$C^{k}$-manifolds: how and why?
up vote
32
down vote
favorite
First of all, I have a specific question. Suppose $M$ is an $m$-dimensional $C^k$-manifold, for $1 leq k < infty$. Is the tangent space to a point defined as the space of $C^k$ derivations on the germs of $C^k$ functions near that point? If so, is it $m$-dimensional? Bredon's book Topology and Geometry comments that only in the $C^infty$ case can one prove that every derivation is given by a tangent vector to a curve. If so, this would suggest that (if indeed given this definition), the tangent space to a $C^k$-manifold would be bigger in the case $k < infty$. Additionally, out of curiosity, would anybody have an example of a derivation that is not a tangent vector to a curve?
Secondly, it would seem to me that a fair share of the things I learned about smooth manifolds should fail or at least require more elaborate proofs in the $C^k$ case. We only used higher derivatives in proving Sard's theorem, but all the time we used the identification that the tangent space is given by tangent vectors to curves; the tubular neighborhood theorem comes to mind. What are the standard facts of smooth manifolds that do fail in the $C^k$ case?
Thirdly, are they really important? It seems a lot of books deal only with smooth manifolds, but a fair share also seem to deal with $C^k$-manifolds; Hirsch's Differential Topology deals with them all throughout, and Duistermaat's book on Lie groups defines them as $C^2$-manifolds. Should I, as a student of topology / geometry, be paying close attention to $C^k$-manifolds and the distinctions with the smooth case?
differential-geometry manifolds differential-topology
asked Aug 31 '14 at 11:02
Pedro
2,73331834
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
32
down vote
favorite
First of all, I have a specific question. Suppose $M$ is an $m$-dimensional $C^k$-manifold, for $1 leq k < infty$. Is the tangent space to a point defined as the space of $C^k$ derivations on the germs of $C^k$ functions near that point? If so, is it $m$-dimensional? Bredon's book Topology and Geometry comments that only in the $C^infty$ case can one prove that every derivation is given by a tangent vector to a curve. If so, this would suggest that (if indeed given this definition), the tangent space to a $C^k$-manifold would be bigger in the case $k < infty$. Additionally, out of curiosity, would anybody have an example of a derivation that is not a tangent vector to a curve?
Secondly, it would seem to me that a fair share of the things I learned about smooth manifolds should fail or at least require more elaborate proofs in the $C^k$ case. We only used higher derivatives in proving Sard's theorem, but all the time we used the identification that the tangent space is given by tangent vectors to curves; the tubular neighborhood theorem comes to mind. What are the standard facts of smooth manifolds that do fail in the $C^k$ case?
Thirdly, are they really important? It seems a lot of books deal only with smooth manifolds, but a fair share also seem to deal with $C^k$-manifolds; Hirsch's Differential Topology deals with them all throughout, and Duistermaat's book on Lie groups defines them as $C^2$-manifolds. Should I, as a student of topology / geometry, be paying close attention to $C^k$-manifolds and the distinctions with the smooth case?
differential-geometry manifolds differential-topology
asked Aug 31 '14 at 11:02
Pedro
2,73331834
2
I remember losing a little bit of sleep about exactly those questions. My understanding is that every maximal $C^k (kgeq 1)$ atlas contains a $C^infty$ atlas, which is a relief.
– Tim kinsella
Aug 31 '14 at 11:07
2
Duistermaat defines Lie groups as $C^2$-manifolds because that suffices to prove they are analytic (better than $C^{infty}$). Nice exposition at terrytao.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/…
– Colin McLarty
Aug 31 '14 at 11:20
1
@Lolman: Very interesting! How is it defined then? It'd be lovely if someone could get a reference for showing it's infinite-dimensional in the derivations definition.
– Pedro
Aug 31 '14 at 11:27
3
Much of this question is answered at math.stackexchange.com/questions/73677/…
– Colin McLarty
Aug 31 '14 at 11:57
2
As a general comment, you shouldn't use the word "tangent space" to refer to the space of all derivations. Even in the $C^k$ context, the word "tangent space" means the (finite-dimensional) space of all tangent vectors. Books that restrict to the $C^infty$ case sometimes define the tangent space using derivations, but that's not the primary definition. In particular, books that consider the $C^k$ case generally ignore derivations completely in favor of some other formalism.
– Jim Belk
Jun 4 '15 at 16:48
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
32
down vote
favorite
up vote
32
down vote
favorite
First of all, I have a specific question. Suppose $M$ is an $m$-dimensional $C^k$-manifold, for $1 leq k < infty$. Is the tangent space to a point defined as the space of $C^k$ derivations on the germs of $C^k$ functions near that point? If so, is it $m$-dimensional? Bredon's book Topology and Geometry comments that only in the $C^infty$ case can one prove that every derivation is given by a tangent vector to a curve. If so, this would suggest that (if indeed given this definition), the tangent space to a $C^k$-manifold would be bigger in the case $k < infty$. Additionally, out of curiosity, would anybody have an example of a derivation that is not a tangent vector to a curve?
Secondly, it would seem to me that a fair share of the things I learned about smooth manifolds should fail or at least require more elaborate proofs in the $C^k$ case. We only used higher derivatives in proving Sard's theorem, but all the time we used the identification that the tangent space is given by tangent vectors to curves; the tubular neighborhood theorem comes to mind. What are the standard facts of smooth manifolds that do fail in the $C^k$ case?
Thirdly, are they really important? It seems a lot of books deal only with smooth manifolds, but a fair share also seem to deal with $C^k$-manifolds; Hirsch's Differential Topology deals with them all throughout, and Duistermaat's book on Lie groups defines them as $C^2$-manifolds. Should I, as a student of topology / geometry, be paying close attention to $C^k$-manifolds and the distinctions with the smooth case?
differential-geometry manifolds differential-topology
asked Aug 31 '14 at 11:02
Pedro
2,73331834
First of all, I have a specific question. Suppose $M$ is an $m$-dimensional $C^k$-manifold, for $1 leq k < infty$. Is the tangent space to a point defined as the space of $C^k$ derivations on the germs of $C^k$ functions near that point? If so, is it $m$-dimensional? Bredon's book Topology and Geometry comments that only in the $C^infty$ case can one prove that every derivation is given by a tangent vector to a curve. If so, this would suggest that (if indeed given this definition), the tangent space to a $C^k$-manifold would be bigger in the case $k < infty$. Additionally, out of curiosity, would anybody have an example of a derivation that is not a tangent vector to a curve?
Secondly, it would seem to me that a fair share of the things I learned about smooth manifolds should fail or at least require more elaborate proofs in the $C^k$ case. We only used higher derivatives in proving Sard's theorem, but all the time we used the identification that the tangent space is given by tangent vectors to curves; the tubular neighborhood theorem comes to mind. What are the standard facts of smooth manifolds that do fail in the $C^k$ case?
Thirdly, are they really important? It seems a lot of books deal only with smooth manifolds, but a fair share also seem to deal with $C^k$-manifolds; Hirsch's Differential Topology deals with them all throughout, and Duistermaat's book on Lie groups defines them as $C^2$-manifolds. Should I, as a student of topology / geometry, be paying close attention to $C^k$-manifolds and the distinctions with the smooth case?
differential-geometry manifolds differential-topology
differential-geometry manifolds differential-topology
asked Aug 31 '14 at 11:02
Pedro
2,73331834
asked Aug 31 '14 at 11:02
Pedro
2,73331834
edited Aug 31 '14 at 12:58
asked Aug 31 '14 at 11:02
Pedro
2,73331834
asked Aug 31 '14 at 11:02
Pedro
2,73331834
asked Aug 31 '14 at 11:02
Pedro
2,73331834
2,73331834
2
I remember losing a little bit of sleep about exactly those questions. My understanding is that every maximal $C^k (kgeq 1)$ atlas contains a $C^infty$ atlas, which is a relief.
