Processing math: 100%

Tuesday, 21 March 2017

Two possible definition of differentiability between two surfaces

The definition of a differentiable map between two surfaces given in the course is extrinsic. I explain it. Consider  f:S1S2 a map between two surfaces and pS1. Then f is differentiable at p if ifX:UR3 is differentiable at q=X1(q), where i:S2R3 is the inclusion map (definition I). Here we use strongly that S2 is included in Euclidean space R3. If one changes the viewpoint, one would request that the definition does not depend if S2 is or is not included in R3, but only on S2, that is, an intrinsic definition. Then the natural way to do it is by means of parametrizations and the definition would be: f is differentiable at p if Y1fX:UW is smooth at q=X1(p), where X:US1 and YWS2 are parametrizations around p and f(p) respectively (definition II). Now it is not important if the surface is included in Euclidean space. 

This allows to extend the above definition to object with similar properties than surfaces, that is, objects with a set of parametrizations between open sets of Rn and open sets of the object. Then it will appear the concept of manifold of dimension n.

Returning, we prove that both definition are equivalents. 
  1. (II) (I). Suppose a such f which is differentiable at p with definition II. When we consider a parametrization X around p, then ifX=(iY)(Y1fX) and thus, it is the composition of two smooth maps between open sets of Euclidean spaces.
  2. (I) (II). Suppose f which is differentiable at p with definition I, that is, we know ifX is smooth at q for any X. Without loss of generality, and fi Y=(Y1,Y2,Y3), we suppose that |Y1uY2uY1vY2v|0. The Inverse function theorem asserts that the function (Y1,Y2):WO,(u,v)(Y1(u,v),Y2(u,v)) is a diffeomorphism between suitable open sets of R2. Let ϕ=(Y1,Y2)1. If (ifX)=(f1,f2,f3), then Y1fX(u,v)=ϕ1(f1(u,v),f2(u,v)), which is differentiable because it is the composition of two differentiable maps.

Finally, we will adopt the definition I because it is more intuitive, although we are loosing `generality'.

No comments:

Post a Comment