DOCSLIB.ORG

1. Whitney Embedding Theorem 1.0.1. Let M N Be a Smooth Manifold

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1. Whitney Embedding Theorem 1.0.1. Let M N Be a Smooth Manifold 1. Whitney embedding Theorem 1.0.1. Let M n be a smooth manifold. Then M n admits a smooth 2n+1 proper embedding into R . Proof. We will only give a proof when M is compact. It's enough to show 2n+1 that there exists a smooth 1−1 immersion f : M ! R . Such an f will be automatically a proper embedding due to compactness of M . Lemma 1.0.2. Let M n be a compact n-manifold. There exists a a smooth k 1 − 1 immersion f : M ! R for some large k depending on M . 0 Proof of Lemma 1.0.2. For any point p choose a coordinate ball Bp con- 0 0 0 taining p and let xp : Bp ! Vp be a local coordinate chart where Vp is n 0 an open ball in R . Let Bp ⊂ Bp be a smaller coordinate ball containing 0 p and such that xp(Bp) = Vp is a concentric ball to Vp of smaller radius. ¯ 0 Then Bp is compact and is contained in Bp . We have that [p2M = M is an open cover of M . By compactness we can choose a finite subcover by 0 0 coordinate balls B1;:::;Bm such that xi : Bi ! Vi ; i = 1; : : : m are local coordinate charts. Let 'i : M ! R be a smooth function such that 'i = 1 ¯ 0 0 ¯ on Bi , 'i = 0 on MnBi and 0 < 'i < 1 on BinBi . m(n+1) Let f : M ! R be given by f(p) = ('1(p)x1(p);:::;'m(p)xm(p);'1(p);:::;'m(p)) Claim 1: f is 1 − 1. Let p; q 2 M be distinct points. If p; q 2 B¯i for some i then 'i(p) = 0 'i(q) = 1 but xi(p) 6= xi(q) since xi is a diffeomoprhism on Bi and in 0 particular it's 1-1 on Bi . Hence 'i(p)xi(p) 6= 'i(q)xi(q) and therefore f(p) 6= f(q). If p; q don't belong to the same B¯i for any i then there is an i such that p 2 Bi but q2 = B¯i . then 'i(p) = 1 but 'i(q) < 1 and we can again conclude that f(p) 6= f(q). Claim 2: f is an immersion. Let p 2 M; v 2 TpM; v 6= 0. Then p 2 Bi for some i. Bi is open in M and 'i = 1 on Bi . Therefore d('i · xi)jp(v) = d(xi)jp(v) 6= 0 since xi is an immersion on Bi . Therefore dfp(v) 6= 0 and hence F is an immersion. This finishes the proof of Claim 2 and hence of Lemma 1.0.2. N Lemma 1.0.3. Let S ⊂ R be a submanifold of dimension n where N > N N ? ∼ N−1 2n + 1. For any nonzero v 2 R let πv : R ! v = R be the orthogo- N−1 nal projection. Then there exists v 6= 0 such that πvjS : S ! R is a 1-1 immersion. Proof of Lemma 1.0.3. Note that ker πv = Rv for any v 6= 0. Observe that if πv(p) = πv(q) for some distinct p; q 2 S then p − q = N−1 λv for some nonzero λ i.e. [p − q] = [v] 2 RP . Also, since πv is n linear, d(πv)p = πv for any p 2 R . Therefore, if (p; u) 2 TpS; u 6= 0 and N−1 d(πv)p(u) = 0 then u = λv and [u] = [v] 2 RP . 1 2 N−1 Let h: S×Sn∆S ! RP be given by h(p; q) = [p−q] and g : TSn0(S) ! N−1 RP be given by g(p; u) = [u]. Since N − 1 > 2n = dim S × S = dim TS , N−1 the only way [v] 2 RP can be a regular value of h (g) is if [v] 2= image of h (g). By Sards theorem the set of singular values of h (g) has measure 0 and since the union of two sets of measure zero has measure zero we can find N−1 [v] 2 RP which is a regular value for both g and h. By above that means that [v] is not in the image of either h or g. Again, by above that means that N−1 πvjS : S ! R is a 1-1 immersion. To finish the proof of Whitney's theorem we repeatedly apply Lemma 1.0.3 to S = f(M) provided by Lemma 1.0.2. 2. Transversality n Definition 2.0.1. Let S1;S2 be submanifolds in a smooth manifold M . We say that S1 is transverse to S2 (denoted by S1 t S2 ) if for any p 2 S1\S2 it holds that TpS1 + TpS2 = TpM . Definition 2.0.2. Let S be a submanifold in a smooth manifold N n . Let f : M ! N be a smooth map. We say that f is transverse to S (denoted −1 by f t S ) if for any p 2 f S it holds that Tf(p)S + dfp(TpM) = TpN . • Let S1;S2 be submanifolds in M . Then S1 t S2 iff i1 t S2 where i1 : S1 ! M is the canonical inclusion. • Let f : M ! N be smooth and let S = c 2 N be a point which we view as a zero-dimensional submanifold. Then f t S iff c is a regular value of f . • Let S1;S2 be submanifolds in M such that dim S1 + dim S2 < dim M . Then S1 t S2 iff S1 \ S2 = ;. • If f : M ! N is a submersion then f t S for any submanifold S in N . Example 2.0.3. n k l • Let M = R , S1 = R × 0, S2 = 0 × R .Then S1 t S2 iff k + l > n. 2 2 • Let M = R , S1 = R × 0;S2 = f(x; y): y = x g. Then S1 is not transverse to S2 . n n−1 • Let M = R , S1 = S - the unit sphere centered at 0 and let n S2 = V be a vector subspace of R . Then S1 t V . Theorem 2.0.4. Let f : M ! N be smooth and transverse to a submanifold S in N . Then P = f −1(S) is a submanifold of M if the same codimension as S , i.e. dim N − dim S = dim M − dim P . Moreover, if M has a boundary and fj@M is still transverse to S then P = f −1(S) is a submanifold with boundary in M . 