– Tim kinsella
Aug 31 '14 at 11:07
2
Duistermaat defines Lie groups as $C^2$-manifolds because that suffices to prove they are analytic (better than $C^{infty}$). Nice exposition at terrytao.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/…
– Colin McLarty
Aug 31 '14 at 11:20
1
@Lolman: Very interesting! How is it defined then? It'd be lovely if someone could get a reference for showing it's infinite-dimensional in the derivations definition.
– Pedro
Aug 31 '14 at 11:27
3
Much of this question is answered at math.stackexchange.com/questions/73677/…
– Colin McLarty
Aug 31 '14 at 11:57
2
As a general comment, you shouldn't use the word "tangent space" to refer to the space of all derivations. Even in the $C^k$ context, the word "tangent space" means the (finite-dimensional) space of all tangent vectors. Books that restrict to the $C^infty$ case sometimes define the tangent space using derivations, but that's not the primary definition. In particular, books that consider the $C^k$ case generally ignore derivations completely in favor of some other formalism.
– Jim Belk
Jun 4 '15 at 16:48
|
show 2 more comments
2
I remember losing a little bit of sleep about exactly those questions. My understanding is that every maximal $C^k (kgeq 1)$ atlas contains a $C^infty$ atlas, which is a relief.
– Tim kinsella
Aug 31 '14 at 11:07
2
Duistermaat defines Lie groups as $C^2$-manifolds because that suffices to prove they are analytic (better than $C^{infty}$). Nice exposition at terrytao.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/…
– Colin McLarty
Aug 31 '14 at 11:20
1
@Lolman: Very interesting! How is it defined then? It'd be lovely if someone could get a reference for showing it's infinite-dimensional in the derivations definition.
– Pedro
Aug 31 '14 at 11:27
3
Much of this question is answered at math.stackexchange.com/questions/73677/…
– Colin McLarty
Aug 31 '14 at 11:57
2
As a general comment, you shouldn't use the word "tangent space" to refer to the space of all derivations. Even in the $C^k$ context, the word "tangent space" means the (finite-dimensional) space of all tangent vectors. Books that restrict to the $C^infty$ case sometimes define the tangent space using derivations, but that's not the primary definition. In particular, books that consider the $C^k$ case generally ignore derivations completely in favor of some other formalism.
– Jim Belk
Jun 4 '15 at 16:48
2
2
I remember losing a little bit of sleep about exactly those questions. My understanding is that every maximal $C^k (kgeq 1)$ atlas contains a $C^infty$ atlas, which is a relief.
– Tim kinsella
Aug 31 '14 at 11:07
I remember losing a little bit of sleep about exactly those questions. My understanding is that every maximal $C^k (kgeq 1)$ atlas contains a $C^infty$ atlas, which is a relief.
– Tim kinsella
Aug 31 '14 at 11:07
2
2
Duistermaat defines Lie groups as $C^2$-manifolds because that suffices to prove they are analytic (better than $C^{infty}$). Nice exposition at terrytao.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/…
– Colin McLarty
Aug 31 '14 at 11:20
Duistermaat defines Lie groups as $C^2$-manifolds because that suffices to prove they are analytic (better than $C^{infty}$). Nice exposition at terrytao.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/…
– Colin McLarty
Aug 31 '14 at 11:20
1
1
@Lolman: Very interesting! How is it defined then? It'd be lovely if someone could get a reference for showing it's infinite-dimensional in the derivations definition.
– Pedro
Aug 31 '14 at 11:27
@Lolman: Very interesting! How is it defined then? It'd be lovely if someone could get a reference for showing it's infinite-dimensional in the derivations definition.
