Undergrad Is the Boundary Chart for a Closed Unit Ball Injective?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on demonstrating that a closed unit ball is a manifold with boundary, specifically addressing the injectivity of the boundary chart. Concerns are raised about the assumption that a point lies within the closed upper half-ball when it has a zero coordinate. The suggestion is made to define a homeomorphism based on the boundary point's location, ensuring that at least one coordinate is nonzero. A projection map is proposed to simplify the argument by removing the problematic coordinate. This approach aims to resolve the injectivity issue effectively.
JYM
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
I want to show that a closed unit ball is manifold with boundary and I attempted as uploaded. But I am not happy with the way I showed the boundary chart is injective. Am I right?
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
At the bottom of p1, the assumption that ##U^+## lies in the closed upper half-ball will not hold if the point ##p## has zero ##i##th coordinate.

It looks like you are defining a global map ##\phi## and trying to show its restriction to a nbd of a boundary point on the hypersphere is a homeomorphism to a half-ball. I don't think that will work because of equator points wrt the ##i##th dimension. Instead, choose the putative homeomorphism based on the location of the boundary point. A boundary point must have at least one nonzero coordinate. Say the first nonzero coord of the point is the ##i##th coordinate, then define ##\pi_i## to be the projection map that removes the ##i##th coord.

That should enable you to get around the obstacle.
 
I see it. Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
572
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
916
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
Replies
19
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
Replies
8
Views
5K