Tangent space to a surface at boundary points
Let $M$ be a $2$-dimensional compact oriented surface in $mathbb R^3$ with boundary $partial M$. For any $pin M setminus partial M$ tangent vectors are defined as speed vectors of smooth curves $Gamma colon (-1,1) to M$, $Gamma(0) = p$ at point $t=0$, i.e. vectors $dot Gamma(0)$. They form the linear space $T_p M$ called the tangent space to $M$ at $p$.
Suppose now that $p in partial M$. Then if we use the same definition for tangent vectors (i.e. speed vectors at zero of smooth curves $Gamma colon (-1,1) to M$, $Gamma(0) = p$) we will obtain only vectors, that are tangent to $partial M$ at point $p$. My question is how to modify the definition of tangent vectors at boundary points to obtain the tangent vectors to $M$ at $p in partial M$? Is it possible to define these tangent vectors as speed vectors of curves $Gamma colon (-1,1) to mathbb R^3$, $Gamma(-1,0] subset M$ or $Gamma[0,1) subset M$, $Gamma(0) = p$ at $0$, i.e. vectors $dot Gamma(0)$?
differential-geometry definition surfaces manifolds-with-boundary
asked Feb 28 '14 at 7:45
Appliqué
3,96231839
add a comment |
Let $M$ be a $2$-dimensional compact oriented surface in $mathbb R^3$ with boundary $partial M$. For any $pin M setminus partial M$ tangent vectors are defined as speed vectors of smooth curves $Gamma colon (-1,1) to M$, $Gamma(0) = p$ at point $t=0$, i.e. vectors $dot Gamma(0)$. They form the linear space $T_p M$ called the tangent space to $M$ at $p$.
Suppose now that $p in partial M$. Then if we use the same definition for tangent vectors (i.e. speed vectors at zero of smooth curves $Gamma colon (-1,1) to M$, $Gamma(0) = p$) we will obtain only vectors, that are tangent to $partial M$ at point $p$. My question is how to modify the definition of tangent vectors at boundary points to obtain the tangent vectors to $M$ at $p in partial M$? Is it possible to define these tangent vectors as speed vectors of curves $Gamma colon (-1,1) to mathbb R^3$, $Gamma(-1,0] subset M$ or $Gamma[0,1) subset M$, $Gamma(0) = p$ at $0$, i.e. vectors $dot Gamma(0)$?
differential-geometry definition surfaces manifolds-with-boundary
asked Feb 28 '14 at 7:45
Appliqué
3,96231839
Almost; the tangent space at a boundary point $p$ is the set of vectors $dot Gamma (0)$ of smooth curves $Gamma : ]-1,1[ to M$ such that $Gamma(0) = p$ and $Gamma([0,1[) subset M$ (not $Gamma(]-1,0]) subset M$, then you get too much)
– wspin
Feb 28 '14 at 13:30
@wspin But if we consider only $Gamma([0,1[) subset M$ (but not $Gamma(]-1,0]) subset M$) we will obtain only "inward" pointing vectors, won't we? I think that they won't form a vector space.
– Appliqué
Feb 28 '14 at 14:57
The tangent space at a boundary point is indeed not a vector space. If the boundary is smooth it is a half space. Compare this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Supporting_hyperplane1.svg
– wspin
Feb 28 '14 at 16:31
@wspin bizarre, I imagined the tangent space as the tangent plane translated to zero. Could you tell me please in what book have you found your definition? By the way, your image is about supporting hyperplane.
– Appliqué
Feb 28 '14 at 17:38
This is really a matter of definitions, in my opinion. For instance, if you use the "equivalence class on charts" definition of tangent space, then you get the full vector space. Sometimes this definition is useful, for instance when talking about Stoke's Theorem.
– Aloizio Macedo♦
Feb 5 '16 at 23:43
add a comment |
Let $M$ be a $2$-dimensional compact oriented surface in $mathbb R^3$ with boundary $partial M$. For any $pin M setminus partial M$ tangent vectors are defined as speed vectors of smooth curves $Gamma colon (-1,1) to M$, $Gamma(0) = p$ at point $t=0$, i.e. vectors $dot Gamma(0)$. They form the linear space $T_p M$ called the tangent space to $M$ at $p$.
