What Makes \(\mathbb{H}^k\) Essential in Defining Manifolds?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter JG89
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition Manifold
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the definition of a manifold, specifically the role of the upper half-space \(\mathbb{H}^k\) in the context of k-manifolds in \(\mathbb{R}^n\). Participants explore the implications of requiring the set \(U\) to be open in either \(\mathbb{R}^k\) or \(\mathbb{H}^k\), with a focus on the significance of \(\mathbb{H}^k\) in relation to boundaries of manifolds.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why the set \(U\) must be open in \(\mathbb{H}^k\) and what properties make \(\mathbb{H}^k\) special.
  • One participant suggests that if a point \(p\) lies on the surface of the manifold, then \(\mathbb{H}^k\) is necessary to map points to the boundary, while \(\mathbb{R}^k\) can be used if \(p\) is not on the surface.
  • Another participant argues that the upper half-plane allows for the manifold to have a boundary, indicating that points mapping to the x-axis are on the boundary.
  • A later reply proposes that lower half-space could also work for boundary points, questioning whether the preference for upper half-space is based on mathematical convention or specific properties.
  • Some participants note that the upper and lower half-spaces are equivalent for many purposes, with one stating that any homeomorphism in the lower half-plane can be reflected to yield a corresponding neighborhood in the upper half-plane.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of using upper half-space over lower half-space, with some asserting that both can serve similar functions. The discussion remains unresolved regarding whether specific properties of upper half-space are required that lower half-space does not possess.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the need for boundaries in manifolds and the implications of using different half-spaces, but do not reach a consensus on the necessity of one over the other.

JG89
Messages
724
Reaction score
1
I have a question about the definition of a manifold given in my analysis book. Here is the definition:

Let [itex]0 < k \le n[/itex]. A k-manifold in [itex]\mathbb{R}^n[/itex] of class [itex]C^r[/itex] is a set [itex]M \subset \mathbb{R}^n[/itex] having the following property: For each p in M, there is an open set V of M containing p, a set U that is open in either [itex]\mathbb{R}^k[/itex] or [itex]\mathbb{H}^k[/itex], and a continuous bijection [itex]\alpha: U \rightarrow V[/itex] such that:

1) [itex]\alpha[/itex] is of class [itex]C^r[/itex]
2) [itex]\alpha^{-1}[/itex] is continuous
3) [itex]D\alpha(x)[/itex] has rank k for each x in U

The map [itex]\alpha[/itex] is called a coordinate patch on M about p.

Note that the set [itex]\mathbb{H}^k[/itex] is upper half-space. That is, it is the set [itex]\{ x = (x_1, ..., x_k) \in \mathbb{R}^k : x_k \ge 0 \}[/itex]

My question is, why do require that the set U at least be open in [itex]\mathbb{H}^k[/itex]? What is so special about [itex]\mathbb{H}^k[/itex]?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
JG89 said:
I have a question about the definition of a manifold given in my analysis book. Here is the definition:

Let [itex]0 < k \le n[/itex]. A k-manifold in [itex]\mathbb{R}^n[/itex] of class [itex]C^r[/itex] is a set [itex]M \subset \mathbb{R}^n[/itex] having the following property: For each p in M, there is an open set V of M containing p, a set U that is open in either [itex]\mathbb{R}^k[/itex] or [itex]\mathbb{H}^k[/itex], and a continuous bijection [itex]\alpha: U \rightarrow V[/itex] such that:

1) [itex]\alpha[/itex] is of class [itex]C^r[/itex]
2) [itex]\alpha^{-1}[/itex] is continuous
3) [itex]D\alpha(x)[/itex] has rank k for each x in U

The map [itex]\alpha[/itex] is called a coordinate patch on M about p.

Note that the set [itex]\mathbb{H}^k[/itex] is upper half-space. That is, it is the set [itex]\{ x = (x_1, ..., x_k) \in \mathbb{R}^k : x_k \ge 0 \}[/itex]

My question is, why do require that the set U at least be open in [itex]\mathbb{H}^k[/itex]? What is so special about [itex]\mathbb{H}^k[/itex]?
We don't. Your quote says "open in either [itex]\mathbb{R}^k[/itex] or [itex]\mathbb{H}^k[/itex]" (emphasis mine).

