DOCSLIB.ORG

Differential Topology Forty-Six Years Later

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Differential Topology Forty-Six Years Later Differential Topology Forty-six Years Later John Milnor n the 1965 Hedrick Lectures,1 I described its uniqueness up to a PL-isomorphism that is the state of differential topology, a field that topologically isotopic to the identity. In particular, was then young but growing very rapidly. they proved the following. During the intervening years, many problems Theorem 1. If a topological manifold Mn without in differential and geometric topology that boundary satisfies Ihad seemed totally impossible have been solved, 3 n 4 n often using drastically new tools. The following is H (M ; Z/2) = H (M ; Z/2) = 0 with n ≥ 5 , a brief survey, describing some of the highlights then it possesses a PL-manifold structure that is of these many developments. unique up to PL-isomorphism. Major Developments (For manifolds with boundary one needs n > 5.) The corresponding theorem for all manifolds of The first big breakthrough, by Kirby and Sieben- dimension n ≤ 3 had been proved much earlier mann [1969, 1969a, 1977], was an obstruction by Moise [1952]. However, we will see that the theory for the problem of triangulating a given corresponding statement in dimension 4 is false. topological manifold as a PL (= piecewise-linear) An analogous obstruction theory for the prob- manifold. (This was a sharpening of earlier work lem of passing from a PL-structure to a smooth by Casson and Sullivan and by Lashof and Rothen- structure had previously been introduced by berg. See [Ranicki, 1996].) If B and B are the Top PL Munkres [1960, 1964a, 1964b] and Hirsch [1963]. stable classifying spaces (as described in the lec- (See also [Hirsch-Mazur, 1974].) Furthermore Cerf tures), they showed that the relative homotopy had filled in a crucial step, proving by a difficult group π (B , B ) is cyclic of order two for j = 4, j Top PL geometric argument that the space of orientation- and zero otherwise. Given an n-dimensional topo- preserving diffeomorphisms of the three-sphere logical manifold Mn, it follows that there is an is connected. (See the Cartan Seminar Lectures of obstruction o ∈ H4(Mn; Z/2) to triangulating Mn 1962/63, as well as [Cerf, 1968].) Combined with ≥ as a PL-manifold. In dimensions n 5 this is other known results, this led to the following. the only obstruction. Given such a triangulation, there is a similar obstruction in H3(Mn; Z/2) to Theorem 2. Every PL-manifold of dimension n ≤ 7 possesses a compatible differentiable structure, John Milnor is professor of mathematics at Stony Brook and this structure is unique up to diffeomorphism University. His email address is [email protected]. whenever n < 7. The author would like to thank Mike Hopkins, Rob Kirby, For more information see Further Details at the Mark Mahowald, John Morgan, Larry Siebenmann, and Jonathan Sondow for their help. Also I want to thank the end of this article. NSF for its support under grant DMSO757856. The next big breakthrough was the classifi- 1These lectures have recently been digitized by MSRI and cation of simply connected closed topological should be available soon. Thanks to Dusa McDuff for 4-manifolds by Freedman [1982]. He proved, us- unearthing the original tapes. (With regard to Wilder’s ing wildly nondifferentiable methods, that such a introduction, compare [Milnor, 1999].) manifold is uniquely determined by 2 Notices of the AMS Volume 58, Number 6 (1) the isomorphism class of The Poincaré Hypothesis: Three Versions the symmetric bilinear form First consider the purely topological version. H2 ⊗ H2 → H4 ≅ Z , where Theorem 3. The topological Poincaré hypothesis is Hk = Hk(M4; Z), together with true in all dimensions. (2) the Kirby-Siebenmann invariant o ∈ H4(M4; Z/2) ≅ Z/2. That is, every closed topological manifold with the homotopy type of an n-sphere is actually These can be prescribed arbitrarily, except for homeomorphic to the n-sphere. For n > 4 this was two restrictions: The bilinear form must have proved by Newman [1966] and by Connell [1967], determinant ±1; and in the “even case” where both making use of the “engulfing method” of x ∪ x ≡ 0 (mod 2 H4) for every x ∈ H2, the Stallings [1960]. For n = 4 it is of course due to Kirby-Siebenmann class must be congruent to Freedman. For n = 3 it