What is the meaning of constant on each others fibres in differential geometry?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Kreizhn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Manifolds Smooth
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the interpretation of the phrase "constant on each others fibres" as used in a proposition from Lee's Introduction to Smooth Manifolds. Participants explore the implications of this phrase in the context of differential geometry, particularly regarding surjective submersions and their relationship to fibres in smooth manifolds.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks clarification on the meaning of "constant on each others fibres," suggesting it may refer to the preimages of points in the manifolds involved.
  • Another participant agrees with this interpretation but notes their lack of expertise in the field.
  • There is a suggestion to verify the interpretation by attempting to prove the result under the assumed conditions.
  • A participant mentions that the definition of fibres could be the preimage of points in any map, questioning whether this definition holds for non-surjective maps.
  • Discussion includes the idea that surjective submersions might be viewed as bundle projection maps, raising questions about the dimensionality of fibres and local trivialization.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about whether fibres must have the same dimension and whether equivalence classes formed by surjective submersions lead to equal partitions.
  • Another participant references a Wikipedia article on foliations, suggesting that the concept of fibres is applicable in this context.
  • There is a concern about the rigorous definition of fibres, particularly in relation to submersions and their surjectivity.
  • A participant shares a personal anecdote about difficulties in finding a definition of fibres, indicating a broader search for clarity on the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the interpretation of "constant on each others fibres" as relating to the preimages of points in the manifolds. However, there remains uncertainty regarding the implications of surjectivity and dimensionality of fibres, indicating that multiple competing views exist.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the definitions and properties of fibres, particularly in the context of surjective submersions and whether they must have equal dimensions. The discussion reflects a lack of consensus on these technical details.

Kreizhn
Messages
714
Reaction score
1
This should hopefully be a quick and easy answer.

I'm running through Lee's Introduction to Smooth Manifolds to brush up my differential geometry. I love this book, but I've come to something I'm not sure about. He states a result for which the proof is an exercise:

Proposition: Suppose \pi_1: M\to N_1, \pi_2: M \to N_2 are surjective submersions that are constant on each others fibres. Then there exists a unique diffeomorphism F: N_1 \to N_2 such that F \circ \pi_1 = \pi_2.

I'm not quite clear on what he means by "constant on each others fibres." It is okay to assume that M, N_1, N_2 are smooth manifolds, but there is no mention of them being fibre bundles. Does he just mean the preimage of points in N_1, N_2? That is, the fibre of q \in N_1 in M would be M_q = \pi_1^{-1}(q)? This seems reasonable since we assumed that \pi_1,\pi_2 are surjective and hence this is well defined, but I've never heard "fibres" used in this manner before.

If this is the case, what does it mean to be constant on each others fibres? Does this mean that if q_1 \in N_1 then \pi_2(\pi_1^{-1}(q_1)) = c(q_1), where c(q) is some constant function that varies only with q?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What you've said looks like how I would interpret those words. (but disclaimer: I am not an expert in this field!)
 
Thanks for the support Hurkyl. I can't think of another way of possibly interpreting it, and it is unlike Lee to be ambiguous in such a statement. I guess I should try proving the result with these assumptions and see if it works.
 
That means \pi_2 is constant on the fibers of \pi_1 and \pi_1 is constant on the fibers of \pi_2.
 
Kreizhn said:
Does this mean that if q_1 \in N_1 then \pi_2(\pi_1^{-1}(q_1)) = c(q_1), where c(q) is some constant function that varies only with q?

Yes, and also that q_2 \in N_2 then \pi_1(\pi_2^{-1}(q_2)) = c'(q_2), where c'(q) is some constant function that varies only with q (as arkajad just said).

Given a function f:A-->B and b in B, the fiber of f over b is by definition f^-1({b}).

For instance, the (rough) idea of a fiber bundle over a space B is that of a space E such that E is the union of all the fibers of some map p:E-->B.

So, yes, the meaning of the word "fiber" here is the same as when used in the term "fiber bundles".
 
Thanks everyone for your contributions.

Quasar, is that really just the definition of a fibre? The preimage of a point in any map? I just want to make sure - without ever having seen one formally defined, I just inferred from the definition of a fibre bundle that each fibre would need to have the same dimension, and there would need to be a local trivialization.

Now maybe it's possible that surjective submersions are indeed bundle projection maps? I've been thinking about this. Surjective submersions are open maps, and hence are quotient maps. We can then view N_1 as a quotient space with \pi_1 identifying elements of the same equivalence class. I think we can get the local trivialization using charts from M, so it comes down to this:

We know that equivalence classes by \pi_1 will partition M. Must it necessarily form equal partitions, each of the same dimension?
 
See "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foliation" " and in particular the note on Submersions there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the link. Does the map have to be a submersion for pre-images to be fibers though? Unfortunately, the wiki article again uses fibres without defining them, and I really want to make sure that I know the rigorous definition.

Also, what if the map is a submersion but not surjective? Then do we only define fibres on elements in the image of the map?
 
  • #10
On an interesting note, I just found the wiki-article on fibres. The reason I couldn't find it before is that I search for "Fibres (mathematics)" and wiki couldn't figure out my CanE spelling of Fibre and connect that to "Fibers (mathematics)". It took until the 28th entry on the search page to get there.

Anyway, the wiki page suggests that it holds for any map. Sorry to waste your time on this.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K