3 Definition 2.0.5. Two maps f0; f1 : X ! Y are called homotopic (f0 ∼ f1 ) if there exists a continuous map F : X × [0; 1] ! Y such that F (x; 0) = f0(x) and F (x; 1) = f1(x) for any x 2 X . Theorem 2.0.6. Let M; N be smooth manifolds and let f0; f1 : M ! N be smooth maps. Then f0 is continuously homotopic to f1 iff f0 is smoothly homotopic to f1 i.e. iff there is a smooth map F : M ×[0; 1] ! N such that F (x; 0) = f0(x) and F (x; 1) = f1(x) for any x 2 M . Theorem 2.0.7 (Whitney approximation theorem). Let M; N be smooth manifolds and let f : M ! N be a continuous map. Then f is homotopic to a smooth map g : M ! N . Moreover, if f is smooth on a closed subset A ⊂ M then g can be chosen so that gjA = fjA . Theorem 2.0.8 (Transversality Approximation theorem). Let M; N be smooth manifolds and let S ⊂ N be a submanifold. Let f : M ! N be a smooth map. Then f is homotopic to a smooth map g : M ! N such that g t S . Moreover if T ⊂ M is a submanifold and fjT is transverse to S then g can be chosen so that gjT = fT ..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ricci Curvature and Minimal Submanifolds
    Pacific Journal of Mathematics RICCI CURVATURE AND MINIMAL SUBMANIFOLDS Thomas Hasanis and Theodoros Vlachos Volume 197 No. 1 January 2001 PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS Vol. 197, No. 1, 2001 RICCI CURVATURE AND MINIMAL SUBMANIFOLDS Thomas Hasanis and Theodoros Vlachos The aim of this paper is to find necessary conditions for a given complete Riemannian manifold to be realizable as a minimal submanifold of a unit sphere. 1. Introduction. The general question that served as the starting point for this paper was to find necessary conditions on those Riemannian metrics that arise as the induced metrics on minimal hypersurfaces or submanifolds of hyperspheres of a Euclidean space. There is an abundance of complete minimal hypersurfaces in the unit hy- persphere Sn+1. We recall some well known examples. Let Sm(r) = {x ∈ Rn+1, |x| = r},Sn−m(s) = {y ∈ Rn−m+1, |y| = s}, where r and s are posi- tive numbers with r2 + s2 = 1; then Sm(r) × Sn−m(s) = {(x, y) ∈ Rn+2, x ∈ Sm(r), y ∈ Sn−m(s)} is a hypersurface of the unit hypersphere in Rn+2. As is well known, this hypersurface has two distinct constant principal cur- vatures: One is s/r of multiplicity m, the other is −r/s of multiplicity n − m. This hypersurface is called a Clifford hypersurface. Moreover, it is minimal only in the case r = pm/n, s = p(n − m)/n and is called a Clifford minimal hypersurface. Otsuki [11] proved that if M n is a com- pact minimal hypersurface in Sn+1 with two distinct principal curvatures of multiplicity greater than 1, then M n is a Clifford minimal hypersur- face Sm(pm/n) × Sn−m(p(n − m)/n), 1 < m < n − 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Isoparametric Hypersurfaces with Four Principal Curvatures Revisited
    ISOPARAMETRIC HYPERSURFACES WITH FOUR PRINCIPAL CURVATURES REVISITED QUO-SHIN CHI Abstract. The classification of isoparametric hypersurfaces with four principal curvatures in spheres in [2] hinges on a crucial charac- terization, in terms of four sets of equations of the 2nd fundamental form tensors of a focal submanifold, of an isoparametric hypersur- face of the type constructed by Ferus, Karcher and Munzner.¨ The proof of the characterization in [2] is an extremely long calculation by exterior derivatives with remarkable cancellations, which is mo- tivated by the idea that an isoparametric hypersurface is defined by an over-determined system of partial differential equations. There- fore, exterior differentiating sufficiently many times should gather us enough information for the conclusion. In spite of its elemen- tary nature, the magnitude of the calculation and the surprisingly pleasant cancellations make it desirable to understand the under- lying geometric principles. In this paper, we give a conceptual, and considerably shorter, proof of the characterization based on Ozeki and Takeuchi's expan- sion formula for the Cartan-Munzner¨ polynomial. Along the way the geometric meaning of these four sets of equations also becomes clear. 1. Introduction In [2], isoparametric hypersurfaces with four principal curvatures and multiplicities (m1; m2); m2 ≥ 2m1 − 1; in spheres were classified to be exactly the isoparametric hypersurfaces of F KM-type constructed by Ferus Karcher and Munzner¨ [4]. The classification goes as follows. Let M+ be a focal submanifold of codimension m1 of an isoparametric hypersurface in a sphere, and let N be the normal bundle of M+ in the sphere. Suppose on the unit normal bundle UN of N there hold true 1991 Mathematics Subject Classification.
    [Show full text]
  • Tight Immersions of Simplicial Surfaces in Three Space
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Pergamon Topology Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 863-873, 19% Copyright Q 1996 Elsevier Sctence Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All tights reserved CO4&9383/96 $15.00 + 0.00 0040-9383(95)00047-X TIGHT IMMERSIONS OF SIMPLICIAL SURFACES IN THREE SPACE DAVIDE P. CERVONE (Received for publication 13 July 1995) 1. INTRODUCTION IN 1960,Kuiper [12,13] initiated the study of tight immersions of surfaces in three space, and showed that every compact surface admits a tight immersion except for the Klein bottle, the real projective plane, and possibly the real projective plane with one handle. The fate of the latter surface went unresolved for 30 years until Haab recently proved [9] that there is no smooth tight immersion of the projective plane with one handle. In light of this, a recently described simplicial tight immersion of this surface [6] came as quite a surprise, and its discovery completes Kuiper’s initial survey. Pinkall [17] broadened the question in 1985 by looking for tight immersions in each equivalence class of immersed surfaces under image homotopy. He first produced a complete description of these classes, and proceeded to generate tight examples in all but finitely many of them. In this paper, we improve Pinkall’s result by giving tight simplicial examples in all but two of the immersion classes under image homotopy for which tight immersions are possible, and in particular, we point out and resolve an error in one of his examples that would have left an infinite number of immersion classes with no tight examples.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture Notes on Foliation Theory
    INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY Department of Mathematics Seminar Lectures on Foliation Theory 1 : FALL 2008 Lecture 1 Basic requirements for this Seminar Series: Familiarity with the notion of differential manifold, submersion, vector bundles. 1 Some Examples Let us begin with some examples: m d m−d (1) Write R = R × R . As we know this is one of the several cartesian product m decomposition of R . Via the second projection, this can also be thought of as a ‘trivial m−d vector bundle’ of rank d over R . This also gives the trivial example of a codim. d- n d foliation of R , as a decomposition into d-dimensional leaves R × {y} as y varies over m−d R . (2) A little more generally, we may consider any two manifolds M, N and a submersion f : M → N. Here M can be written as a disjoint union of fibres of f each one is a submanifold of dimension equal to dim M − dim N = d. We say f is a submersion of M of codimension d. The manifold structure for the fibres comes from an atlas for M via the surjective form of implicit function theorem since dfp : TpM → Tf(p)N is surjective at every point of M. We would like to consider this description also as a codim d foliation. However, this is also too simple minded one and hence we would call them simple foliations. If the fibres of the submersion are connected as well, then we call it strictly simple. (3) Kronecker Foliation of a Torus Let us now consider something non trivial.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 10: Tubular Neighborhood Theorem
    LECTURE 10: TUBULAR NEIGHBORHOOD THEOREM 1. Generalized Inverse Function Theorem We will start with Theorem 1.1 (Generalized Inverse Function Theorem, compact version). Let f : M ! N be a smooth map that is one-to-one on a compact submanifold X of M. Moreover, suppose dfx : TxM ! Tf(x)N is a linear diffeomorphism for each x 2 X. Then f maps a neighborhood U of X in M diffeomorphically onto a neighborhood V of f(X) in N. Note that if we take X = fxg, i.e. a one-point set, then is the inverse function theorem we discussed in Lecture 2 and Lecture 6. According to that theorem, one can easily construct neighborhoods U of X and V of f(X) so that f is a local diffeomor- phism from U to V . To get a global diffeomorphism from a local diffeomorphism, we will need the following useful lemma: Lemma 1.2. Suppose f : M ! N is a local diffeomorphism near every x 2 M. If f is invertible, then f is a global diffeomorphism. Proof. We need to show f −1 is smooth. Fix any y = f(x). The smoothness of f −1 at y depends only on the behaviour of f −1 near y. Since f is a diffeomorphism from a −1 neighborhood of x onto a neighborhood of y, f is smooth at y. Proof of Generalized IFT, compact version. According to Lemma 1.2, it is enough to prove that f is one-to-one in a neighborhood of X. We may embed M into RK , and consider the \"-neighborhood" of X in M: X" = fx 2 M j d(x; X) < "g; where d(·; ·) is the Euclidean distance.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Classes of Slant Surfaces in Nearly Kahler Six Sphere
    TWO CLASSES OF SLANT SURFACES IN NEARLY KAHLER¨ SIX SPHERE K. OBRENOVIC´ AND S. VUKMIROVIC´ Abstract. In this paper we find examples of slant surfaces in the nearly K¨ahler six sphere. First, we characterize two-dimensional small and great spheres which are slant. Their description is given in terms of the associative 3-form in Im O. Later on, we classify the slant surfaces of S6 which are orbits of maximal torus in G2. We show that these orbits are flat tori which are linearly S5 S6 1 π . full in ⊂ and that their slant angle is between arccos 3 and 2 Among them we find one parameter family of minimal orbits. 1. Introduction It is known that S2 and S6 are the only spheres that admit an almost complex structure. The best known Hermitian almost complex structure J on S6 is defined using octonionic multiplication. It not integrable, but satisfies condition ( X J)X = 0, for the Levi-Civita connection and every vector field X on S6. Therefore,∇ sphere S6 with this structure J is usually∇ referred as nearly K¨ahler six sphere. Submanifolds of nearly Kahler¨ sphere S6 are subject of intensive research. A. Gray [7] proved that almost complex submanifolds of nearly K¨ahler S6 are necessarily two-dimensional and minimal. In paper [3] Bryant showed that any Riemannian surface can be embedded in the six sphere as an almost complex submanifold. Almost complex surfaces were further investigated in paper [1] and classified into four types. Totally real submanifolds of S6 can be of dimension two or three.
    [Show full text]
  • MA4E0 Lie Groups
    MA4E0 Lie Groups December 5, 2012 Contents 0 Topological Groups 1 1 Manifolds 2 2 Lie Groups 3 3 The Lie Algebra 6 4 The Tangent space 8 5 The Lie Algebra of a Lie Group 10 6 Integrating Vector fields and the exponential map 13 7 Lie Subgroups 17 8 Continuous homomorphisms are smooth 22 9 Distributions and Frobenius Theorem 23 10 Lie Group topics 24 These notes are based on the 2012 MA4E0 Lie Groups course, taught by John Rawnsley, typeset by Matthew Egginton. No guarantee is given that they are accurate or applicable, but hopefully they will assist your study. Please report any errors, factual or typographical, to [email protected] i MA4E0 Lie Groups Lecture Notes Autumn 2012 0 Topological Groups Let G be a group and then write the group structure in terms of maps; multiplication becomes m : G × G ! G −1 defined by m(g1; g2) = g1g2 and inversion becomes i : G ! G defined by i(g) = g . If we suppose that there is a topology on G as a set given by a subset T ⊂ P (G) with the usual rules. We give G × G the product topology. Then we require that m and i are continuous maps. Then G with this topology is a topological group Examples include 1. G any group with the discrete topology 2. Rn with the Euclidean topology and m(x; y) = x + y and i(x) = −x 1 2 2 2 3. S = f(x; y) 2 R : x + y = 1g = fz 2 C : jzj = 1g with m(z1; z2) = z1z2 and i(z) =z ¯.
