Show there can be no co-ordinate patch at this point
$begingroup$
I am attempting to prove that the subset of $mathbf{R}^3$ satisfying $x^2 + z^2 = y^2$ is not a surface, where
a surface is a subset of $mathbf{R}^3$ for every point in which there is a co-ordinate patch whose image contains that point and is contained in the subset
and
a co-ordinate patch is a smooth, injective, regular function from an open region of $mathbf{R}^2$ to $mathbf{R}^3$.
Having seen this visualized, I know this space is composed of two infinite cones joined at their tips (that is, at the origin). Intuitively, I then know that this is the problematic point that stops the entire set being a surface. However, I am having trouble constructing a reason why there cannot be a co-ordinate patch containing the origin; that is, showing which of the conditions on a co-ordinate patch cannot be satisfied, and why.
My attempt: If $bar{x} : D to mathbf{R}^3$ were such a co-ordinate patch, I feel that because $D$ is open and $bar{x}$ is continuous that there would necessarily be a "jump" from one of the cones composing the space to the other. As in, there would exist some point on the cone with positive $y$ and some point on the other cone with negative $y$ whose inputs in $D$ are close but which are obviously not close on the space.
Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.
multivariable-calculus differential-geometry manifolds surfaces
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am attempting to prove that the subset of $mathbf{R}^3$ satisfying $x^2 + z^2 = y^2$ is not a surface, where
a surface is a subset of $mathbf{R}^3$ for every point in which there is a co-ordinate patch whose image contains that point and is contained in the subset
and
a co-ordinate patch is a smooth, injective, regular function from an open region of $mathbf{R}^2$ to $mathbf{R}^3$.
Having seen this visualized, I know this space is composed of two infinite cones joined at their tips (that is, at the origin). Intuitively, I then know that this is the problematic point that stops the entire set being a surface. However, I am having trouble constructing a reason why there cannot be a co-ordinate patch containing the origin; that is, showing which of the conditions on a co-ordinate patch cannot be satisfied, and why.
My attempt: If $bar{x} : D to mathbf{R}^3$ were such a co-ordinate patch, I feel that because $D$ is open and $bar{x}$ is continuous that there would necessarily be a "jump" from one of the cones composing the space to the other. As in, there would exist some point on the cone with positive $y$ and some point on the other cone with negative $y$ whose inputs in $D$ are close but which are obviously not close on the space.
Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.
multivariable-calculus differential-geometry manifolds surfaces
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Even though this can be proven by cheaper means, I like to do these things by showing that the tangent plane is not two dimensional at a bad point (in your case, the origin), so the surface cannot be regular.
$endgroup$
– MisterRiemann
Dec 4 '18 at 18:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am attempting to prove that the subset of $mathbf{R}^3$ satisfying $x^2 + z^2 = y^2$ is not a surface, where
a surface is a subset of $mathbf{R}^3$ for every point in which there is a co-ordinate patch whose image contains that point and is contained in the subset
and
a co-ordinate patch is a smooth, injective, regular function from an open region of $mathbf{R}^2$ to $mathbf{R}^3$.
Having seen this visualized, I know this space is composed of two infinite cones joined at their tips (that is, at the origin). Intuitively, I then know that this is the problematic point that stops the entire set being a surface. However, I am having trouble constructing a reason why there cannot be a co-ordinate patch containing the origin; that is, showing which of the conditions on a co-ordinate patch cannot be satisfied, and why.
My attempt: If $bar{x} : D to mathbf{R}^3$ were such a co-ordinate patch, I feel that because $D$ is open and $bar{x}$ is continuous that there would necessarily be a "jump" from one of the cones composing the space to the other. As in, there would exist some point on the cone with positive $y$ and some point on the other cone with negative $y$ whose inputs in $D$ are close but which are obviously not close on the space.
Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.
multivariable-calculus differential-geometry manifolds surfaces
$endgroup$
I am attempting to prove that the subset of $mathbf{R}^3$ satisfying $x^2 + z^2 = y^2$ is not a surface, where
a surface is a subset of $mathbf{R}^3$ for every point in which there is a co-ordinate patch whose image contains that point and is contained in the subset
and
a co-ordinate patch is a smooth, injective, regular function from an open region of $mathbf{R}^2$ to $mathbf{R}^3$.
Having seen this visualized, I know this space is composed of two infinite cones joined at their tips (that is, at the origin). Intuitively, I then know that this is the problematic point that stops the entire set being a surface. However, I am having trouble constructing a reason why there cannot be a co-ordinate patch containing the origin; that is, showing which of the conditions on a co-ordinate patch cannot be satisfied, and why.