is due to Perelman, using (1/8)th of the signature. As an example, the Moise [1952] to pass from the topological to the Poincaré hypothesis for 4-dimensional topological PL case, and then using the Munkres-Hirsch-Mazur manifolds is an immediate consequence. For if obstruction theory to pass from PL to smooth. M4 is a homotopy sphere, then both H2 and the obstruction class must be zero. Theorem 4. The piecewise-linear Poincaré hypoth- One year later, Donaldson [1983] used gauge esis is true for n-dimensional manifolds except pos- theoretic methods to show that many of these sibly when n = 4. topological manifolds cannot possess any smooth That is, any closed PL manifold of dimension structure (and hence by Theorem 2 cannot be n = 4 with the homotopy type of an n-sphere is triangulated as PL-manifolds). More explicitly, if PL-homeomorphic to the n-sphere. For n > 4 this 4 M is smooth and simply connected with positive was proved by Smale [1962]; while for n = 3 it definite bilinear form, he showed that this form follows from Perelman’s work, together with the must be diagonalizable; hence M4 must be home- Munkres-Hirsch-Mazur obstruction theory. omorphic to a connected sum of copies of the The differentiable Poincaré hypothesis is more complex projective plane. There are many posi- complicated, being true in some dimensions tive definite bilinear forms with determinant 1, and false in others, while remaining totally and with signature divisible by 16 in the even mysterious in dimension 4. We can formulate case, which are not diagonalizable. (See for ex- the question more precisely by noting that the ample [Milnor-Husemoller, 1973].) Each of these set of all oriented diffeomorphism classes of corresponds to a topological manifold M4 with closed smooth homotopy n-spheres (= topological 4 no smooth structure but such that M × R does n-spheres) forms a commutative monoid Sn under have a smooth structure that is unique up to the connected sum operation. In fact this monoid diffeomorphism. is actually a finite abelian group except possibly The combination of Freedman’s topological re- when n = 4. Much of the following outline is sults and Donaldson’s analytic results quickly led based on [Kervaire-Milnor, 1963], which showed in to rather amazing consequences. For example, it principle how to compute these groups2 in terms followed that there are uncountably many noniso- of the stable homotopy groups of spheres for morphic smooth or PL structures on R4. (Compare n > 4. Unfortunately, many proofs were put off to [Gompf, 1993].) All other dimensions are better part 2 of this paper, which was never completed. behaved: For n > 4, Stallings [1962] showed that However, the missing arguments have been the topological space Rn has a unique PL-structure supplied elsewhere; see especially [Levine, 1985]. up to PL-isomorphism. Using the Moise result for Using Perelman’s result for n = 3, the group Sn n < 4 together with the Munkres-Hirsch-Mazur ob- can be described as follows for small n (Table 1). struction theory, it follows that the differentiable (Here, for example, 2 · 8 stands for the group Z Z structure of Rn is unique up to diffeomorphism /2 ⊕ /8, and 1 stands for the trivial group.) for all n = 4. Thus the differentiable Poincaré hypothesis is A satisfactory theory of three-dimensional man- true in dimensions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 12, but ifolds took longer. The first milestone was the unknown in dimension 4. I had conjectured that it geometrization conjecture by Thurston [1982, would be false in all higher dimensions. However, 1986], which set the goal for what a theory Mahowald has pointed out that there is at least of three-manifolds should look like. This con- 2The Kervaire-Milnor paper worked rather with the jecture was finally verified by Perelman [2002, group n of homotopy spheres up to h-cobordism. This 2003a, 2003b], using a difficult argument based makesΘ a difference only for n = 4, since it is known, on the “Ricci flow” partial differential equation. using the h-cobordism theorem of Smale [1962], that (Compare the expositions of Morgan-Tian [2007] ≅ Sn → n for n = 4. However the difference is important and Kleiner-Lott [2008].) The three-dimensional in theΘ four-dimensional case, since 4 is trivial, while the Poincaré hypothesis followed as a special case. structure of S4 is the great unsolvedΘ problem. June/July 2011 Notices of the AMS 3 Table 1 n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Sn 1 1 1 ? 