Standard Square is not a Smooth Submanifold of R^2

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The standard square in R², defined by the vertices {(0,0),(0,1),(1,0),(1,1)}, is not a smooth submanifold of R². The proof hinges on the inability to identify tangent vectors at the vertices with those in the ambient space, particularly at points like (0,0). A rigorous approach involves demonstrating that the inverse of a smooth chart mapping the corner to 0 is not differentiable, leading to a contradiction. This confirms that the square fails to meet the criteria for being a smooth submanifold due to the behavior at its corners.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of smooth manifolds and submanifolds
  • Familiarity with tangent spaces and immersion concepts
  • Knowledge of differentiability and smooth charts in R²
  • Basic concepts of topology, particularly open sets and limits
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the definition and properties of smooth manifolds and submanifolds
  • Learn about tangent spaces and their role in manifold theory
  • Explore the concept of immersion and its implications for manifold structures
  • Investigate differentiability conditions for mappings in topology
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, particularly those focused on differential geometry, topology, and manifold theory, will benefit from this discussion. It is also relevant for students and researchers exploring the properties of submanifolds in R².

Bacle
Messages
656
Reaction score
1
"standard" Square is not a Smooth Submanifold of R^2

Hi, everyone:
I am trying to show the standard square in R^2, i.e., the figure made of the line
segments joining the vertices {(0,0),(0,1),(1,0),(1,1)} is not a submanifold of R^2.

Only idea I think would work here is using the fact that we can immerse (using inclusion)
the tangent space of a submerged manifold S into that of the ambient manifold M
, so that, at every p in S, T_pS is a subspace of T_pM .

Then the problem would be clearly at the vertices. I think we can choose a tangent
vectorX_p at, say, T_(0,0) S, and show that X_p cannot be identified with
a tangent vector in T_(0,0) R^2.

Seems promising, but it has not yet been rigorized for your protection.

Any ideas for making this statement more rigorous.?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Immagine the square S is embedded. Then at a corner point of the square, there is a smooth chart of R² of the form D-->R² where D is a epsilon-open disk centered at the corner that maps the corner to 0 and D cap S to R\subset R²; the line (x,0).

Show that the inverse of this map is not differentiable at 0, thus spanning a contradiction. (the inverse of this map is actually the transition function btw this chart and the standard chart (R²,id) or R², which is supposed to be smooth by hypothesis. That'S why this is a contradiction.)
 


Bacle said:
Then the problem would be clearly at the vertices. I think we can choose a tangent
vectorX_p at, say, T_(0,0) S, and show that X_p cannot be identified with
a tangent vector in T_(0,0) R^2.
This sounds like a workable proof idea. It probably helps name elements of the tangent space at (0,0) via limits of tangent vectors defined on the two adjacent sides. Why? We understand the sides, but the corners are mysterious, so we use what we know to help us understand what we don't know.
 


quasar987 said:
Immagine the square S is embedded. Then at a corner point of the square, there is a smooth chart of R² of the form D-->R² where D is a epsilon-open disk centered at the corner that maps the corner to 0 and D cap S to R\subset R²; the line (x,0).
Maybe it's just too early in the morning, but that's not obvious to me. :frown:
 


Oh? Well, one well-known definition\characterisation of an embedded submanifold N of a manifold M is that at every point q of N, there exists a chart (U,f) of M around q such that f(U cap N)=R^k x {0}.

Here, N=S and M=R^2, and from such a chart (U,f) around a corner point q, I think it is clear how we can construct a chart of domain D an epsilon-disk like in my post(?)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
10K