My attempt: If $bar{x} : D to mathbf{R}^3$ were such a co-ordinate patch, I feel that because $D$ is open and $bar{x}$ is continuous that there would necessarily be a "jump" from one of the cones composing the space to the other. As in, there would exist some point on the cone with positive $y$ and some point on the other cone with negative $y$ whose inputs in $D$ are close but which are obviously not close on the space.
Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.
multivariable-calculus differential-geometry manifolds surfaces
multivariable-calculus differential-geometry manifolds surfaces
asked Dec 4 '18 at 18:04
ENPMENPM
695
695
$begingroup$
Even though this can be proven by cheaper means, I like to do these things by showing that the tangent plane is not two dimensional at a bad point (in your case, the origin), so the surface cannot be regular.
$endgroup$
– MisterRiemann
Dec 4 '18 at 18:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Even though this can be proven by cheaper means, I like to do these things by showing that the tangent plane is not two dimensional at a bad point (in your case, the origin), so the surface cannot be regular.
$endgroup$
– MisterRiemann
Dec 4 '18 at 18:17
$begingroup$
Even though this can be proven by cheaper means, I like to do these things by showing that the tangent plane is not two dimensional at a bad point (in your case, the origin), so the surface cannot be regular.
$endgroup$
– MisterRiemann
Dec 4 '18 at 18:17
$begingroup$
Even though this can be proven by cheaper means, I like to do these things by showing that the tangent plane is not two dimensional at a bad point (in your case, the origin), so the surface cannot be regular.
$endgroup$
– MisterRiemann
Dec 4 '18 at 18:17
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
For this one, there's a particularly easy argument. Suppose that the double-cone is called $D$, and that $U subset D$ is the domain of a coordinate patch
$$
p : U to Bbb R^2,
$$
hence there's an open set $W$ in 3-space with $W cap D = U$.
Within $W$, there's an open ball $W'$ centered at the origin. Let $U' = U cap W'$. Then $U'$ is also the domain of a (smaller) coordinate patch.
By changing coordinates in $Bbb R^2$, we can assume that $p(0,0,0) = (0,0)$.
Take a small open ball $B$ around the origin in $Bbb R^2$. The preimage $Q = p^{-1}(B)$ is an open set in $D$, and contains the origin of 3-space. So $p|Q$, the restriction of $p$ to the set $Q$, is a homeomorphism from an open set in $D$ containing the origin to an open ball in $R^2$ containing the origin.
That is to say $Q$ and $p(Q)$ are homeomorphic, and $p$ is a homeomorphism between them. (Important fact 1)
$Q$ is an open set of $D$, hence the intersection of an open set $U$ in 3-space with $D$. $U$ contains an open ball around the origin (because $(0,0,0) in U$ and $U$ is open), hence it contains points in both the upper and lower cones of $D$, i.e., points with $y > 0$ and others with $y < 0$. (Important fact 2).
Now let's look at
$$
H = Q - {(0,0,0)}
$$
On the one hand, it's homeomorphic to $p(Q) - {(0,0)}$, which is a punctured disc, and is therefore connected (indeed, path connected!)
On the other hand, $H$ consists of some portion of the double cone, but NOT the origin, the only point of $D$ with $y = 0$. So any path from a point in the upper-cone $(y > 0)$ to a point in the lower-cone $(y < 0)$ must be discontinuous (via the intermediate value theorem, if you like). Such pairs of points exist by important fact 2.
Short form: If there were a patch, it'd make a disk homeomorphic to a little part of $D$ containing the origin AND parts of both cones. Removing the origin from both sides leads to something disconnected in the preimage, but connected in the image. THat's a contradiction.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Why do you define your co-ordinate patch to map $Bbb R^3$ to $Bbb R^2$, the definition I know is for the opposite mapping . Is their a subtlety to your argument that I missed or was that a typo ?
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 9 '18 at 18:29
$begingroup$
Oh...there's a ton of different definitions. The map is a homeo- (or diffeo-)morphism anyhow, so you can always reverse it. One's called a coordinate patch, the other's called a "chart", or maybe one is called local coords and other a local parameterization...I can't recall. Short answer: there's nothing subtle here,. You can replace "$p$" with "$p^{-1}$ throughout, and make it go the other direction and you'll have an explanation that matches your convention.