1 1 28 2 2·2·2 6 992 1 3 2 2·8128 2 2·8 2·8 bp one more exceptional case: The group S61 is also where Sn ⊂ Sn stands for the subgroup trivial. (Compare Further Details below.) represented by homotopy spheres that bound parallelizable manifolds. This subgroup is the Problem. Is the group S nontrivial for all n > n part of S that is best understood. It can be 6 , n = 12, 61? n partially described as follows. (Any precise computation for large n is impossi- Theorem 5. = Sbp ble at the present time, since the stable homotopy For n 4 the group n is finite cyclic groups of spheres have been computed completely with an explicitly known generator.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Introduction to Gauge Theory Arxiv:1910.10436V1 [Math.DG] 23
    Introduction to Gauge Theory Andriy Haydys 23rd October 2019 This is lecture notes for a course given at the PCMI Summer School “Quantum Field The- ory and Manifold Invariants” (July 1 – July 5, 2019). I describe basics of gauge-theoretic approach to construction of invariants of manifolds. The main example considered here is the Seiberg–Witten gauge theory. However, I tried to present the material in a form, which is suitable for other gauge-theoretic invariants too. Contents 1 Introduction2 2 Bundles and connections4 2.1 Vector bundles . .4 2.1.1 Basic notions . .4 2.1.2 Operations on vector bundles . .5 2.1.3 Sections . .6 2.1.4 Covariant derivatives . .6 2.1.5 The curvature . .8 2.1.6 The gauge group . 10 2.2 Principal bundles . 11 2.2.1 The frame bundle and the structure group . 11 2.2.2 The associated vector bundle . 14 2.2.3 Connections on principal bundles . 16 2.2.4 The curvature of a connection on a principal bundle . 19 arXiv:1910.10436v1 [math.DG] 23 Oct 2019 2.2.5 The gauge group . 21 2.3 The Levi–Civita connection . 22 2.4 Classification of U(1) and SU(2) bundles . 23 2.4.1 Complex line bundles . 24 2.4.2 Quaternionic line bundles . 25 3 The Chern–Weil theory 26 3.1 The Chern–Weil theory . 26 3.1.1 The Chern classes . 28 3.2 The Chern–Simons functional . 30 3.3 The modui space of flat connections . 32 3.3.1 Parallel transport and holonomy .
    [Show full text]
  • Math 600 Day 6: Abstract Smooth Manifolds
    Math 600 Day 6: Abstract Smooth Manifolds Ryan Blair University of Pennsylvania Tuesday September 28, 2010 Ryan Blair (U Penn) Math 600 Day 6: Abstract Smooth Manifolds Tuesday September 28, 2010 1 / 21 Outline 1 Transition to abstract smooth manifolds Partitions of unity on differentiable manifolds. Ryan Blair (U Penn) Math 600 Day 6: Abstract Smooth Manifolds Tuesday September 28, 2010 2 / 21 A Word About Last Time Theorem (Sard’s Theorem) The set of critical values of a smooth map always has measure zero in the receiving space. Theorem Let A ⊂ Rn be open and let f : A → Rp be a smooth function whose derivative f ′(x) has maximal rank p whenever f (x) = 0. Then f −1(0) is a (n − p)-dimensional manifold in Rn. Ryan Blair (U Penn) Math 600 Day 6: Abstract Smooth Manifolds Tuesday September 28, 2010 3 / 21 Transition to abstract smooth manifolds Transition to abstract smooth manifolds Up to this point, we have viewed smooth manifolds as subsets of Euclidean spaces, and in that setting have defined: 1 coordinate systems 2 manifolds-with-boundary 3 tangent spaces 4 differentiable maps and stated the Chain Rule and Inverse Function Theorem. Ryan Blair (U Penn) Math 600 Day 6: Abstract Smooth Manifolds Tuesday September 28, 2010 4 / 21 Transition to abstract smooth manifolds Now we want to define differentiable (= smooth) manifolds in an abstract setting, without assuming they are subsets of some Euclidean space. Many differentiable manifolds come to our attention this way. Here are just a few examples: 1 tangent and cotangent bundles over smooth manifolds 2 Grassmann manifolds 3 manifolds built by ”surgery” from other manifolds Ryan Blair (U Penn) Math 600 Day 6: Abstract Smooth Manifolds Tuesday September 28, 2010 5 / 21 Transition to abstract smooth manifolds Our starting point is the definition of a topological manifold of dimension n as a topological space Mn in which each point has an open neighborhood homeomorphic to Rn (locally Euclidean property), and which, in addition, is Hausdorff and second countable.
    [Show full text]
  • Floer Homology, Gauge Theory, and Low-Dimensional Topology
    Floer Homology, Gauge Theory, and Low-Dimensional Topology Clay Mathematics Proceedings Volume 5 Floer Homology, Gauge Theory, and Low-Dimensional Topology Proceedings of the Clay Mathematics Institute 2004 Summer School Alfréd Rényi Institute of Mathematics Budapest, Hungary June 5–26, 2004 David A. Ellwood Peter S. Ozsváth András I. Stipsicz Zoltán Szabó Editors American Mathematical Society Clay Mathematics Institute 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 57R17, 57R55, 57R57, 57R58, 53D05, 53D40, 57M27, 14J26. The cover illustrates a Kinoshita-Terasaka knot (a knot with trivial Alexander polyno- mial), and two Kauffman states. These states represent the two generators of the Heegaard Floer homology of the knot in its topmost filtration level. The fact that these elements are homologically non-trivial can be used to show that the Seifert genus of this knot is two, a result first proved by David Gabai. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Clay Mathematics Institute. Summer School (2004 : Budapest, Hungary) Floer homology, gauge theory, and low-dimensional topology : proceedings of the Clay Mathe- matics Institute 2004 Summer School, Alfr´ed R´enyi Institute of Mathematics, Budapest, Hungary, June 5–26, 2004 / David A. Ellwood ...[et al.], editors. p. cm. — (Clay mathematics proceedings, ISSN 1534-6455 ; v. 5) ISBN 0-8218-3845-8 (alk. paper) 1. Low-dimensional topology—Congresses. 2. Symplectic geometry—Congresses. 3. Homol- ogy theory—Congresses. 4. Gauge fields (Physics)—Congresses. I. Ellwood, D. (David), 1966– II. Title. III. Series. QA612.14.C55 2004 514.22—dc22 2006042815 Copying and reprinting. Material in this book may be reproduced by any means for educa- tional and scientific purposes without fee or permission with the exception of reproduction by ser- vices that collect fees for delivery of documents and provided that the customary acknowledgment of the source is given.
    [Show full text]
  • MAT 531: Topology&Geometry, II Spring 2011
    MAT 531: Topology&Geometry, II Spring 2011 Solutions to Problem Set 1 Problem 1: Chapter 1, #2 (10pts) Let F be the (standard) differentiable structure on R generated by the one-element collection of ′ charts F0 = {(R, id)}. Let F be the differentiable structure on R generated by the one-element collection of charts ′ 3 F0 ={(R,f)}, where f : R−→R, f(t)= t . Show that F 6=F ′, but the smooth manifolds (R, F) and (R, F ′) are diffeomorphic. ′ ′ (a) We begin by showing that F 6=F . Since id∈F0 ⊂F, it is sufficient to show that id6∈F , i.e. the overlap map id ◦ f −1 : f(R∩R)=R −→ id(R∩R)=R ′ from f ∈F0 to id is not smooth, in the usual (i.e. calculus) sense: id ◦ f −1 R R f id R ∩ R Since f(t)=t3, f −1(s)=s1/3, and id ◦ f −1 : R −→ R, id ◦ f −1(s)= s1/3. This is not a smooth map. (b) Let h : R −→ R be given by h(t)= t1/3. It is immediate that h is a homeomorphism. We will show that the map h:(R, F) −→ (R, F ′) is a diffeomorphism, i.e. the maps h:(R, F) −→ (R, F ′) and h−1 :(R, F ′) −→ (R, F) are smooth. To show that h is smooth, we need to show that it induces smooth maps between the ′ charts in F0 and F0. In this case, there is only one chart in each. So we need to show that the map f ◦ h ◦ id−1 : id h−1(R)∩R =R −→ R is smooth: −1 f ◦ h ◦ id R R id f h (R, F) (R, F ′) Since f ◦ h ◦ id−1(t)= f h(t) = f(t1/3)= t1/3 3 = t, − this map is indeed smooth, and so is h.
