(N)## is equal to ##Z## and ##H^n(M)## is equal to ## Z_{2}##

So the exact sequence is

## 0 ← Z ← Z ← Z_{2} ← 0 ← ... ##

which is impossible.

If ##M## is orientable then ## N ## has two diffeomorphic components so that ##H^n(N## is equal to ##Z ⊕ Z## and ##H^n(M)## is equal to ## Z##

So the exact sequence is

## 0 ← Z ← Z ⊕Z← Z← 0 ← ... ##

which is possible.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Can you see why/how Alexander duality plays a role here? Sorry, I don't understand enough about Thom spaces to understand the answer. I am aware of excision and the LES associated to it, and I understand the argument otherwise, but maybe if you can see where/if Alexander duality is applied?
 
  • #4
WWGD said:
Can you see why/how Alexander duality plays a role here? Sorry, I don't understand enough about Thom spaces to understand the answer. I am aware of excision and the LES associated to it, and I understand the argument otherwise, but maybe if you can see where/if Alexander duality is applied?

I don't really know the Alexander Duality theorem but here is a simplified version that is given as an exercise in Milnor's Characteristic Classes that answers your question.

BTW: I would be happy to learn the proof with you.

If K is a compact subset of the sphere, ##S^n## that is a retract of some neighborhood in ##S^n## then using ordinary homology, there is an isomorphism between
## H^{i-1}(K,x) ## and ## H_{n-i}(S^n - K,y)## where ##x## is a point of ##K## and ##y## is a point of ##S^n-K##


An embedded compact smooth submanifold is a retract of a tubular neighborhood so the conditions are satisfied.

If ## i - 1 = n - 1 ## as in the case of a hyper-surface the isomorphism says
## H^{n-1}(K,x) ## and ## H_{0}(S^n - K,y)## are isomorphic.

But ##H_{0}(S^n - K,y)## is a direct sum of one less than the number of connected components of ## S^n-K## copies of ##Z##

Since ##H^{n-1}(K,x) ## is not zero the number of connected components must be greater than one so ## H_{0}(S^n - K,y)## is not the zero group but is a direct sum of at least one copy of ##Z##..

But if ##K## is non orientable its top cohomology is ##Z_{2}## and so can not be isomorphic to a torsion free group.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Nice, thanks. Sure, we can agree to read the proof together. My situation is a bit uncertain at this point, if you can be flexible, I would be glad to work it out with you. BTW, I read that Alexander Duality is a generalization of the Jordan
Curve thm., in that it deals with the topology of complementary subspaces ( with complementary meaning their union is the whole space). A.De studies the homological properties of complementary subspaces. The homological properties of a set can be defined in terms of those in the complement
...http://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Alexander_duality
 
  • #6
WWGD said:
Nice, thanks. Sure, we can agree to read the proof together. My situation is a bit uncertain at this point, if you can be flexible, I would be glad to work it out with you. BTW, I read that Alexander Duality is a generalization of the Jordan
Curve thm., in that it deals with the topology of complementary subspaces ( with complementary meaning their union is the whole space). A.De studies the homological properties of complementary subspaces. The homological properties of a set can be defined in terms of those in the complement
...http://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Alexander_duality

I am completely flexible. The Alexander Duality theorem does seem to generalize the Jordan curve theorem since for hypersurfaces of the sphere it says that the sphere is divided into at least two components. I wonder if the sphere is not special and that the theorem works for any simply connected manifold. I wonder this because the first proof I gave using tubular neighborhoods needed only that the sphere be simply connected (and also orientable).

Pick a source for the proof that we can read together
 

1. What does it mean for a hypersurface of R^n to be orientable?

An orientable hypersurface in R^n is one that has a consistent orientation or direction assigned to each point on the surface. This means that there is a smooth way to continuously move from one point to another without flipping the orientation of the surface.

2. How is the orientability of a hypersurface determined?

The orientability of a hypersurface is determined by the existence of a non-vanishing tangent vector field on the surface. If such a vector field can be defined, then the surface is orientable.

3. Are all hypersurfaces of R^n orientable?

No, not all hypersurfaces of R^n are orientable. For example, a Möbius strip is a non-orientable hypersurface in R^3. In general, a hypersurface is orientable if and only if it does not contain any "twisted" or non-orientable pieces.

4. What is the significance of orientability in hypersurfaces of R^n?

Orientability is an important property of hypersurfaces in R^n because it allows for the definition of a consistent normal vector at each point on the surface. This is useful in many applications, such as calculating surface integrals and defining a notion of inside and outside for the surface.

5. Can an orientable hypersurface become non-orientable?

No, once a hypersurface is determined to be orientable, it will remain orientable. This is because the existence of a non-vanishing tangent vector field is a topological property that does not change under smooth deformations of the surface.

Similar threads

  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
3
Views
160
Replies
4
Views
353
Replies
2
Views
120
  • Topology and Analysis
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
328
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top