If the p is on a surface of the manifold then we have to use [itex]\mathbb{H}^k[/itex], mapping the surface of the manifold to the surface of [itex]\mathbb{H}^k[/itex], the points with [itex]x_k= 0[/itex]. If p is not on the surface, we can use [itex]\mathbb{R}^k[/itex] which, of course, does not have a surface.
 
JG89 said:
I have a question about the definition of a manifold given in my analysis book. Here is the definition:

Let [itex]0 < k \le n[/itex]. A k-manifold in [itex]\mathbb{R}^n[/itex] of class [itex]C^r[/itex] is a set [itex]M \subset \mathbb{R}^n[/itex] having the following property: For each p in M, there is an open set V of M containing p, a set U that is open in either [itex]\mathbb{R}^k[/itex] or [itex]\mathbb{H}^k[/itex], and a continuous bijection [itex]\alpha: U \rightarrow V[/itex] such that:

1) [itex]\alpha[/itex] is of class [itex]C^r[/itex]
2) [itex]\alpha^{-1}[/itex] is continuous
3) [itex]D\alpha(x)[/itex] has rank k for each x in U

The map [itex]\alpha[/itex] is called a coordinate patch on M about p.

Note that the set [itex]\mathbb{H}^k[/itex] is upper half-space. That is, it is the set [itex]\{ x = (x_1, ..., x_k) \in \mathbb{R}^k : x_k \ge 0 \}[/itex]

My question is, why do require that the set U at least be open in [itex]\mathbb{H}^k[/itex]? What is so special about [itex]\mathbb{H}^k[/itex]?

The upper half plane allows the manifold to have a boundary. Points that map to the x-axis on a coordinate chart are on the boundary. If the manifold has no boundary then R^n would be used instead of the half plane.
 
Perhaps my question wasn't worded well. Let me try again:

Suppose M is our k-manifold and [itex]p \in \partial M[/itex], that is, p is in the boundary of M. If [itex]\alpha: U \rightarrow V[/itex] is a coordinate patch on M about p, then by my definition U is open in [itex]\mathbb{H}^k[/itex], and if x is the point in [itex]\mathbb{H}^k[/itex] such that [itex]\alpha(x) = p[/itex] then [itex]x \in \mathbb{R}^{k-1} \times 0[/itex]. So lower half space should work as well, right? That is, we can find a coordinate patch [itex]\alpha*: U* \rightarrow V*[/itex] such that [itex]\alpha*(x) = p[/itex] and [itex]U*[/itex] is open in lower half space. So is it just a preference amongst mathematicians that we use upper half space instead of lower half space? Or are there properties of upper half space that we require that lower half space doesn't possess?
 
The upper and lower half-spaces are equivalent for most intents and purposes.
 
JG89 said:
Perhaps my question wasn't worded well. Let me try again:

Suppose M is our k-manifold and [itex]p \in \partial M[/itex], that is, p is in the boundary of M. If [itex]\alpha: U \rightarrow V[/itex] is a coordinate patch on M about p, then by my definition U is open in [itex]\mathbb{H}^k[/itex], and if x is the point in [itex]\mathbb{H}^k[/itex] such that [itex]\alpha(x) = p[/itex] then [itex]x \in \mathbb{R}^{k-1} \times 0[/itex]. So lower half space should work as well, right? That is, we can find a coordinate patch [itex]\alpha*: U* \rightarrow V*[/itex] such that [itex]\alpha*(x) = p[/itex] and [itex]U*[/itex] is open in lower half space. So is it just a preference amongst mathematicians that we use upper half space instead of lower half space? Or are there properties of upper half space that we require that lower half space doesn't possess?

reread that answer I gave.
 
I reread it but I don't see the point that you are driving at? Based on your previous post, lower half-space should work just as I explained, no?
 
The "upper half plane" and "lower half plane" can be used interchangebly (or, for that matter, "left half plane" and "right half plane" or many more in higher dimensions). The point is to get a boundary which [itex]R^n[/itex] does not have.
 
JG89 said:
I reread it but I don't see the point that you are driving at? Based on your previous post, lower half-space should work just as I explained, no?

the x-axis provides for a boundary. Any homeomorphism from a neighborhood to a neighborhood of a point on the x-axis that lies in the lower half plane can be followed by reflection around the x-axis to get a neighborhood in the upper half plane.

So the lower half plane is a manifold with boundary.
 
  • #10
Got'cha. Thanks for the replies guys!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
10K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K