Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Vector field

  1. Mar 7, 2010 #1
    In the definition of F-related vector fields, F must be a diffeomorphism. Why must it be a diffeomorphism? What if F is smooth and bijective, but not a diffeo?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 7, 2010 #2
    If you post the definition I might be able to help. I left my manifolds book at school.
     
  4. Mar 8, 2010 #3

    quasar987

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    The definition does not even require F-->N to be bijective. If F is not bijective, then a vector field on M might to push-foward to a vector field on N, and a vector field on N might not have an F-related vector field on M. But if F is a diffeo, then we are in the nice situation where to every vector field on N, then exists a unique F-related vector field on M given, of course, by the pushfoward by F^-1.
     
  5. Mar 8, 2010 #4
    Suppose F: M-->N is a diffeomorphism. For every Y in TM (tangent bundle to M), there is a unique smooth vector field on N that is F-related to Y.
     
  6. Mar 8, 2010 #5
    Yes, I understand the smooth and bijective part, but what about the non-diffeo part?
     
  7. Mar 8, 2010 #6

    quasar987

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    I said that the notion of "F-relatedness" can be defined if F is merely smooth. In particular, it makes sense to speak about F-relatedness if F is smooth and bijective.

    Then I hinted to the fact that your book defines the notion when F is diffeo probably because in that case, we are in the nice situation where to every vector field on N there exists a unique F-related vector field on M... which is probably the property that the authors needed.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook