Tangent Spaces of Parametrized Sets - McInerney, Defn 3.3.5

  • Level: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sets Tangent
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
1 reply · 2K views
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Andrew McInerney's book: First Steps in Differential Geometry: Riemannian, Contact, Symplectic ...

I am currently focussed on Chapter 3: Advanced Calculus ... and in particular I am studying Section 3.3 Geometric Sets and Subspaces of [itex]T_p ( \mathbb{R}^n )[/itex] ...

I need help with a basic aspect of Definition 3.3.5 ...

Definition 3.3.5 reads as follows:

?temp_hash=7aeccc5a693e5199bafcc0495a9943fc.png
In the above definition we find the following:

" ... ... Here, when we say that a parametrized curve [itex]c \ : \ I \longrightarrow S[/itex] is smooth, we mean that there is a smooth function [itex]\tilde{c} \ : \ I \longrightarrow U[/itex] such that [itex]c = \phi \circ \tilde{c}[/itex] ... ... "

My question is as follows:

Why do we need to bother defining [itex]\tilde{c}[/itex] ... the codomain of [itex]c[/itex] is defined as [itex]S[/itex] ... so we surely only need to stipulate that [itex]c[/itex] is continuously differentiable or [itex]C^1[/itex] ... that is the usual definition of 'smooth' so why isn't this enough ...

... ... so, my question is then, why do we bother defining [itex]\tilde{c}[/itex] and then go on to consider the composite function [itex]c = \phi \circ \tilde{c}[/itex] ... ?Hope someone can help ...

Peter===========================================================

To give the context for McInerney's approach to this definition I am providing the introduction to Section 3.3 as follows:
?temp_hash=7aeccc5a693e5199bafcc0495a9943fc.png

?temp_hash=7aeccc5a693e5199bafcc0495a9943fc.png
 
Attachments
  • McInerney - Definition 3.3.5.png
    McInerney - Definition 3.3.5.png
    36.9 KB · Views: 764
  • McInerney - 1 - Section 3.3  - PART 1 - Page 79   .png
    McInerney - 1 - Section 3.3 - PART 1 - Page 79 .png
    45.5 KB · Views: 738
  • McInerney - 2 - Section 3.3  - PART 2 - Page 80   .png
    McInerney - 2 - Section 3.3 - PART 2 - Page 80 .png
    28.6 KB · Views: 840
Physics news on Phys.org
You can imagine the following situation. Think of ##S## being the city in which you live, ##p## your home and ##U## a roadmap of it.
The formula basically states that you can use a path ##I## on your map and project it to the actually city as well as finding it in reality.

The point is that ##S## can be of any shape, e.g. curved (or with hills in the example above).
Smoothness is a local property, i.e. it holds on small neighbourhoods around ##p##, even if for any ##p##. Instead to define what small neighbourhoods in ##S## are, we take a chart ##(U,\phi)## of ##S## in ##ℝ^n## where we already know what smooth means and define it with the help of ##\tilde{c}## and the requirements that ##\tilde{c}## is smooth and ##c=\phi \cdot \tilde{c}##.
 
Last edited: