Standard Square is not a Smooth Submanifold of R^2

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the characterization of the standard square in R² as a smooth submanifold. Participants explore the properties of the square, particularly at its vertices, and seek to establish whether it can be considered a submanifold based on definitions and properties of tangent spaces and charts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests using the immersion of tangent spaces to show that the tangent vector at the vertices cannot be identified with those in the ambient space R².
  • Another participant proposes that at a corner point, a smooth chart can be constructed, but the inverse of this map is not differentiable at the corner, leading to a contradiction regarding smoothness.
  • A different viewpoint emphasizes the need to understand tangent vectors at the corners by considering limits from the adjacent sides, indicating a potential proof strategy.
  • One participant expresses confusion about the construction of the chart and its implications, indicating a lack of clarity in the proposed argument.
  • Another participant references a well-known definition of embedded submanifolds, suggesting that the existence of a specific chart around corner points supports the argument for the square being a submanifold.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the characterization of the square as a smooth submanifold, with some supporting the idea that it is not smooth at the vertices, while others argue for the possibility of constructing appropriate charts. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about differentiability and the properties of tangent spaces at the vertices, which have not been fully explored or resolved in the discussion.

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
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · 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
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
10K