Is the Transversal Intersection of Manifolds a Manifold?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on whether the transversal intersection of two manifolds, embedded in \( \mathbb{R}^n \), results in a manifold, particularly when the intersection has a dimension greater than or equal to one. The scope includes theoretical aspects of differential geometry and the properties of manifold intersections.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that according to the "canonical form theorem," the intersection of two submanifolds that intersect transversally corresponds to \( \mathbb{R}^k \) in \( \mathbb{R}^n \) under a suitable coordinate map.
  • Another participant references a stronger result from a specific text, stating that there exists a coordinate chart around the point of intersection where the manifolds can be represented in a specific form, leading to the conclusion about their intersection.
  • A different participant raises a question regarding the definitions of transversality, presenting two distinct definitions and inquiring which one is being used in the discussion.
  • The first definition involves the sum of the tangent spaces at the point of intersection spanning the tangent space of the ambient manifold, while the second definition requires a neighborhood condition that excludes certain cases.
  • The participant also mentions a Mathworld entry that discusses homology classes and provides an example of a non-transverse intersection, indicating that the stability of intersections can vary based on the definition used.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions of transversality and its implications for the intersection of manifolds. There is no consensus on which definition should be applied, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these definitions on the nature of the intersection.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the dependence on specific definitions of transversality and the potential for different interpretations to affect conclusions about the intersection of manifolds.

WWGD
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
7,801
Reaction score
13,105
Hi, All:

Given manifolds M,N (both embedded in $R^n$, intersecting each other transversally,

so that their intersection has dimension >=1 ( i.e. n -(Dim(M)-Dim(N)>1) is the intersection

a manifold?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, according to the "canonical form theorem" for a transverse intersection, if X,Y are submanifolds of the n-manifold M that intersect transversally "of dimension k", and if p is a point of intersection, there is a coordinate nbhd of p in M such that X n Y corresponds to R^k in R^n under the coordinate map.
 
Thanks, Quasar; any chance you have a ref?
 
See the book Differential manifolds by Antoni Kosinski where the stronger result is proved that actually, there is a coordinate chart around p in which X corresponds to R^r x {0} while Y corresponds to {0} x R^s, so what X n Y, of course, corresponds to {0} x R^k x {0} (where r=dim(X), s=dim(Y), and k=(r+s)-).

But surely the theorem can also be found in Differential Topology by Guillemin & Pollack and possibly in the book of the same name by M. Hirsh
 
Last edited:
WWGD:

Not to quibble too much, but I have seen two main definitions of transversality used,

and I wondered which one you are using:

1) First and weaker of the two, states that if submanifolds S,S' of ambient M intersect

transversely at p, then the (vector space) sum of the tangent spaces TpS and TpS'

equals TpM , i.e., the sum spans the tangent space of the ambient manifold.

2) The second and stronger one (stronger in that it excludes some cases of 1) , is

that each point p of intersection has a neighborhood Up with Phi(Up)=

(x1,x2,..,xn,0,0,..,0) (Phi is a chart map). This excludes, e.g., Sin(1/x) and the

x-axis.

BTW, the Mathworld entry "http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HomologyIntersection.html" seems to agree in a weaker

sense, in that it states that cycles (homology classes) that intersect transversely are also cycles ,and it gives

the example of y=x^2 and the x-axis as an example of a non-transverse intersection in the sense 2) above,

showing how the intersection is unstable, in that a small perturbation --e.g., moving y=x^2 upwards changes

the (algebraic) intersection number .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: WWGD

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
9K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K