Does a surface with given boundary in $mathbb{R}^3$ exist?
$begingroup$
Given a (smooth) simple closed curve $C subset mathbb{R}^3$, is there a (smooth) surface $S$ with $partial S = C$? I'm aware there is a variational problem to find among such surfaces the one with minimal area. Here I'm interested in the statement and proof of some existence theorem. Some cases where the existence is clear: if $C$ is planar, and more generally if $C$ is the curve of intersection of a a graph and a cylinder, $x_1=g(x_2,x_3)$ and $f(x_2,x_3)=0$
(This question came up when I read in a calculus book that $text{curl }mathbf{F}=mathbf{0}$ implies $mathbf{F}=nabla f$ for some scalar function $f(x,y,z)$. The proof was: $mathbf{F}=nabla f$ iff $mathbf{F}$ is conservative; to show $mathbf{F}$ is conservative, consider $int_C mathbf{F}cdot dmathbf{r}$ for any closed curve $C$. "THERE IS" a surface $S$ with $C$ as its boundary. By stokes theorem, and the fact that $text{curl }mathbf{F}=0$, $int_C mathbf{F}cdot dmathbf{r} = 0$. So, my question is why this surface even exists.)
multivariable-calculus differential-geometry calculus-of-variations
asked Dec 5 '18 at 20:14
user25959user25959
1,573916
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Given a (smooth) simple closed curve $C subset mathbb{R}^3$, is there a (smooth) surface $S$ with $partial S = C$? I'm aware there is a variational problem to find among such surfaces the one with minimal area. Here I'm interested in the statement and proof of some existence theorem. Some cases where the existence is clear: if $C$ is planar, and more generally if $C$ is the curve of intersection of a a graph and a cylinder, $x_1=g(x_2,x_3)$ and $f(x_2,x_3)=0$
(This question came up when I read in a calculus book that $text{curl }mathbf{F}=mathbf{0}$ implies $mathbf{F}=nabla f$ for some scalar function $f(x,y,z)$. The proof was: $mathbf{F}=nabla f$ iff $mathbf{F}$ is conservative; to show $mathbf{F}$ is conservative, consider $int_C mathbf{F}cdot dmathbf{r}$ for any closed curve $C$. "THERE IS" a surface $S$ with $C$ as its boundary. By stokes theorem, and the fact that $text{curl }mathbf{F}=0$, $int_C mathbf{F}cdot dmathbf{r} = 0$. So, my question is why this surface even exists.)
multivariable-calculus differential-geometry calculus-of-variations
asked Dec 5 '18 at 20:14
user25959user25959
1,573916
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Yes. These are called Seifert surfaces.
$endgroup$
– Cheerful Parsnip
Dec 5 '18 at 20:17
$begingroup$
@CheerfulParsnip I clarified my question in a comment below. Thanks for referring me to Seifert surfaces. I can say my question is about a step in the algorithm that is taken for granted.
$endgroup$
– user25959
Dec 7 '18 at 2:34
$begingroup$
One idea I had was: under some conditions on the curve $C$, there is a point $P$ far away enough that the segments $(PX]$ for $Xin C$ are all disjoint. So we call this cone $S$, smooth out the vertex, and get a surface that way.
$endgroup$
– user25959
Dec 7 '18 at 2:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Given a (smooth) simple closed curve $C subset mathbb{R}^3$, is there a (smooth) surface $S$ with $partial S = C$? I'm aware there is a variational problem to find among such surfaces the one with minimal area. Here I'm interested in the statement and proof of some existence theorem. Some cases where the existence is clear: if $C$ is planar, and more generally if $C$ is the curve of intersection of a a graph and a cylinder, $x_1=g(x_2,x_3)$ and $f(x_2,x_3)=0$
(This question came up when I read in a calculus book that $text{curl }mathbf{F}=mathbf{0}$ implies $mathbf{F}=nabla f$ for some scalar function $f(x,y,z)$. The proof was: $mathbf{F}=nabla f$ iff $mathbf{F}$ is conservative; to show $mathbf{F}$ is conservative, consider $int_C mathbf{F}cdot dmathbf{r}$ for any closed curve $C$. "THERE IS" a surface $S$ with $C$ as its boundary. By stokes theorem, and the fact that $text{curl }mathbf{F}=0$, $int_C mathbf{F}cdot dmathbf{r} = 0$. So, my question is why this surface even exists.)
multivariable-calculus differential-geometry calculus-of-variations
asked Dec 5 '18 at 20:14
user25959user25959
1,573916
$endgroup$
Given a (smooth) simple closed curve $C subset mathbb{R}^3$, is there a (smooth) surface $S$ with $partial S = C$? I'm aware there is a variational problem to find among such surfaces the one with minimal area. Here I'm interested in the statement and proof of some existence theorem. Some cases where the existence is clear: if $C$ is planar, and more generally if $C$ is the curve of intersection of a a graph and a cylinder, $x_1=g(x_2,x_3)$ and $f(x_2,x_3)=0$
(This question came up when I read in a calculus book that $text{curl }mathbf{F}=mathbf{0}$ implies $mathbf{F}=nabla f$ for some scalar function $f(x,y,z)$. The proof was: $mathbf{F}=nabla f$ iff $mathbf{F}$ is conservative; to show $mathbf{F}$ is conservative, consider $int_C mathbf{F}cdot dmathbf{r}$ for any closed curve $C$. "THERE IS" a surface $S$ with $C$ as its boundary. By stokes theorem, and the fact that $text{curl }mathbf{F}=0$, $int_C mathbf{F}cdot dmathbf{r} = 0$. So, my question is why this surface even exists.)
multivariable-calculus differential-geometry calculus-of-variations
multivariable-calculus differential-geometry calculus-of-variations
asked Dec 5 '18 at 20:14
user25959user25959
1,573916
asked Dec 5 '18 at 20:14
user25959user25959
1,573916
asked Dec 5 '18 at 20:14
user25959user25959
1,573916
asked Dec 5 '18 at 20:14
user25959user25959
1,573916
asked Dec 5 '18 at 20:14
user25959user25959
1,573916
1,573916
2
$begingroup$
Yes. These are called Seifert surfaces.
$endgroup$
– Cheerful Parsnip
Dec 5 '18 at 20:17
$begingroup$
@CheerfulParsnip I clarified my question in a comment below. Thanks for referring me to Seifert surfaces. I can say my question is about a step in the algorithm that is taken for granted.
$endgroup$
– user25959
Dec 7 '18 at 2:34
$begingroup$
One idea I had was: under some conditions on the curve $C$, there is a point $P$ far away enough that the segments $(PX]$ for $Xin C$ are all disjoint. So we call this cone $S$, smooth out the vertex, and get a surface that way.
$endgroup$
– user25959
Dec 7 '18 at 2:38
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Yes. These are called Seifert surfaces.
$endgroup$
– Cheerful Parsnip
Dec 5 '18 at 20:17
$begingroup$
@CheerfulParsnip I clarified my question in a comment below. Thanks for referring me to Seifert surfaces. I can say my question is about a step in the algorithm that is taken for granted.
$endgroup$
– user25959
Dec 7 '18 at 2:34
$begingroup$
One idea I had was: under some conditions on the curve $C$, there is a point $P$ far away enough that the segments $(PX]$ for $Xin C$ are all disjoint. So we call this cone $S$, smooth out the vertex, and get a surface that way.
$endgroup$
– user25959
Dec 7 '18 at 2:38
2
2
$begingroup$
Yes. These are called Seifert surfaces.
$endgroup$
– Cheerful Parsnip
Dec 5 '18 at 20:17
$begingroup$
Yes. These are called Seifert surfaces.
$endgroup$
– Cheerful Parsnip
Dec 5 '18 at 20:17
$begingroup$
@CheerfulParsnip I clarified my question in a comment below. Thanks for referring me to Seifert surfaces. I can say my question is about a step in the algorithm that is taken for granted.
$endgroup$
– user25959
Dec 7 '18 at 2:34
$begingroup$
@CheerfulParsnip I clarified my question in a comment below. Thanks for referring me to Seifert surfaces. I can say my question is about a step in the algorithm that is taken for granted.
$endgroup$
– user25959
Dec 7 '18 at 2:34
$begingroup$
One idea I had was: under some conditions on the curve $C$, there is a point $P$ far away enough that the segments $(PX]$ for $Xin C$ are all disjoint. So we call this cone $S$, smooth out the vertex, and get a surface that way.
$endgroup$
– user25959
Dec 7 '18 at 2:38
$begingroup$
One idea I had was: under some conditions on the curve $C$, there is a point $P$ far away enough that the segments $(PX]$ for $Xin C$ are all disjoint. So we call this cone $S$, smooth out the vertex, and get a surface that way.
$endgroup$
– user25959
Dec 7 '18 at 2:38
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
As already stated by Cheerful Parsnip, such surfaces exist.
In fact, you can choose them to be compact and oriented (then they are Seifert surfaces). You can find an elementar proof in [Saveliev - Lectures on the Topology of 3-Manifolds].
If you know a little bit more machinery from differential topology, this (much sexier) argument will do the trick.
answered Dec 5 '18 at 20:52
Yong-HooYong-Hoo
312
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you. I'm looking at the algorithm and see that it does a lot more than what I had in mind (I was only imagining unknots). The algorithm's early steps involve 'attaching disks' - the existence of this attachment is I guess what I'm asking about. Shouldn't there be an easy analytic proof of existence of an attached disk under some smoothness/"injectivity-type" conditions on the curve?
$endgroup$
– user25959
Dec 7 '18 at 2:34
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3027587%2fdoes-a-surface-with-given-boundary-in-mathbbr3-exist%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
As already stated by Cheerful Parsnip, such surfaces exist.