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
Dec 9 '18 at 20:54
$begingroup$
ahh very interesting, co-ordinate patches are very new to me , so different conventions confuse me but theyre good to learn about to get a deeper understanding :)
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 9 '18 at 20:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hint
Call $C={x^2+z^2=y^2}$ the cone. I introduce also $C_pm=Ccap{pm ygeq0}$.
Assume that there is $phiin C^1(D,C)$ with $Dsubset mathbb R^2$ open and connected, $0in D$ and $phi(0)=0$.
We prove that $phi(D)$ is entirely contained in either $C_+$ or $C_-$. Assume the contrary. Then $phi(D)setminus{0}$ is not connected. But
$$
phi(D)setminus{0} = phi(Dsetminus{0})
$$
has to be connected because it is the image of the connected set $Dsetminus{0}$.
So now you have $phiin C^1(D,C_+)$. Can you see what goes wrong with the derivatives of $phi$ at the origin?
$endgroup$
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%2f3025910%2fshow-there-can-be-no-co-ordinate-patch-at-this-point%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
For this one, there's a particularly easy argument. Suppose that the double-cone is called $D$, and that $U subset D$ is the domain of a coordinate patch
$$
p : U to Bbb R^2,
$$
hence there's an open set $W$ in 3-space with $W cap D = U$.
Within $W$, there's an open ball $W'$ centered at the origin. Let $U' = U cap W'$. Then $U'$ is also the domain of a (smaller) coordinate patch.
By changing coordinates in $Bbb R^2$, we can assume that $p(0,0,0) = (0,0)$.
Take a small open ball $B$ around the origin in $Bbb R^2$. The preimage $Q = p^{-1}(B)$ is an open set in $D$, and contains the origin of 3-space. So $p|Q$, the restriction of $p$ to the set $Q$, is a homeomorphism from an open set in $D$ containing the origin to an open ball in $R^2$ containing the origin.
That is to say $Q$ and $p(Q)$ are homeomorphic, and $p$ is a homeomorphism between them. (Important fact 1)
$Q$ is an open set of $D$, hence the intersection of an open set $U$ in 3-space with $D$. $U$ contains an open ball around the origin (because $(0,0,0) in U$ and $U$ is open), hence it contains points in both the upper and lower cones of $D$, i.e., points with $y > 0$ and others with $y < 0$. (Important fact 2).
Now let's look at
$$
H = Q - {(0,0,0)}
$$
On the one hand, it's homeomorphic to $p(Q) - {(0,0)}$, which is a punctured disc, and is therefore connected (indeed, path connected!)
On the other hand, $H$ consists of some portion of the double cone, but NOT the origin, the only point of $D$ with $y = 0$. So any path from a point in the upper-cone $(y > 0)$ to a point in the lower-cone $(y < 0)$ must be discontinuous (via the intermediate value theorem, if you like). Such pairs of points exist by important fact 2.
Short form: If there were a patch, it'd make a disk homeomorphic to a little part of $D$ containing the origin AND parts of both cones. Removing the origin from both sides leads to something disconnected in the preimage, but connected in the image. THat's a contradiction.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Why do you define your co-ordinate patch to map $Bbb R^3$ to $Bbb R^2$, the definition I know is for the opposite mapping . Is their a subtlety to your argument that I missed or was that a typo ?
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 9 '18 at 18:29
$begingroup$
Oh...there's a ton of different definitions. The map is a homeo- (or diffeo-)morphism anyhow, so you can always reverse it. One's called a coordinate patch, the other's called a "chart", or maybe one is called local coords and other a local parameterization...I can't recall. Short answer: there's nothing subtle here,. You can replace "$p$" with "$p^{-1}$ throughout, and make it go the other direction and you'll have an explanation that matches your convention.
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
Dec 9 '18 at 20:54
$begingroup$
ahh very interesting, co-ordinate patches are very new to me , so different conventions confuse me but theyre good to learn about to get a deeper understanding :)
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 9 '18 at 20:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For this one, there's a particularly easy argument. Suppose that the double-cone is called $D$, and that $U subset D$ is the domain of a coordinate patch
$$
p : U to Bbb R^2,
$$
hence there's an open set $W$ in 3-space with $W cap D = U$.
Within $W$, there's an open ball $W'$ centered at the origin. Let $U' = U cap W'$. Then $U'$ is also the domain of a (smaller) coordinate patch.
By changing coordinates in $Bbb R^2$, we can assume that $p(0,0,0) = (0,0)$.
