Showing that the image of an arbitrary patch is an open set

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of patches in differential geometry, specifically focusing on the image of open sets under proper and arbitrary patches. Participants explore the implications of continuity and the definitions of proper patches, as well as the relationships between different patches on a surface.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant attempts to show that the image of an open set under a proper patch is open, using continuity and neighborhoods.
  • Another participant questions the definitions of "proper patch" and "arbitrary patch," seeking clarification on their differences.
  • A definition of a patch as a one-to-one regular map is provided, with the distinction that a proper patch has a continuous inverse.
  • Some participants suggest that the continuity of the inverse map is crucial for understanding the properties of patches and their images.
  • Concerns are raised about the logical structure of arguments regarding neighborhoods in the context of arbitrary patches and their images.
  • There is confusion regarding how to demonstrate that the continuity of the inverse map implies continuity throughout the entire image of a patch.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of the corollary for proving that the image of an arbitrary patch is open. There is no consensus on the implications of continuity or the logical flow of the arguments presented.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight potential ambiguities in the definitions and implications of continuity, particularly regarding the inverse of patches and their neighborhoods. The discussion reflects a range of interpretations and understandings of these concepts.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and practitioners of differential geometry, particularly those exploring the properties of mappings between surfaces and the implications of continuity in mathematical contexts.

Gene Naden
Messages
320
Reaction score
64
O'Neill's Elementary Differential Geometry, problem 4.3.13 (Kindle edition), asks the student to show that the image of an open set, under a proper patch, is an open set.

Here is my attempt at a solution. I do not know if it is complete as I have difficulty explaining the consequence of the fact that the mapping is continuous.Let ##\phi## be a proper patch and q be a point in ##\phi(E)##. Then ##p=\phi^{-1}(q)## is in E. There is a neighborhood of p in E. All points sufficiently close to p map to points arbitrarily close to q. These points are in ##\phi(E)##. So there is a neighborhood of q that is in ##\phi(E)## and ##\phi(E)## is open. Specifically, ##\epsilon## for the neighborhood of q is less than the maximum of ##|\phi(x)-q|## for x in the neighborhood of p.

The problem goes on to ask the student to show that if ##x:D\rightarrow M## is an arbitrary patch, then the image x(D) is an open set in M. There is a hint to use Corollary 4.3.3, which says "If x and y are patches in a surface M in ##R^3## whose images overlap, then the composite function ##x^{-1}y## and ##y^{-1}x## are differentiable mappings defined on open sets of ##R^2##.

Let x be an arbitrary patch. Since M is a surface, for every point p there is a proper patch y whose image contains p. Based on the first part of the problem, y takes open sets to open sets. Based on the corollary, ##x^{-1}y## is defined on an open set, the set of points whose image, under y, are in the image of x. So the overlap of the images of x and y is an open set. But we need to show that the image of x is an open set, right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I couldn't find the book on line. So what is a "proper patch" as opposed to an "arbitrary patch"?
 
lavinia said:
I couldn't find the book on line. So what is a "proper patch" as opposed to an "arbitrary patch"?
A patch is defined as a ono-to-one regular (the lower star is 1-to-1) map. It is proper if the inverse map is continuous.
 
Apparently we don't need the corollary to show that the image of an arbitrary patch in the surface M is open. Since every point of M is has a neighborhood in the image of a proper patch, every point in the image of an arbitrary patch in the surface has a neighborhood in the surface. So the image of an arbitrary patch is open.

The next problem asks the student to prove that every patch ##x:D\rightarrow M## in a surface M is proper. It says to use the results of the previous exercise (the one in this thread) and note that ##(x^{-1}y)y^{-1}## is continuous and agrees with ##x^{-1}## on an open set in x(D). I can see from the corollary that ##x^{-1}y## is continuous, and if y is a proper patch then ##y^{-1}## is continuous. But how to show that ##(x^{-1}y)y^{-1}## agrees with ##x^{-1}## on an open set? And how does this imply that x has a continuous inverse throughout x(D)?

Perhaps the "open set in x(D)" is the overlap of the images of x and y. That is the image, under y, of the domain of ##x^{-1}y##, an open set by the corollary. So then we would have ##x^{-1}## continuous on an open set in x(D). How to get from there to saying that it is continuous throughout x(D)?
 
Last edited:
"Since every point of M is has a neighborhood in the image of a proper patch, every point in the image of an arbitrary patch in the surface has a neighborhood in the surface." that sounds suspiciously like, "A implies B so B implies A".
 
Well yes my statement seems a little garbled...

Let p be a point in the image of an arbitrary patch ##x:D\rightarrow M## in the surface.
p is a point in the surface.
There is a proper patch y such that a neighborhood of p is in the surface, by the definition of a surface.
Every point in x(D) has a neighborhood in M.

How to get from there to saying that these points have neighborhoods in x(D)?
 
martinbn said:
A patch is defined as a ono-to-one regular (the lower star is 1-to-1) map. It is proper if the inverse map is continuous.
I am confused what it means that the inverse is continuous. Does it mean that inverse images of open sets are intersections of open sets in the ambient Euclidean space with the image of the patch?
 
Last edited:
That doesn't sound like what it means for the inverse to be continuous. "A coordinate patch ##x:d\rightarrow E^3## is a one-to-one regular mapping of an open set D of ##E^2## into ##E^3##. Proper patches are those for which the inverse function ##x^{-1}x(D)\rightarrow D## is continuous. That means that the limit of ##x^{-1}(q)## as q approaches p in x(D) equals ##x^{-1}(p)##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K