    [Show full text]
  • Reference Ic/88/392
    REFERENCE IC/88/392 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THEORETICAL PHYSICS THE LOCAL STRUCTURE OF A 2-CODIMENSIONAL CONFORMALLY FLAT SUBMANIFOLD IN AN EUCLIDEAN SPACE lRn+2 G. Zafindratafa INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION IC/88/392 ABSTRACT International Atomic Energy Agency and Since 1917, many mathematicians studied conformally flat submanifolds (e.g. E. Cartan, B.Y. Chen, J.M. Morvan, L. Verstraelen, M. do Carmo, N. Kuiper, etc.). United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization In 1917, E. Cartan showed with his own method that the second fundamental form INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THEORETICAL PHYSICS of a conforraally flat hypersurface of IR™+1 admits an eigenvalue of multiplicity > n — 1. In order to generalize such a result, in 1972, B.Y. Chen introduced the notion of quasiumbilical submanifold. A submanifold M of codimensjon JV in 1R"+W is quasiumbilical if and only if there exists, locally at each point of M, an orthonormal frame field {d,...,£jv} of the normal space so that the Weingarten tensor of each £„ possesses an eigenvalue of multiplicity > n — 1. THE LOCAL STRUCTURE OF A 2-CODIMENSIONAL CONFORMALLY FLAT SUBMANIFOLD The first purpose of this work is to resolve the following first problem: IN AN EUCLIDEAN SPACE JRn+;1 * Is there any equivalent definition of quasiumbilictty which does not use either any local frame field on the normal bundle or any particular sections on the tangent bundle? B.Y. Chen and K. Yano proved in 1972 that a quasiumbilical submanifold of G. Zafmdratafa, ** codimension N > 1 in JR"+" is conformally flat; moreover in the case of codimension International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy.
    [Show full text]
  • LECTURE 1. Differentiable Manifolds, Differentiable Maps
    LECTURE 1. Differentiable manifolds, differentiable maps Def: topological m-manifold. Locally euclidean, Hausdorff, second-countable space. At each point we have a local chart. (U; h), where h : U ! Rm is a topological embedding (homeomorphism onto its image) and h(U) is open in Rm. Def: differentiable structure. An atlas of class Cr (r ≥ 1 or r = 1 ) for a topological m-manifold M is a collection U of local charts (U; h) satisfying: (i) The domains U of the charts in U define an open cover of M; (ii) If two domains of charts (U; h); (V; k) in U overlap (U \V 6= ;) , then the transition map: k ◦ h−1 : h(U \ V ) ! k(U \ V ) is a Cr diffeomorphism of open sets in Rm. (iii) The atlas U is maximal for property (ii). Def: differentiable map between differentiable manifolds. f : M m ! N n (continuous) is differentiable at p if for any local charts (U; h); (V; k) at p, resp. f(p) with f(U) ⊂ V the map k ◦ f ◦ h−1 = F : h(U) ! k(V ) is m differentiable at x0 = h(p) (as a map from an open subset of R to an open subset of Rn.) f : M ! N (continuous) is of class Cr if for any charts (U; h); (V; k) on M resp. N with f(U) ⊂ V , the composition k ◦ f ◦ h−1 : h(U) ! k(V ) is of class Cr (between open subsets of Rm, resp. Rn.) f : M ! N of class Cr is an immersion if, for any local charts (U; h); (V; k) as above (for M, resp.
