Proving the Differential Map (Pushforward) is Well-Defined

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of the well-defined nature of the differential map (pushforward) in the context of smooth manifolds. Participants explore the requirements for establishing that this map is well-defined, including considerations of smoothness and the implications of different chart choices.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether proving surjectivity of the map is necessary for establishing that the differential map is well-defined.
  • Another participant clarifies that the differential of the map takes tangent vectors from manifold M to manifold N and emphasizes the need to adhere to the definition provided in lectures.
  • A participant suggests that the smoothness of the map should be verified using the correct composition of charts, indicating a potential misunderstanding in the initial formulation.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of having two different charts for the same point in M and whether this could lead to different images in N under the map f.
  • Several participants agree that a definition for the differential map must be chosen and that it should be shown to be independent of the choice of chart or curve used in the proof.
  • One participant proposes a method involving the selection of a curve corresponding to a tangent vector in M and mapping it to N to demonstrate the independence of the definition.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of proving surjectivity and the correct approach to demonstrating the well-defined nature of the differential map. There is no consensus on the specific requirements for the proof, indicating ongoing debate and exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the smoothness of the charts is assumed by definition, and there are unresolved questions regarding the implications of different chart choices on the well-defined nature of the differential map.

Fgard
Messages
15
Reaction score
1
I am taking my first graduate math course and I am not really familiar with the thought process. My professor told us to think about how to prove that the differential map (pushforward) is well-defined.

The map
$$f:M\rightarrow N$$ is a smooth map, where ##M, N## are two smooth manifolds. If ##(U,x)\in A_M## and ##(V,y)\in A_N## are two charts in their respective atlas then the map ##x\circ f\circ y^{-1} ## is also smooth. Then what remains to prove is that ## f## is surjective. Is this correct? Or do I need to prove something else as well?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, what you have is the map, the differential of this map is another map, that takes tangent vectors on ##M## to tangent vectors on ##N##. You have to prove that whatever definition was given in the lectures (something we can only guess) is well defined.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: lavinia and Orodruin
Fgard said:
I am taking my first graduate math course and I am not really familiar with the thought process. My professor told us to think about how to prove that the differential map (pushforward) is well-defined.

The map
$$f:M\rightarrow N$$ is a smooth map, where ##M, N## are two smooth manifolds. If ##(U,x)\in A_M## and ##(V,y)\in A_N## are two charts in their respective atlas then the map ##x\circ f\circ y^{-1} ## is also smooth. Then what remains to prove is that ## f## is surjective. Is this correct? Or do I need to prove something else as well?
Shouldn't it be ##y\circ f\circ x^{-1} ## which is smooth? But besides this, the differentiability is given by definition. If the chart mappings weren't smooth, we wouldn't call the manifolds smooth. Also surjectivity isn't needed except you only want to consider ##N=f(M)##. Well-definition means, that no two elements of ##N## can be the image of one point in ##M##. What does this mean in the given situation? We don't have an element in ##M## that could end up in two different ways under ##f##. But we do have eventually two different charts for this element ##x \in M##. Could it end up in two different charts of ##N## where they represent different points?
 
Okej, so I have to choose a definition for the differential map and show that map dose not depend on a certain choice of chart. Thanks.
 
Fgard said:
Okej, so I have to choose a definition for the differential map and show that map dose not depend on a certain choice of chart. Thanks.
Well, you should choose the one your professor told you to think about. And you need to show it doesn't depend on whatever choice was made, it could be a chart, but it could be something else. For example given a vector on M, choose a curve, whose tangent vector is the given one, then map the curve to N, take the tangent vector. If your definition is something along these lines, then you need to show that it doesn't depend on the choice of the curve.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
6K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K