– Pedro
Aug 31 '14 at 11:27
3
3
Much of this question is answered at math.stackexchange.com/questions/73677/…
– Colin McLarty
Aug 31 '14 at 11:57
Much of this question is answered at math.stackexchange.com/questions/73677/…
– Colin McLarty
Aug 31 '14 at 11:57
2
2
As a general comment, you shouldn't use the word "tangent space" to refer to the space of all derivations. Even in the $C^k$ context, the word "tangent space" means the (finite-dimensional) space of all tangent vectors. Books that restrict to the $C^infty$ case sometimes define the tangent space using derivations, but that's not the primary definition. In particular, books that consider the $C^k$ case generally ignore derivations completely in favor of some other formalism.
– Jim Belk
Jun 4 '15 at 16:48
As a general comment, you shouldn't use the word "tangent space" to refer to the space of all derivations. Even in the $C^k$ context, the word "tangent space" means the (finite-dimensional) space of all tangent vectors. Books that restrict to the $C^infty$ case sometimes define the tangent space using derivations, but that's not the primary definition. In particular, books that consider the $C^k$ case generally ignore derivations completely in favor of some other formalism.
– Jim Belk
Jun 4 '15 at 16:48
|
show 2 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
@Pedro: As you know, any $C^k$-atlas is compatible with a $C^infty$-atlas. For Lie groups we have more: $C^1Longrightarrow C^omega$.
- Differential geometry deals only with smooth atlas (in order to identify a tangent vector with a derivation, to work with vector fields as derivations on the algebra of functions $C^infty(M)$...Note that the Lie bracket of two vector fields is a vector field fails to be true if you restrict to $C^1$ functions:
$$partial_{x_i}partial_{x_j}f=partial_{x_j}partial_{x_i}f, text{if} fin C^2(U)$$ - Differential topology deals with functions with less regularity (to use a most general form of Sard's theorem, Morse theory...)
answered Nov 4 '14 at 19:02
amine
667516
2
The existence of a smooth structure may not be much help. The level set of $C^k$ function in Euclidean space cannot be given a smooth structure that is compatible with the smooth structure of Euclidean space.
– shuhalo
Oct 24 '17 at 4:56
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
@Pedro: As you know, any $C^k$-atlas is compatible with a $C^infty$-atlas. For Lie groups we have more: $C^1Longrightarrow C^omega$.
- Differential geometry deals only with smooth atlas (in order to identify a tangent vector with a derivation, to work with vector fields as derivations on the algebra of functions $C^infty(M)$...Note that the Lie bracket of two vector fields is a vector field fails to be true if you restrict to $C^1$ functions:
$$partial_{x_i}partial_{x_j}f=partial_{x_j}partial_{x_i}f, text{if} fin C^2(U)$$ - Differential topology deals with functions with less regularity (to use a most general form of Sard's theorem, Morse theory...)
answered Nov 4 '14 at 19:02
amine
667516
2
The existence of a smooth structure may not be much help. The level set of $C^k$ function in Euclidean space cannot be given a smooth structure that is compatible with the smooth structure of Euclidean space.
– shuhalo
Oct 24 '17 at 4:56
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
@Pedro: As you know, any $C^k$-atlas is compatible with a $C^infty$-atlas. For Lie groups we have more: $C^1Longrightarrow C^omega$.
- Differential geometry deals only with smooth atlas (in order to identify a tangent vector with a derivation, to work with vector fields as derivations on the algebra of functions $C^infty(M)$...Note that the Lie bracket of two vector fields is a vector field fails to be true if you restrict to $C^1$ functions:
$$partial_{x_i}partial_{x_j}f=partial_{x_j}partial_{x_i}f, text{if} fin C^2(U)$$ - Differential topology deals with functions with less regularity (to use a most general form of Sard's theorem, Morse theory...)
answered Nov 4 '14 at 19:02
amine
667516
2
The existence of a smooth structure may not be much help. The level set of $C^k$ function in Euclidean space cannot be given a smooth structure that is compatible with the smooth structure of Euclidean space.