    [Show full text]
  • Basics of Differential Geometry
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-86891-4 - Lectures on Kahler Geometry Andrei Moroianu Excerpt More information Part 1 Basics of differential geometry © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-86891-4 - Lectures on Kahler Geometry Andrei Moroianu Excerpt More information CHAPTER 1 Smooth manifolds 1.1. Introduction A topological manifold of dimension n is a Hausdorff topological space M which locally “looks like” the space Rn. More precisely, M has an open covering U such that for every U ∈Uthere exists a homeomorphism φU : U → U˜ ⊂ Rn, called a local chart. The collection of all charts is called an atlas of M. Since every open ball in Rn is homeomorphic to Rn itself, the definition above amounts to saying that every point of M has a neighbourhood homeomorphic to Rn. Examples. 1. The sphere Sn ⊂ Rn+1 is a topological manifold of di- mension n, with the atlas consisting of the two stereographic projections n n n n φN : S \{S}→R and φS : S \{N}→R where N and S are the North and South poles of Sn. 2. The union Ox∪Oy of the two coordinate lines in R2 is not a topological manifold. Indeed, for every neighbourhood U of the origin in Ox ∪ Oy,the set U \{0} has 4 connected components, so U can not be homeomorphic to R. We now investigate the possibility of defining smooth functions on a given topological manifold M.Iff : M → R is a continuous function, one is tempted to define f to be smooth if for every x ∈ M there exists U ∈U containing x such that the composition −1 ˜ n fU := f ◦ φU : U ⊂ R → R is smooth.
    [Show full text]
  • DIFFERENTIABLE STRUCTURES 1. Classification of Manifolds 1.1
    DIFFERENTIABLE STRUCTURES 1. Classification of Manifolds 1.1. Geometric topology. The goals of this topic are (1) Classify all spaces - ludicrously impossible. (2) Classify manifolds - only provably impossible (because any finitely presented group is the fundamental group of a 4-manifold, and finitely presented groups are not able to be classified). (3) Classify manifolds with a given homotopy type (sort of worked out in 1960's by Wall and Browder if π1 = 0. There is something called the Browder-Novikov-Sullivan-Wall surgery (structure) sequence: ! L (π1 (X)) !S0 (X) ! [X; GO] LHS=algebra, RHS=homotopy theory, S0 (X) is the set of smooth manifolds h.e. to X up to some equivalence relation. Classify means either (1) up to homeomorphism (2) up to PL homeomorphism (3) up to diffeomorphism A manifold is smooth iff the tangent bundle is smooth. These are classified by the orthog- onal group O. There are analogues of this for the other types (T OP, PL). Given a space X, then homotopy classes of maps [X; T OPPL] determine if X is PL-izable. It turns out T OPPL = a K (Z2; 3). It is a harder question to look at if X has a smooth structure. 1.2. Classifying homotopy spheres. X is a homotopy sphere if it is a topological manifold n that is h.e. to a sphere. It turns out that if π1 (X) = 0 and H∗ (X) = H∗ (S ), then it is a homotopy sphere. The Poincare Conjecture is that every homotopy n-sphere is Sn. We can ask this in several categories : Diff, PL, Top: In dimensions 0, 1, all is true.
    [Show full text]
  • Suppose N Is a Topological Manifold with Smooth Structure U. Suppose M Is a Topological Manifold and F Is a Homeomorphism M → N
    Suppose n is a topological manifold with smooth structure U. Suppose M is a topological manifold and F is a homeomorphism M → N. We can use F to “pull back” the smooth structure U from N to M as follows: for each chart (U, φ) in U we have a chart (F −1(U), φ◦F ) on M. These charts form a maximal smooth atlas F ∗(U) for M, that is a smooth structure on M. Almost by definition, the map F : M → N is a diffeomorphism from (M, F ∗(U)) to (N, U). Now consider the case M = N. If F is the identity map, then F ∗(U) = U. More generally, this is true any time F is a diffeormorphism with respect to the smooth structure U (that is, a diffeomorphism from the smooth manifold (M, U) to itself). But suppose F is a homeomorphism which is not a diffeomorphism. Then (N, F ∗(U)) = (M, F ∗(U)) is a distinct differentible structure on the same differentiable manifold M. For ∗ instance, a real-valued function g : M → R is smooth w.r.t. U iff g ◦ F is smooth w.r.t. F (U). But, as mentioned above, the map F is a diffeomorphism as a map (M, F ∗(U)) → (M, U). In particular, the two smooth manifolds are really the same (the are diffeomorphic to each other). Thus, this simple construction never produces “exotic” smooth structures (two different smooth manifolds with the same underlying topological manifold). Facts: (1) Up to diffeomorphism, there is a unique smooth structure on any topological manifold n n M in dimension n ≤ 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Problems in Low-Dimensional Topology
    Problems in Low-Dimensional Topology Edited by Rob Kirby Berkeley - 22 Dec 95 Contents 1 Knot Theory 7 2 Surfaces 85 3 3-Manifolds 97 4 4-Manifolds 179 5 Miscellany 259 Index of Conjectures 282 Index 284 Old Problem Lists 294 Bibliography 301 1 2 CONTENTS Introduction In April, 1977 when my first problem list [38,Kirby,1978] was finished, a good topologist could reasonably hope to understand the main topics in all of low dimensional topology. But at that time Bill Thurston was already starting to greatly influence the study of 2- and 3-manifolds through the introduction of geometry, especially hyperbolic. Four years later in September, 1981, Mike Freedman turned a subject, topological 4-manifolds, in which we expected no progress for years, into a subject in which it seemed we knew everything. A few months later in spring 1982, Simon Donaldson brought gauge theory to 4-manifolds with the first of a remarkable string of theorems showing that smooth 4-manifolds which might not exist or might not be diffeomorphic, in fact, didn’t and weren’t. Exotic R4’s, the strangest of smooth manifolds, followed. And then in late spring 1984, Vaughan Jones brought us the Jones polynomial and later Witten a host of other topological quantum field theories (TQFT’s). Physics has had for at least two decades a remarkable record for guiding mathematicians to remarkable mathematics (Seiberg–Witten gauge theory, new in October, 1994, is the latest example). Lest one think that progress was only made using non-topological techniques, note that Freedman’s work, and other results like knot complements determining knots (Gordon- Luecke) or the Seifert fibered space conjecture (Mess, Scott, Gabai, Casson & Jungreis) were all or mostly classical topology.
    [Show full text]
  • Differential Topology
    Universität Hamburg Summer 2019 Janko Latschev Differential Topology Problem Set 1 Here are some problems related to the material of the course up to this point. They are neither equally difficult nor equally important. If you want to get feedback on your solution to a particular exercise, you may hand it in after any lecture, and I will try to comment within a week. 1. Prove that any topological manifold according to our definition (Hausdorff, second countable, locally homeomorphic to Rn for some fixed n ≥ 0) is paracompact, meaning that every open covering has a locally finite refinement. Recall: A refinement of an open covering fUαgα2A is an open covering fWβgβ2B such that for each β 2 B there exists some α 2 A with Wβ ⊆ Uα. An open covering is locally finite if every point has a neighborhood meeting only finitely many of the sets of the covering. 2. Prove that the subset n Cn X 2 Cn Q := fz = (z1; : : : ; zn) 2 j zj = 1g ⊆ j=1 is diffeomorphic to the tangent bundle of Sn−1. 3. Let M be a smooth differentiable manifold, and let τ : M ! M be a smooth fixed point free involution, i.e. τ(p) 6= p for all p 2 M and τ ◦ τ = idM . a) Prove that the quotient space M/τ which is obtained by identifying every point with its image under τ is a topological manifold, and it admits a unique smooth structure for which the projection map π : M ! M/τ is a local diffeomorphism. b) Give examples of this phenomenon.