    [Show full text]
  • Immersion of Self-Intersecting Solids and Surfaces: Supplementary Material 1: Topology
    Immersion of Self-Intersecting Solids and Surfaces: Supplementary Material 1: Topology Yijing Li and Jernej Barbiˇc,University of Southern California May 15, 2018 1 Topological definitions A mapping f ∶ X → Y is injective (also called \one-to-one") if for every x; y ∈ X such that x ≠ y; we have f(x) ≠ f(y): It is surjective (also called \onto") if for each y ∈ Y; there exists x ∈ X such that f(x) = y; i.e., f(X) = Y: A topological space is a set X equipped with a topology. A topology is a collection τ of subsets of X satisfying the following properties: (1) the empty set and X belong to τ; (2) any union of members of τ still belongs to τ; and (3) the intersection of any finite number of members of τ belongs to τ: A neighborhood of x ∈ X is any set that contains an open set that contains x: A homeomorphism between two topological spaces is a bijection that is continuous in both directions. A mapping between two topological spaces is continuous if the pre-image of each open set is continuous. Homeomorphic topological spaces are considered equivalent for topological purposes. An immersion between two topological spaces X and Y is a continuous mapping f that is locally injective, but not necessarily globally injective. I.e., for each x ∈ X; there exists a neighborhood N of x such that the restriction of f onto N is injective. Topological closure of a subset A of a topological set X is the set A of elements of x ∈ X with the property that every neighborhood of x contains a point of A: A topological space X is path-connected if, for each x; y ∈ X; there is a continuous mapping γ ∶ [0; 1] → X (a curve), such that γ(0) = x and γ(1) = y: A manifold of dimension d is a topological space with the property that every point x has a d d neighborhood that is homeomorphic to R (or, equivalently, to the open unit ball in R ), or a d d halfspace of R (or, equivalently, to the open unit ball in R intersected with the upper halfspace of d R ).
    [Show full text]
  • Types of Integrability on a Submanifold and Generalizations of Gordon’S Theorem
    Trudy Moskov. Matem. Obw. Trans. Moscow Math. Soc. Tom 66 (2005) 2005, Pages 169–241 S 0077-1554(05)00149-4 Article electronically published on November 9, 2005 TYPES OF INTEGRABILITY ON A SUBMANIFOLD AND GENERALIZATIONS OF GORDON’S THEOREM N. N. NEKHOROSHEV Abstract. At the beginning of the paper the concept of Liouville integrability is analysed for systems of general form, that is, ones that are not necessarily Hamil- tonian. On this simple basis Hamiltonian systems are studied that are integrable only on submanifolds N of the phase space, which is the main subject of the paper. The study is carried out in terms of k-dimensional foliations and fibrations defined on N by the Hamiltonian vector fields corresponding to k integrals in involution. These integrals are said to be central and may include the Hamiltonian function of the system. The parallel language of sets of functions is also used, in particular, sets of functions whose common level surfaces are the fibres of fibrations. Relations between different types of integrability on submanifolds of the phase space are established. The main result of the paper is a generalization of Gordon’s theorem stating that in a Hamiltonian system all of whose trajectories are closed the period of the solutions depends only on the value of the Hamiltonian. Our generalization asserts that in the case of the strongest “Hamiltonian” integrability the frequencies of a conditionally periodic motion on the invariant isotropic tori that form a fibration of an integrability submanifold depend only on the values of the central integrals. Under essentially weaker assumptions on the fibration of the submanifold into such tori it is proved that the circular action functions also have the same property.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 9: the Whitney Embedding Theorem
    LECTURE 9: THE WHITNEY EMBEDDING THEOREM Historically, the word \manifold" (Mannigfaltigkeit in German) first appeared in Riemann's doctoral thesis in 1851. At the early times, manifolds are defined extrinsi- cally: they are the set of all possible values of some variables with certain constraints. Translated into modern language,\smooth manifolds" are objects that are (locally) de- fined by smooth equations and, according to last lecture, are embedded submanifolds in Euclidean spaces. In 1912 Weyl gave an intrinsic definition for smooth manifolds. A natural question is: what is the difference between the extrinsic definition and the intrinsic definition? Is there any \abstract" manifold that cannot be embedded into any Euclidian space? In 1930s, Whitney and others settled this foundational problem: the two ways of defining smooth manifolds are in fact the same. In fact, Whitney's result is much more stronger than this. He showed that not only one can embed any smooth manifold into some Euclidian space, but that the dimension of the Euclidian space can be chosen to be (as low as) twice the dimension of the manifold itself! Theorem 0.1 (The Whitney embedding theorem). Any smooth manifold M of di- mension m can be embedded into R2m+1. Remark. In 1944, by using completely different techniques (now known as the \Whitney trick"), Whitney was able to prove Theorem 0.2 (The Strong Whitney Embedding Theorem). Any smooth man- ifold M of dimension m ≥ 2 can be embedded into R2m (and can be immersed into R2m−1). We will not prove this stronger version in this course, but just mention that the Whitney trick was further developed in h-cobordism theory by Smale, using which he proved the Poincare conjecture in dimension ≥ 5 in 1961! Remark.
    [Show full text]