Take a small open ball $B$ around the origin in $Bbb R^2$. The preimage $Q = p^{-1}(B)$ is an open set in $D$, and contains the origin of 3-space. So $p|Q$, the restriction of $p$ to the set $Q$, is a homeomorphism from an open set in $D$ containing the origin to an open ball in $R^2$ containing the origin.
That is to say $Q$ and $p(Q)$ are homeomorphic, and $p$ is a homeomorphism between them. (Important fact 1)
$Q$ is an open set of $D$, hence the intersection of an open set $U$ in 3-space with $D$. $U$ contains an open ball around the origin (because $(0,0,0) in U$ and $U$ is open), hence it contains points in both the upper and lower cones of $D$, i.e., points with $y > 0$ and others with $y < 0$. (Important fact 2).
Now let's look at
$$
H = Q - {(0,0,0)}
$$
On the one hand, it's homeomorphic to $p(Q) - {(0,0)}$, which is a punctured disc, and is therefore connected (indeed, path connected!)
On the other hand, $H$ consists of some portion of the double cone, but NOT the origin, the only point of $D$ with $y = 0$. So any path from a point in the upper-cone $(y > 0)$ to a point in the lower-cone $(y < 0)$ must be discontinuous (via the intermediate value theorem, if you like). Such pairs of points exist by important fact 2.
Short form: If there were a patch, it'd make a disk homeomorphic to a little part of $D$ containing the origin AND parts of both cones. Removing the origin from both sides leads to something disconnected in the preimage, but connected in the image. THat's a contradiction.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Why do you define your co-ordinate patch to map $Bbb R^3$ to $Bbb R^2$, the definition I know is for the opposite mapping . Is their a subtlety to your argument that I missed or was that a typo ?
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 9 '18 at 18:29
$begingroup$
Oh...there's a ton of different definitions. The map is a homeo- (or diffeo-)morphism anyhow, so you can always reverse it. One's called a coordinate patch, the other's called a "chart", or maybe one is called local coords and other a local parameterization...I can't recall. Short answer: there's nothing subtle here,. You can replace "$p$" with "$p^{-1}$ throughout, and make it go the other direction and you'll have an explanation that matches your convention.
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
Dec 9 '18 at 20:54
$begingroup$
ahh very interesting, co-ordinate patches are very new to me , so different conventions confuse me but theyre good to learn about to get a deeper understanding :)
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 9 '18 at 20:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For this one, there's a particularly easy argument. Suppose that the double-cone is called $D$, and that $U subset D$ is the domain of a coordinate patch
$$
p : U to Bbb R^2,
$$
hence there's an open set $W$ in 3-space with $W cap D = U$.
Within $W$, there's an open ball $W'$ centered at the origin. Let $U' = U cap W'$. Then $U'$ is also the domain of a (smaller) coordinate patch.
By changing coordinates in $Bbb R^2$, we can assume that $p(0,0,0) = (0,0)$.
Take a small open ball $B$ around the origin in $Bbb R^2$. The preimage $Q = p^{-1}(B)$ is an open set in $D$, and contains the origin of 3-space. So $p|Q$, the restriction of $p$ to the set $Q$, is a homeomorphism from an open set in $D$ containing the origin to an open ball in $R^2$ containing the origin.
That is to say $Q$ and $p(Q)$ are homeomorphic, and $p$ is a homeomorphism between them. (Important fact 1)
$Q$ is an open set of $D$, hence the intersection of an open set $U$ in 3-space with $D$. $U$ contains an open ball around the origin (because $(0,0,0) in U$ and $U$ is open), hence it contains points in both the upper and lower cones of $D$, i.e., points with $y > 0$ and others with $y < 0$. (Important fact 2).
Now let's look at
$$
H = Q - {(0,0,0)}
$$
On the one hand, it's homeomorphic to $p(Q) - {(0,0)}$, which is a punctured disc, and is therefore connected (indeed, path connected!)
On the other hand, $H$ consists of some portion of the double cone, but NOT the origin, the only point of $D$ with $y = 0$. So any path from a point in the upper-cone $(y > 0)$ to a point in the lower-cone $(y < 0)$ must be discontinuous (via the intermediate value theorem, if you like). Such pairs of points exist by important fact 2.
Short form: If there were a patch, it'd make a disk homeomorphic to a little part of $D$ containing the origin AND parts of both cones. Removing the origin from both sides leads to something disconnected in the preimage, but connected in the image. THat's a contradiction.