Suppose now that $p in partial M$. Then if we use the same definition for tangent vectors (i.e. speed vectors at zero of smooth curves $Gamma colon (-1,1) to M$, $Gamma(0) = p$) we will obtain only vectors, that are tangent to $partial M$ at point $p$. My question is how to modify the definition of tangent vectors at boundary points to obtain the tangent vectors to $M$ at $p in partial M$? Is it possible to define these tangent vectors as speed vectors of curves $Gamma colon (-1,1) to mathbb R^3$, $Gamma(-1,0] subset M$ or $Gamma[0,1) subset M$, $Gamma(0) = p$ at $0$, i.e. vectors $dot Gamma(0)$?
differential-geometry definition surfaces manifolds-with-boundary
asked Feb 28 '14 at 7:45
Appliqué
3,96231839
Let $M$ be a $2$-dimensional compact oriented surface in $mathbb R^3$ with boundary $partial M$. For any $pin M setminus partial M$ tangent vectors are defined as speed vectors of smooth curves $Gamma colon (-1,1) to M$, $Gamma(0) = p$ at point $t=0$, i.e. vectors $dot Gamma(0)$. They form the linear space $T_p M$ called the tangent space to $M$ at $p$.
Suppose now that $p in partial M$. Then if we use the same definition for tangent vectors (i.e. speed vectors at zero of smooth curves $Gamma colon (-1,1) to M$, $Gamma(0) = p$) we will obtain only vectors, that are tangent to $partial M$ at point $p$. My question is how to modify the definition of tangent vectors at boundary points to obtain the tangent vectors to $M$ at $p in partial M$? Is it possible to define these tangent vectors as speed vectors of curves $Gamma colon (-1,1) to mathbb R^3$, $Gamma(-1,0] subset M$ or $Gamma[0,1) subset M$, $Gamma(0) = p$ at $0$, i.e. vectors $dot Gamma(0)$?
differential-geometry definition surfaces manifolds-with-boundary
differential-geometry definition surfaces manifolds-with-boundary
asked Feb 28 '14 at 7:45
Appliqué
3,96231839
asked Feb 28 '14 at 7:45
Appliqué
3,96231839
edited Feb 28 '14 at 8:52
asked Feb 28 '14 at 7:45
Appliqué
3,96231839
asked Feb 28 '14 at 7:45
Appliqué
3,96231839
asked Feb 28 '14 at 7:45
Appliqué
3,96231839
3,96231839
Almost; the tangent space at a boundary point $p$ is the set of vectors $dot Gamma (0)$ of smooth curves $Gamma : ]-1,1[ to M$ such that $Gamma(0) = p$ and $Gamma([0,1[) subset M$ (not $Gamma(]-1,0]) subset M$, then you get too much)
– wspin
Feb 28 '14 at 13:30
@wspin But if we consider only $Gamma([0,1[) subset M$ (but not $Gamma(]-1,0]) subset M$) we will obtain only "inward" pointing vectors, won't we? I think that they won't form a vector space.
– Appliqué
Feb 28 '14 at 14:57
The tangent space at a boundary point is indeed not a vector space. If the boundary is smooth it is a half space. Compare this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Supporting_hyperplane1.svg
– wspin
Feb 28 '14 at 16:31
@wspin bizarre, I imagined the tangent space as the tangent plane translated to zero. Could you tell me please in what book have you found your definition? By the way, your image is about supporting hyperplane.
– Appliqué
Feb 28 '14 at 17:38
This is really a matter of definitions, in my opinion. For instance, if you use the "equivalence class on charts" definition of tangent space, then you get the full vector space. Sometimes this definition is useful, for instance when talking about Stoke's Theorem.
– Aloizio Macedo♦
Feb 5 '16 at 23:43
add a comment |
Almost; the tangent space at a boundary point $p$ is the set of vectors $dot Gamma (0)$ of smooth curves $Gamma : ]-1,1[ to M$ such that $Gamma(0) = p$ and $Gamma([0,1[) subset M$ (not $Gamma(]-1,0]) subset M$, then you get too much)
– wspin
Feb 28 '14 at 13:30
@wspin But if we consider only $Gamma([0,1[) subset M$ (but not $Gamma(]-1,0]) subset M$) we will obtain only "inward" pointing vectors, won't we? I think that they won't form a vector space.
– Appliqué
Feb 28 '14 at 14:57
The tangent space at a boundary point is indeed not a vector space. If the boundary is smooth it is a half space. Compare this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Supporting_hyperplane1.svg
– wspin
Feb 28 '14 at 16:31
@wspin bizarre, I imagined the tangent space as the tangent plane translated to zero. Could you tell me please in what book have you found your definition? By the way, your image is about supporting hyperplane.
– Appliqué
Feb 28 '14 at 17:38
This is really a matter of definitions, in my opinion. For instance, if you use the "equivalence class on charts" definition of tangent space, then you get the full vector space. Sometimes this definition is useful, for instance when talking about Stoke's Theorem.
– Aloizio Macedo♦
Feb 5 '16 at 23:43
Almost; the tangent space at a boundary point $p$ is the set of vectors $dot Gamma (0)$ of smooth curves $Gamma : ]-1,1[ to M$ such that $Gamma(0) = p$ and $Gamma([0,1[) subset M$ (not $Gamma(]-1,0]) subset M$, then you get too much)
– wspin
Feb 28 '14 at 13:30
Almost; the tangent space at a boundary point $p$ is the set of vectors $dot Gamma (0)$ of smooth curves $Gamma : ]-1,1[ to M$ such that $Gamma(0) = p$ and $Gamma([0,1[) subset M$ (not $Gamma(]-1,0]) subset M$, then you get too much)
– wspin
Feb 28 '14 at 13:30
@wspin But if we consider only $Gamma([0,1[) subset M$ (but not $Gamma(]-1,0]) subset M$) we will obtain only "inward" pointing vectors, won't we? I think that they won't form a vector space.
– Appliqué
Feb 28 '14 at 14:57
@wspin But if we consider only $Gamma([0,1[) subset M$ (but not $Gamma(]-1,0]) subset M$) we will obtain only "inward" pointing vectors, won't we? I think that they won't form a vector space.
– Appliqué
Feb 28 '14 at 14:57
The tangent space at a boundary point is indeed not a vector space. If the boundary is smooth it is a half space. Compare this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Supporting_hyperplane1.svg
– wspin
Feb 28 '14 at 16:31
The tangent space at a boundary point is indeed not a vector space. If the boundary is smooth it is a half space. Compare this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Supporting_hyperplane1.svg
– wspin
Feb 28 '14 at 16:31
@wspin bizarre, I imagined the tangent space as the tangent plane translated to zero. Could you tell me please in what book have you found your definition? By the way, your image is about supporting hyperplane.
– Appliqué
Feb 28 '14 at 17:38
@wspin bizarre, I imagined the tangent space as the tangent plane translated to zero. Could you tell me please in what book have you found your definition? By the way, your image is about supporting hyperplane.
– Appliqué
Feb 28 '14 at 17:38
This is really a matter of definitions, in my opinion. For instance, if you use the "equivalence class on charts" definition of tangent space, then you get the full vector space. Sometimes this definition is useful, for instance when talking about Stoke's Theorem.
– Aloizio Macedo♦
Feb 5 '16 at 23:43
This is really a matter of definitions, in my opinion. For instance, if you use the "equivalence class on charts" definition of tangent space, then you get the full vector space. Sometimes this definition is useful, for instance when talking about Stoke's Theorem.
– Aloizio Macedo♦
Feb 5 '16 at 23:43
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
I think the simplest way to define tangent vectors is to not use curves at all. Just say that a vector $v$ is tangent to $M$ at point $p$ if $$operatorname{dist}(p+tv,M)=o(t),qquad tto 0^+tag{1}$$ This agrees with the usual definition at the non-boundary points. At the boundary points the above definition yields halfspace, as in wspin's comment. If you insist on having a linear space, then either
- take the linear span; or
- require (1) to hold for either $tto 0^+$ or $tto 0^-$. (The choice may be different for different $t$.)
But you can use curves too, by taking one-sided derivative at the point that is mapped to the boundary. Again, the natural way of doing so (curves begin at $p$) leads to half-plane as the tangent plane. Allowing curve that either begin or terminate at $p$ yields the whole plane.
Aside: from the viewpoint of metric geometry, a tangent space is the [pointed] Gromov-Hausdorff limit of rescaled copies of the surface; as such, it is naturally a halfplane at the boundary points. (And quarter-plane at right-angled corners, etc.)
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
answered Mar 1 '14 at 2:05
user127096
8,09011039
1
Thank you for the answer. From here math.stackexchange.com/a/62808/16273 it follows that if we consider our surface as a manifold with boundary then the tangent space at boundary points is a linear span of your construction (author cites Lee's Introduction to Smooth Manifolds). I think it is better to consider tangent space at boundary as a linear space, no? It leads to natural definition of normal space to boundary at its points (in presence of metric, it is the orthogonal complement of $T_p gamma$ in $T_p M$, $p in gamma$).
