Dtjytyk

Has the laser at Magurele, Romania reached a tenth of the Sun's power?

Should a narrator ever describe things based on a character's view instead of facts?

When is the exact date for EOL of Ubuntu 14.04 LTS?

Can a Knock spell open the door to Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion?

If the Dominion rule using their Jem'Hadar troops, why is their life expectancy so low?

Why is indicated airspeed rather than ground speed used during the takeoff roll?

How can a new country break out from a developed country without war?

Relations between homogeneous polynomials

How do I prevent inappropriate ads from appearing in my game?

Mortal danger in mid-grade literature

Can you describe someone as luxurious? As in someone who likes luxurious things?

Capacitor electron flow

Asserting that Atheism and Theism are both faith based positions

Why is participating in the European Parliamentary elections used as a threat?

Would this string work as string?

Sort with assumptions

Recursively move files within sub directories

Is there any common country to visit for persons holding UK and Schengen visas?

Should I be concerned about student access to a test bank?

Reason why a kingside attack is not justified

Trouble reading roman numeral notation with flats

Do native speakers use "ultima" and "proxima" frequently in spoken English?

Why would five hundred and five same as one?

What is it called when someone votes for an option that's not their first choice?

The definition of the tangent vector of a manifold

Understand to paragraphs in Chicones book concerning tangent vector fieldsAn expression of covectors acting on vectors on the tangent space of a manifoldComputing tangent spaceIntrinsic definition of differential k-form on smooth manifoldShow that a smooth manifold modulo diffeomorphism group is a smooth manifoldTopology of the tangent bundleproof that a property is chart independent on a manifoldExamples of tangent vectors (or vector fields) with values in a vector space (or vector bundle)On the definition of tensor fieldSheafy definition for the tangent space at a point on a manifold?

3

$begingroup$

In many textbooks of differential manifold, authors usually define the tangent vector on a manifold as below:

Definition: Suppose $m$ is a $n$-dimensional smooth manifold, $xin M$, the tangent vector of smooth manifold $M$ at point $x$, if map $v: C_x^inftyrightarrowmathbb{R}$ is applied to all of the conditions below:

(1) $forall f,gin C_x^infty, vleft(f+gright)=vleft(fright)+vleft(gright)$;

(2) $forall fin C_x^infty, forall lambdainmathbb{R}, vleft(lambda fright)=lambdacdot vleft(fright)$;

(3) $forall f,gin C_x^infty, vleft(fcdot gright)=fleft(xright)cdot vleft(gright)+gleft(xright)vleft(fright).$

My questions are:

(1)Why don’t we use the definition in the Euclidean space (treat a manifold as embedded in an Euclidean)? And why do we define a new one above?

(2)What’s the idea or the purpose of giving the definition above?

(3)How to treat the tangent vector in the Euclidean space as a particular case of the def. above?

Thanks of your attention to these questions and your opinions about them!

geometry smooth-manifolds

share|cite|improve this question

asked Mar 12 at 15:44

mathInferiormathInferior

183

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

3

$begingroup$

In many textbooks of differential manifold, authors usually define the tangent vector on a manifold as below:

Definition: Suppose $m$ is a $n$-dimensional smooth manifold, $xin M$, the tangent vector of smooth manifold $M$ at point $x$, if map $v: C_x^inftyrightarrowmathbb{R}$ is applied to all of the conditions below:

(1) $forall f,gin C_x^infty, vleft(f+gright)=vleft(fright)+vleft(gright)$;

(2) $forall fin C_x^infty, forall lambdainmathbb{R}, vleft(lambda fright)=lambdacdot vleft(fright)$;

(3) $forall f,gin C_x^infty, vleft(fcdot gright)=fleft(xright)cdot vleft(gright)+gleft(xright)vleft(fright).$

My questions are:

(1)Why don’t we use the definition in the Euclidean space (treat a manifold as embedded in an Euclidean)? And why do we define a new one above?

(2)What’s the idea or the purpose of giving the definition above?

(3)How to treat the tangent vector in the Euclidean space as a particular case of the def. above?

Thanks of your attention to these questions and your opinions about them!

geometry smooth-manifolds

share|cite|improve this question

asked Mar 12 at 15:44

mathInferiormathInferior

183

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

In many textbooks of differential manifold, authors usually define the tangent vector on a manifold as below:

Definition: Suppose $m$ is a $n$-dimensional smooth manifold, $xin M$, the tangent vector of smooth manifold $M$ at point $x$, if map $v: C_x^inftyrightarrowmathbb{R}$ is applied to all of the conditions below:

(1) $forall f,gin C_x^infty, vleft(f+gright)=vleft(fright)+vleft(gright)$;

(2) $forall fin C_x^infty, forall lambdainmathbb{R}, vleft(lambda fright)=lambdacdot vleft(fright)$;

(3) $forall f,gin C_x^infty, vleft(fcdot gright)=fleft(xright)cdot vleft(gright)+gleft(xright)vleft(fright).$

My questions are:

(1)Why don’t we use the definition in the Euclidean space (treat a manifold as embedded in an Euclidean)? And why do we define a new one above?

(2)What’s the idea or the purpose of giving the definition above?

(3)How to treat the tangent vector in the Euclidean space as a particular case of the def. above?

Thanks of your attention to these questions and your opinions about them!

geometry smooth-manifolds

share|cite|improve this question

asked Mar 12 at 15:44

mathInferiormathInferior

183

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this question

asked Mar 12 at 15:44

mathInferiormathInferior

183

share|cite|improve this question

asked Mar 12 at 15:44

mathInferiormathInferior

183

asked Mar 12 at 15:44

mathInferiormathInferior

183

asked Mar 12 at 15:44

mathInferiormathInferior

183

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

3

$begingroup$

(1) The definition of a manifold does not include an embedding into Euclidean space. It is not a priori clear that a manifold even can be embedded into some Euclidean space (though it is true, by the Whitney embedding theorem). Even though it can be done, it is convoluted, and there is no natural choice of embedding. There are actually many different embeddings, so if your definition of tangent vectors really depended on the embedding, you would run into trouble. And even if it didn't, it would be nice to have a definition which obviously doesn't depend on such things.

(2) Because of (1), we want a definition of tangent vectors that does not depend on the manifold being embedded in some Euclidean space. The one you give is common, but there are others, e.g. equivalence classes of curves. It would be very desirable for these intrinsic definitions to line up with the definition we're used to when the manifold is embedded in Euclidean space, and this does happen in a nice way. For your definition, there is a natural isomorphism to the embedded-Euclidean definition by directional derivatives.

(3) As in (2), you can think of these new tangent vectors as the directional derivatives in the directions of the old tangent vectors.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited Mar 13 at 0:45

answered Mar 12 at 16:20

cspruncsprun

2,310210

$endgroup$

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
});


}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

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

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3145245%2fthe-definition-of-the-tangent-vector-of-a-manifold%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

3

$begingroup$

(1) The definition of a manifold does not include an embedding into Euclidean space. It is not a priori clear that a manifold even can be embedded into some Euclidean space (though it is true, by the Whitney embedding theorem). Even though it can be done, it is convoluted, and there is no natural choice of embedding. There are actually many different embeddings, so if your definition of tangent vectors really depended on the embedding, you would run into trouble. And even if it didn't, it would be nice to have a definition which obviously doesn't depend on such things.

(2) Because of (1), we want a definition of tangent vectors that does not depend on the manifold being embedded in some Euclidean space. The one you give is common, but there are others, e.g. equivalence classes of curves. It would be very desirable for these intrinsic definitions to line up with the definition we're used to when the manifold is embedded in Euclidean space, and this does happen in a nice way. For your definition, there is a natural isomorphism to the embedded-Euclidean definition by directional derivatives.

(3) As in (2), you can think of these new tangent vectors as the directional derivatives in the directions of the old tangent vectors.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited Mar 13 at 0:45

answered Mar 12 at 16:20

cspruncsprun

2,310210

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

3

$begingroup$

(1) The definition of a manifold does not include an embedding into Euclidean space. It is not a priori clear that a manifold even can be embedded into some Euclidean space (though it is true, by the Whitney embedding theorem). Even though it can be done, it is convoluted, and there is no natural choice of embedding. There are actually many different embeddings, so if your definition of tangent vectors really depended on the embedding, you would run into trouble. And even if it didn't, it would be nice to have a definition which obviously doesn't depend on such things.

(2) Because of (1), we want a definition of tangent vectors that does not depend on the manifold being embedded in some Euclidean space. The one you give is common, but there are others, e.g. equivalence classes of curves. It would be very desirable for these intrinsic definitions to line up with the definition we're used to when the manifold is embedded in Euclidean space, and this does happen in a nice way. For your definition, there is a natural isomorphism to the embedded-Euclidean definition by directional derivatives.

(3) As in (2), you can think of these new tangent vectors as the directional derivatives in the directions of the old tangent vectors.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited Mar 13 at 0:45

answered Mar 12 at 16:20

cspruncsprun

2,310210

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

(1) The definition of a manifold does not include an embedding into Euclidean space. It is not a priori clear that a manifold even can be embedded into some Euclidean space (though it is true, by the Whitney embedding theorem). Even though it can be done, it is convoluted, and there is no natural choice of embedding. There are actually many different embeddings, so if your definition of tangent vectors really depended on the embedding, you would run into trouble. And even if it didn't, it would be nice to have a definition which obviously doesn't depend on such things.

(2) Because of (1), we want a definition of tangent vectors that does not depend on the manifold being embedded in some Euclidean space. The one you give is common, but there are others, e.g. equivalence classes of curves. It would be very desirable for these intrinsic definitions to line up with the definition we're used to when the manifold is embedded in Euclidean space, and this does happen in a nice way. For your definition, there is a natural isomorphism to the embedded-Euclidean definition by directional derivatives.

(3) As in (2), you can think of these new tangent vectors as the directional derivatives in the directions of the old tangent vectors.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited Mar 13 at 0:45

answered Mar 12 at 16:20

cspruncsprun

2,310210

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this answer

edited Mar 13 at 0:45

answered Mar 12 at 16:20

cspruncsprun

2,310210

answered Mar 12 at 16:20

cspruncsprun

2,310210

answered Mar 12 at 16:20

cspruncsprun

2,310210