$endgroup$
For this one, there's a particularly easy argument. Suppose that the double-cone is called $D$, and that $U subset D$ is the domain of a coordinate patch
$$
p : U to Bbb R^2,
$$
hence there's an open set $W$ in 3-space with $W cap D = U$.
Within $W$, there's an open ball $W'$ centered at the origin. Let $U' = U cap W'$. Then $U'$ is also the domain of a (smaller) coordinate patch.
By changing coordinates in $Bbb R^2$, we can assume that $p(0,0,0) = (0,0)$.
Take a small open ball $B$ around the origin in $Bbb R^2$. The preimage $Q = p^{-1}(B)$ is an open set in $D$, and contains the origin of 3-space. So $p|Q$, the restriction of $p$ to the set $Q$, is a homeomorphism from an open set in $D$ containing the origin to an open ball in $R^2$ containing the origin.
That is to say $Q$ and $p(Q)$ are homeomorphic, and $p$ is a homeomorphism between them. (Important fact 1)
$Q$ is an open set of $D$, hence the intersection of an open set $U$ in 3-space with $D$. $U$ contains an open ball around the origin (because $(0,0,0) in U$ and $U$ is open), hence it contains points in both the upper and lower cones of $D$, i.e., points with $y > 0$ and others with $y < 0$. (Important fact 2).
Now let's look at
$$
H = Q - {(0,0,0)}
$$
On the one hand, it's homeomorphic to $p(Q) - {(0,0)}$, which is a punctured disc, and is therefore connected (indeed, path connected!)
On the other hand, $H$ consists of some portion of the double cone, but NOT the origin, the only point of $D$ with $y = 0$. So any path from a point in the upper-cone $(y > 0)$ to a point in the lower-cone $(y < 0)$ must be discontinuous (via the intermediate value theorem, if you like). Such pairs of points exist by important fact 2.
Short form: If there were a patch, it'd make a disk homeomorphic to a little part of $D$ containing the origin AND parts of both cones. Removing the origin from both sides leads to something disconnected in the preimage, but connected in the image. THat's a contradiction.
answered Dec 4 '18 at 18:37
John HughesJohn Hughes
64.4k24191
64.4k24191
$begingroup$
Why do you define your co-ordinate patch to map $Bbb R^3$ to $Bbb R^2$, the definition I know is for the opposite mapping . Is their a subtlety to your argument that I missed or was that a typo ?
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 9 '18 at 18:29
$begingroup$
Oh...there's a ton of different definitions. The map is a homeo- (or diffeo-)morphism anyhow, so you can always reverse it. One's called a coordinate patch, the other's called a "chart", or maybe one is called local coords and other a local parameterization...I can't recall. Short answer: there's nothing subtle here,. You can replace "$p$" with "$p^{-1}$ throughout, and make it go the other direction and you'll have an explanation that matches your convention.
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
Dec 9 '18 at 20:54
$begingroup$
ahh very interesting, co-ordinate patches are very new to me , so different conventions confuse me but theyre good to learn about to get a deeper understanding :)
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 9 '18 at 20:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Why do you define your co-ordinate patch to map $Bbb R^3$ to $Bbb R^2$, the definition I know is for the opposite mapping . Is their a subtlety to your argument that I missed or was that a typo ?
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 9 '18 at 18:29
$begingroup$
Oh...there's a ton of different definitions. The map is a homeo- (or diffeo-)morphism anyhow, so you can always reverse it. One's called a coordinate patch, the other's called a "chart", or maybe one is called local coords and other a local parameterization...I can't recall. Short answer: there's nothing subtle here,. You can replace "$p$" with "$p^{-1}$ throughout, and make it go the other direction and you'll have an explanation that matches your convention.
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
Dec 9 '18 at 20:54
$begingroup$
ahh very interesting, co-ordinate patches are very new to me , so different conventions confuse me but theyre good to learn about to get a deeper understanding :)
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 9 '18 at 20:56
$begingroup$
Why do you define your co-ordinate patch to map $Bbb R^3$ to $Bbb R^2$, the definition I know is for the opposite mapping . Is their a subtlety to your argument that I missed or was that a typo ?
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 9 '18 at 18:29
$begingroup$
Why do you define your co-ordinate patch to map $Bbb R^3$ to $Bbb R^2$, the definition I know is for the opposite mapping . Is their a subtlety to your argument that I missed or was that a typo ?
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 9 '18 at 18:29
$begingroup$
Oh...there's a ton of different definitions. The map is a homeo- (or diffeo-)morphism anyhow, so you can always reverse it. One's called a coordinate patch, the other's called a "chart", or maybe one is called local coords and other a local parameterization...I can't recall. Short answer: there's nothing subtle here,. You can replace "$p$" with "$p^{-1}$ throughout, and make it go the other direction and you'll have an explanation that matches your convention.