– shuhalo
Oct 24 '17 at 4:56
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
@Pedro: As you know, any $C^k$-atlas is compatible with a $C^infty$-atlas. For Lie groups we have more: $C^1Longrightarrow C^omega$.
- Differential geometry deals only with smooth atlas (in order to identify a tangent vector with a derivation, to work with vector fields as derivations on the algebra of functions $C^infty(M)$...Note that the Lie bracket of two vector fields is a vector field fails to be true if you restrict to $C^1$ functions:
$$partial_{x_i}partial_{x_j}f=partial_{x_j}partial_{x_i}f, text{if} fin C^2(U)$$ - Differential topology deals with functions with less regularity (to use a most general form of Sard's theorem, Morse theory...)
answered Nov 4 '14 at 19:02
amine
667516
@Pedro: As you know, any $C^k$-atlas is compatible with a $C^infty$-atlas. For Lie groups we have more: $C^1Longrightarrow C^omega$.
- Differential geometry deals only with smooth atlas (in order to identify a tangent vector with a derivation, to work with vector fields as derivations on the algebra of functions $C^infty(M)$...Note that the Lie bracket of two vector fields is a vector field fails to be true if you restrict to $C^1$ functions:
$$partial_{x_i}partial_{x_j}f=partial_{x_j}partial_{x_i}f, text{if} fin C^2(U)$$ - Differential topology deals with functions with less regularity (to use a most general form of Sard's theorem, Morse theory...)
answered Nov 4 '14 at 19:02
amine
667516
answered Nov 4 '14 at 19:02
amine
667516
answered Nov 4 '14 at 19:02
amine
667516
answered Nov 4 '14 at 19:02
amine
667516
667516
2
The existence of a smooth structure may not be much help. The level set of $C^k$ function in Euclidean space cannot be given a smooth structure that is compatible with the smooth structure of Euclidean space.
– shuhalo
Oct 24 '17 at 4:56
add a comment |
2
The existence of a smooth structure may not be much help. The level set of $C^k$ function in Euclidean space cannot be given a smooth structure that is compatible with the smooth structure of Euclidean space.
– shuhalo
Oct 24 '17 at 4:56
2
2
The existence of a smooth structure may not be much help. The level set of $C^k$ function in Euclidean space cannot be given a smooth structure that is compatible with the smooth structure of Euclidean space.
– shuhalo
Oct 24 '17 at 4:56
The existence of a smooth structure may not be much help. The level set of $C^k$ function in Euclidean space cannot be given a smooth structure that is compatible with the smooth structure of Euclidean space.
– shuhalo
Oct 24 '17 at 4:56
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
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%2f914790%2fck-manifolds-how-and-why%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
I remember losing a little bit of sleep about exactly those questions. My understanding is that every maximal $C^k (kgeq 1)$ atlas contains a $C^infty$ atlas, which is a relief.
– Tim kinsella
Aug 31 '14 at 11:07
2
Duistermaat defines Lie groups as $C^2$-manifolds because that suffices to prove they are analytic (better than $C^{infty}$). Nice exposition at terrytao.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/…
– Colin McLarty
Aug 31 '14 at 11:20
1
@Lolman: Very interesting! How is it defined then? It'd be lovely if someone could get a reference for showing it's infinite-dimensional in the derivations definition.
– Pedro
Aug 31 '14 at 11:27
3
Much of this question is answered at math.stackexchange.com/questions/73677/…
– Colin McLarty
Aug 31 '14 at 11:57
2
As a general comment, you shouldn't use the word "tangent space" to refer to the space of all derivations. Even in the $C^k$ context, the word "tangent space" means the (finite-dimensional) space of all tangent vectors. Books that restrict to the $C^infty$ case sometimes define the tangent space using derivations, but that's not the primary definition. In particular, books that consider the $C^k$ case generally ignore derivations completely in favor of some other formalism.
– Jim Belk
Jun 4 '15 at 16:48