Orientation Forms in Different Codimension.

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter WWGD
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Forms Orientation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around defining orientation forms for manifolds of varying codimension, particularly focusing on codimension-1 and higher-dimensional cases. Participants explore the mathematical frameworks and concepts involved in these definitions, including the role of normal bundles and volume elements in Euclidean space.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a method for defining an orientation form for a codimension-1 orientable manifold using a normal vector and an orthogonal basis for the tangent space.
  • Another participant suggests that if the normal bundle to a submanifold is trivial, an orientation form can be obtained by contracting the orientation form of the ambient manifold with linearly independent normal vector fields.
  • There is a discussion about the triviality of the normal bundle for hypersurfaces in Euclidean space, with one participant expressing uncertainty about direct proofs but willing to collaborate on the topic.
  • A participant mentions the possibility of using the Thom class of the normal bundle to explore orientation forms further.
  • Another contribution suggests contracting the volume element of the ambient manifold by a local orthonormal basis for the normal bundle to obtain a local volume form for the submanifold.
  • One participant asserts that if the normal bundle is orientable, then the submanifold must also be orientable, and another participant agrees with this statement.
  • There is a broader claim that if a vector bundle splits into two subbundles, the orientability of two of them implies the orientability of the third.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying degrees of agreement on certain points, particularly regarding the relationship between the orientability of the normal bundle and the submanifold. However, there remains uncertainty and exploration around the definitions and implications for higher codimensions, indicating that multiple competing views exist.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about specific proofs and methods, indicating that the discussion is ongoing and that there may be limitations in the assumptions made regarding the normal bundles and their properties.

WWGD
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
7,802
Reaction score
13,106
Hi, Everyone:

A way of defining an orientation form when given a codimension-1 ,

orientable n-manifold N embedded in R^{n+1} , in which

the gradient ( of the parametrized image ) is non-zero (I think n(x)

being nonzero is equivalent to N being orientable), is to

consider the nowhere-zero normal vector n(x), and to define the

form w(v)_x : = | n(x) v1 , v2 ,...,v_n-1| (**)

Where {vi}_i=1,..,n-1 is an orthogonal basis for T_x N , written

as column vectors, and n(x) is the vector normal to N at x , so that we write:

| n_1(x) v_11 v_21... v_n1|
| n_2(x) v_12 v_22...v_n2|
......

......
|n_n(x) v_1n v_2n...v_nn|

For vi= (vi1, vi2,...,vin )

Then the vectors in (##) are pairwise orthogonal, and so are

Linearly-independent.

*QUESTION* : How do we define a form for a curve of codimension-1,

and, in general, for orientable manifolds of codimension larger-

than 1 ? I have seen the expression t(x).v , meaning <t(x),v> ,for the curve. But the

tangent space of a curve is 1-dimensional, so, how is this a dot product?

Also, for codimension larger than one: do we use some sort of tensor contraction?

Thanks.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If the normal bundle to the submanifold is trivial then you can get an orientation form by contracting the orientation form of the ambient manifold by a smooth set of lineally independent normal vector fields.

In Euclidean space you contract the standard volume element.

If the normal bundle is not trivial i am not sure off of the top of my head but let's see if we can figure it out. It shouldn't be hard.

The normal bundle of a hypersurface (closed without boundary, codimension 1) of Euclidean space is always trivial but I do not know a direct proof and again would like to work on it with you. I do know a nasty indirect proof if you would like to see it.
 
Last edited:
lavinia said:
If the normal bundle to the submanifold is trivial then you can get an orientation form by contracting the orientation form of the ambient manifold by a smooth set of lineally independent normal vector fields.

In Euclidean space you contract the standard volume element.

If the normal bundle is not trivial i am not sure off of the top of my head but let's see if we can figure it out. It shouldn't be hard.

The normal bundle of a hypersurface (closed without boundary, codimension 1) of Euclidean space is always trivial but I do not know a direct proof and again would like to work on it with you. I do know a nasty indirect proof if you would like to see it.

Sure, I'll work on it with you. Do you have any suggestions/format in mind?
 
WWGD said:
Sure, I'll work on it with you. Do you have any suggestions/format in mind?

Just looking at ideas plus some reading. My first thought is to see if there is something that can be dome with the Thom class of the normal bundle to the submanifold.
 
I think you can Just contract the volume element of the ambient manifold by a local orthonormal basis for the normal bundle over each coordinate chart. Over each chart you get a local volume form for the submanifold and since the coordinate transformations are in SO(n) they should piece together to give you a global orientation for on the submanifold. Is this right?
 
BTW: it follows that if the normal bundle is orientable then the submanifold must be orientable as well.
 
Last edited:
I think this is correct. Well done lavinia!
 
lavinia said:
BTW: it follows that if the normal bundle is orientable then the submanifold must be orientable as well.

More generally, I think if a vector bundle E splits as a direct sum of two subbundle F and G, then 2 of them are orientable iff the third one is.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
9K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K