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
Dec 9 '18 at 20:54
$begingroup$
Oh...there's a ton of different definitions. The map is a homeo- (or diffeo-)morphism anyhow, so you can always reverse it. One's called a coordinate patch, the other's called a "chart", or maybe one is called local coords and other a local parameterization...I can't recall. Short answer: there's nothing subtle here,. You can replace "$p$" with "$p^{-1}$ throughout, and make it go the other direction and you'll have an explanation that matches your convention.
$endgroup$
– John Hughes
Dec 9 '18 at 20:54
$begingroup$
ahh very interesting, co-ordinate patches are very new to me , so different conventions confuse me but theyre good to learn about to get a deeper understanding :)
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 9 '18 at 20:56
$begingroup$
ahh very interesting, co-ordinate patches are very new to me , so different conventions confuse me but theyre good to learn about to get a deeper understanding :)
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 9 '18 at 20:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hint
Call $C={x^2+z^2=y^2}$ the cone. I introduce also $C_pm=Ccap{pm ygeq0}$.
Assume that there is $phiin C^1(D,C)$ with $Dsubset mathbb R^2$ open and connected, $0in D$ and $phi(0)=0$.
We prove that $phi(D)$ is entirely contained in either $C_+$ or $C_-$. Assume the contrary. Then $phi(D)setminus{0}$ is not connected. But
$$
phi(D)setminus{0} = phi(Dsetminus{0})
$$
has to be connected because it is the image of the connected set $Dsetminus{0}$.
So now you have $phiin C^1(D,C_+)$. Can you see what goes wrong with the derivatives of $phi$ at the origin?
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hint
Call $C={x^2+z^2=y^2}$ the cone. I introduce also $C_pm=Ccap{pm ygeq0}$.
Assume that there is $phiin C^1(D,C)$ with $Dsubset mathbb R^2$ open and connected, $0in D$ and $phi(0)=0$.
We prove that $phi(D)$ is entirely contained in either $C_+$ or $C_-$. Assume the contrary. Then $phi(D)setminus{0}$ is not connected. But
$$
phi(D)setminus{0} = phi(Dsetminus{0})
$$
has to be connected because it is the image of the connected set $Dsetminus{0}$.
So now you have $phiin C^1(D,C_+)$. Can you see what goes wrong with the derivatives of $phi$ at the origin?
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hint
Call $C={x^2+z^2=y^2}$ the cone. I introduce also $C_pm=Ccap{pm ygeq0}$.
Assume that there is $phiin C^1(D,C)$ with $Dsubset mathbb R^2$ open and connected, $0in D$ and $phi(0)=0$.
We prove that $phi(D)$ is entirely contained in either $C_+$ or $C_-$. Assume the contrary. Then $phi(D)setminus{0}$ is not connected. But
$$
phi(D)setminus{0} = phi(Dsetminus{0})
$$
has to be connected because it is the image of the connected set $Dsetminus{0}$.
So now you have $phiin C^1(D,C_+)$. Can you see what goes wrong with the derivatives of $phi$ at the origin?
$endgroup$
Hint
Call $C={x^2+z^2=y^2}$ the cone. I introduce also $C_pm=Ccap{pm ygeq0}$.
Assume that there is $phiin C^1(D,C)$ with $Dsubset mathbb R^2$ open and connected, $0in D$ and $phi(0)=0$.
We prove that $phi(D)$ is entirely contained in either $C_+$ or $C_-$. Assume the contrary. Then $phi(D)setminus{0}$ is not connected. But
$$
phi(D)setminus{0} = phi(Dsetminus{0})
$$
has to be connected because it is the image of the connected set $Dsetminus{0}$.
So now you have $phiin C^1(D,C_+)$. Can you see what goes wrong with the derivatives of $phi$ at the origin?
edited Dec 4 '18 at 18:27
answered Dec 4 '18 at 18:21
FedericoFederico
5,124514
5,124514
add a comment |
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%2f3025910%2fshow-there-can-be-no-co-ordinate-patch-at-this-point%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
$begingroup$
Even though this can be proven by cheaper means, I like to do these things by showing that the tangent plane is not two dimensional at a bad point (in your case, the origin), so the surface cannot be regular.
$endgroup$
– MisterRiemann
Dec 4 '18 at 18:17