    [Show full text]
  • The Embedding Theorems of Whitney and Nash
    GENERAL ARTICLE The Embedding Theorems of Whitney and Nash Harish Seshadri and Kaushal Verma We begin by briefly motivating the idea of a manifold and then discuss the embedding the- orems of Whitney and Nash that allow us to view these objects inside appropriately large Eu- clidean spaces. 1. Introduction (left) Harish Seshadri is with the Department of Let us begin by motivating the concept of a manifold. Mathematics, Indian Start with the unit circle C in the plane given by Institute of x2 + y2 =1. Science, Bengaluru. His research interest is in This is not a graph of a single function y = f(x). How- differential geometry. ever, apart√ from (±1, 0), C is the union of the graphs y ± − x2 (right) Kaushal Verma is of = 1 . Each graph is in one-to-one (bijec- with the Department of tive) correspondence with its domain, namely the inter- Mathematics, Indian val (−1, 1) on the x-axis – apart from the end points Institute of ±1. To take care of points on C near (±1, 0), we see Science, Bengaluru. His that apart from (0, ±1), C is the union of the graphs of research interest is in complex analysis. x = ± 1 − y2. Again, each graph is in bijective cor- respondence with its domain, namely the interval from (0, −1) to (0, 1) on the y-axis. Thus, to accommodate the two exceptional points (±1, 0) we had to change our coordinate axes and hence the functions that identify the pieces of C. Doing all this allows us to describe all points on C in a bijective manner by associating them with points either on the x-axis or the y-axis.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction (Lecture 1)
    Introduction (Lecture 1) February 3, 2009 One of the basic problems of manifold topology is to give a classification for manifolds (of some fixed dimension n) up to diffeomorphism. In the best of all possible worlds, a solution to this problem would provide the following: (i) A list of n-manifolds fMαg, containing one representative from each diffeomorphism class. (ii) A procedure which determines, for each n-manifold M, the unique index α such that M ' Mα. In the case n = 2, it is possible to address these problems completely: a connected oriented surface Σ is classified up to homeomorphism by a single integer g, called the genus of Σ. For each g ≥ 0, there is precisely one connected surface Σg of genus g up to diffeomorphism, which provides a solution to (i). Given an arbitrary connected oriented surface Σ, we can determine its genus simply by computing its Euler characteristic χ(Σ), which is given by the formula χ(Σ) = 2 − 2g: this provides the procedure required by (ii). Given a solution to the classification problem satisfying the demands of (i) and (ii), we can extract an algorithm for determining whether two n-manifolds M and N are diffeomorphic. Namely, we apply the procedure (ii) to extract indices α and β such that M ' Mα and N ' Mβ: then M ' N if and only if α = β. For example, suppose that n = 2 and that M and N are connected oriented surfaces with the same Euler characteristic. Then the classification of surfaces tells us that there is a diffeomorphism φ from M to N.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Differential Topology
    Notes on Differential Topology George Torres Last updated January 4, 2019 Contents 1 Smooth manifolds and Topological manifolds 2 1.1 Smooth Structures . .2 1.2 Product Manifolds . .3 2 Calculus on smooth manifolds 3 2.1 Derivatives . .3 2.1.1 Tangent spaces . .3 2.1.2 Defining df ............................................4 3 The Inverse Function Theorem 5 4 Immersions and Submersions 6 4.1 Immersions . .6 4.2 Submersions . .7 5 Regular Values and Implicit Manifolds 8 5.1 Transversality . .8 5.2 Stability . .9 6 Sard's Theorem 10 6.1 Proof of Sard's Theorem . 10 7 Whitney's Embedding Theorem 12 7.1 Partitions of Unity . 13 7.2 Proof of Whitney . 14 8 Manifolds with Boundary 15 8.1 Facts about Manifolds with Boundary . 15 8.2 Transversality . 16 8.3 Sard's Theorem for Manifolds with boundary . 17 8.4 Classification of 1 dimensional Manifolds . 17 9 Transversality (Revisited) 18 9.1 Transversality and Stability . 19 9.2 Extensions . 20 10 Intersection Theory (Mod 2) 20 1 CONTENTS CONTENTS 11 Intersection Theory 22 11.1 Orientation of Manifolds . 22 11.2 Oriented Intersection Theory . 24 11.3 More General Perspective . 24 12 Lefschetz Fixed Point Theory 26 12.1 Two dimensional maps and the Euler Characteristic . 27 12.2 Non-Lefshetz fixed points . 27 13 Vector Fields and Poincar´e-Hopf 28 13.1 The Euler Characteristic and Triangulations . 29 14 Integration Theory 29 14.1 Differential forms . 29 14.2 Integrating Differential Forms . 31 14.3 Familiar examples . 32 14.4 The Exterior Derivative .
    [Show full text]