In fact, you can choose them to be compact and oriented (then they are Seifert surfaces). You can find an elementar proof in [Saveliev - Lectures on the Topology of 3-Manifolds].
If you know a little bit more machinery from differential topology, this (much sexier) argument will do the trick.
answered Dec 5 '18 at 20:52
Yong-HooYong-Hoo
312
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you. I'm looking at the algorithm and see that it does a lot more than what I had in mind (I was only imagining unknots). The algorithm's early steps involve 'attaching disks' - the existence of this attachment is I guess what I'm asking about. Shouldn't there be an easy analytic proof of existence of an attached disk under some smoothness/"injectivity-type" conditions on the curve?
$endgroup$
– user25959
Dec 7 '18 at 2:34
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As already stated by Cheerful Parsnip, such surfaces exist.
In fact, you can choose them to be compact and oriented (then they are Seifert surfaces). You can find an elementar proof in [Saveliev - Lectures on the Topology of 3-Manifolds].
If you know a little bit more machinery from differential topology, this (much sexier) argument will do the trick.
answered Dec 5 '18 at 20:52
Yong-HooYong-Hoo
312
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you. I'm looking at the algorithm and see that it does a lot more than what I had in mind (I was only imagining unknots). The algorithm's early steps involve 'attaching disks' - the existence of this attachment is I guess what I'm asking about. Shouldn't there be an easy analytic proof of existence of an attached disk under some smoothness/"injectivity-type" conditions on the curve?
$endgroup$
– user25959
Dec 7 '18 at 2:34
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As already stated by Cheerful Parsnip, such surfaces exist.
In fact, you can choose them to be compact and oriented (then they are Seifert surfaces). You can find an elementar proof in [Saveliev - Lectures on the Topology of 3-Manifolds].
If you know a little bit more machinery from differential topology, this (much sexier) argument will do the trick.
answered Dec 5 '18 at 20:52
Yong-HooYong-Hoo
312
$endgroup$
As already stated by Cheerful Parsnip, such surfaces exist.
In fact, you can choose them to be compact and oriented (then they are Seifert surfaces). You can find an elementar proof in [Saveliev - Lectures on the Topology of 3-Manifolds].
If you know a little bit more machinery from differential topology, this (much sexier) argument will do the trick.
answered Dec 5 '18 at 20:52
Yong-HooYong-Hoo
312
edited Dec 5 '18 at 21:03
answered Dec 5 '18 at 20:52
Yong-HooYong-Hoo
312
answered Dec 5 '18 at 20:52
Yong-HooYong-Hoo
312
answered Dec 5 '18 at 20:52
Yong-HooYong-Hoo
312
312
$begingroup$
Thank you. I'm looking at the algorithm and see that it does a lot more than what I had in mind (I was only imagining unknots). The algorithm's early steps involve 'attaching disks' - the existence of this attachment is I guess what I'm asking about. Shouldn't there be an easy analytic proof of existence of an attached disk under some smoothness/"injectivity-type" conditions on the curve?
$endgroup$
– user25959
Dec 7 '18 at 2:34
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you. I'm looking at the algorithm and see that it does a lot more than what I had in mind (I was only imagining unknots). The algorithm's early steps involve 'attaching disks' - the existence of this attachment is I guess what I'm asking about. Shouldn't there be an easy analytic proof of existence of an attached disk under some smoothness/"injectivity-type" conditions on the curve?
$endgroup$
– user25959
Dec 7 '18 at 2:34
$begingroup$
Thank you. I'm looking at the algorithm and see that it does a lot more than what I had in mind (I was only imagining unknots). The algorithm's early steps involve 'attaching disks' - the existence of this attachment is I guess what I'm asking about. Shouldn't there be an easy analytic proof of existence of an attached disk under some smoothness/"injectivity-type" conditions on the curve?
$endgroup$
– user25959
Dec 7 '18 at 2:34
$begingroup$
Thank you. I'm looking at the algorithm and see that it does a lot more than what I had in mind (I was only imagining unknots). The algorithm's early steps involve 'attaching disks' - the existence of this attachment is I guess what I'm asking about. Shouldn't there be an easy analytic proof of existence of an attached disk under some smoothness/"injectivity-type" conditions on the curve?
$endgroup$
– user25959
Dec 7 '18 at 2:34
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3027587%2fdoes-a-surface-with-given-boundary-in-mathbbr3-exist%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
Yes. These are called Seifert surfaces.
$endgroup$
– Cheerful Parsnip
Dec 5 '18 at 20:17
$begingroup$
@CheerfulParsnip I clarified my question in a comment below. Thanks for referring me to Seifert surfaces. I can say my question is about a step in the algorithm that is taken for granted.
$endgroup$
– user25959
Dec 7 '18 at 2:34
$begingroup$
One idea I had was: under some conditions on the curve $C$, there is a point $P$ far away enough that the segments $(PX]$ for $Xin C$ are all disjoint. So we call this cone $S$, smooth out the vertex, and get a surface that way.
$endgroup$
– user25959
Dec 7 '18 at 2:38