– Appliqué
Mar 1 '14 at 7:49
This answer assumes that the manifold $M$ is an embedded manifold in some linear space (probably $Bbb R^n$). Since finite-dimensional compact manifolds can in fact be embedded, by Whitney, that's half reasonable, and for OP's question about surfaces in 3-space, it's totally reasonable. For manifolds defined more abstractly, requiring an embedding before one can consider a tangent space may be an awkward way to proceed, and a somewhat more abstract notion of tangent space may be useful. Spivak's Differential Geometry goes through about 5 different equivalent definitions, and is enlightening.
– John Hughes
Jul 23 '18 at 13:00
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
});
}
});
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%2f693749%2ftangent-space-to-a-surface-at-boundary-points%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I think the simplest way to define tangent vectors is to not use curves at all. Just say that a vector $v$ is tangent to $M$ at point $p$ if $$operatorname{dist}(p+tv,M)=o(t),qquad tto 0^+tag{1}$$ This agrees with the usual definition at the non-boundary points. At the boundary points the above definition yields halfspace, as in wspin's comment. If you insist on having a linear space, then either
- take the linear span; or
- require (1) to hold for either $tto 0^+$ or $tto 0^-$. (The choice may be different for different $t$.)
But you can use curves too, by taking one-sided derivative at the point that is mapped to the boundary. Again, the natural way of doing so (curves begin at $p$) leads to half-plane as the tangent plane. Allowing curve that either begin or terminate at $p$ yields the whole plane.
Aside: from the viewpoint of metric geometry, a tangent space is the [pointed] Gromov-Hausdorff limit of rescaled copies of the surface; as such, it is naturally a halfplane at the boundary points. (And quarter-plane at right-angled corners, etc.)
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
answered Mar 1 '14 at 2:05
user127096
8,09011039
1
Thank you for the answer. From here math.stackexchange.com/a/62808/16273 it follows that if we consider our surface as a manifold with boundary then the tangent space at boundary points is a linear span of your construction (author cites Lee's Introduction to Smooth Manifolds). I think it is better to consider tangent space at boundary as a linear space, no? It leads to natural definition of normal space to boundary at its points (in presence of metric, it is the orthogonal complement of $T_p gamma$ in $T_p M$, $p in gamma$).
– Appliqué
Mar 1 '14 at 7:49
This answer assumes that the manifold $M$ is an embedded manifold in some linear space (probably $Bbb R^n$). Since finite-dimensional compact manifolds can in fact be embedded, by Whitney, that's half reasonable, and for OP's question about surfaces in 3-space, it's totally reasonable. For manifolds defined more abstractly, requiring an embedding before one can consider a tangent space may be an awkward way to proceed, and a somewhat more abstract notion of tangent space may be useful. Spivak's Differential Geometry goes through about 5 different equivalent definitions, and is enlightening.
– John Hughes
Jul 23 '18 at 13:00
add a comment |
I think the simplest way to define tangent vectors is to not use curves at all. Just say that a vector $v$ is tangent to $M$ at point $p$ if $$operatorname{dist}(p+tv,M)=o(t),qquad tto 0^+tag{1}$$ This agrees with the usual definition at the non-boundary points. At the boundary points the above definition yields halfspace, as in wspin's comment. If you insist on having a linear space, then either
- take the linear span; or
- require (1) to hold for either $tto 0^+$ or $tto 0^-$. (The choice may be different for different $t$.)
But you can use curves too, by taking one-sided derivative at the point that is mapped to the boundary. Again, the natural way of doing so (curves begin at $p$) leads to half-plane as the tangent plane. Allowing curve that either begin or terminate at $p$ yields the whole plane.
Aside: from the viewpoint of metric geometry, a tangent space is the [pointed] Gromov-Hausdorff limit of rescaled copies of the surface; as such, it is naturally a halfplane at the boundary points. (And quarter-plane at right-angled corners, etc.)
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
answered Mar 1 '14 at 2:05
user127096
8,09011039
1
Thank you for the answer. From here math.stackexchange.com/a/62808/16273 it follows that if we consider our surface as a manifold with boundary then the tangent space at boundary points is a linear span of your construction (author cites Lee's Introduction to Smooth Manifolds). I think it is better to consider tangent space at boundary as a linear space, no? It leads to natural definition of normal space to boundary at its points (in presence of metric, it is the orthogonal complement of $T_p gamma$ in $T_p M$, $p in gamma$).
– Appliqué
Mar 1 '14 at 7:49
This answer assumes that the manifold $M$ is an embedded manifold in some linear space (probably $Bbb R^n$). Since finite-dimensional compact manifolds can in fact be embedded, by Whitney, that's half reasonable, and for OP's question about surfaces in 3-space, it's totally reasonable. For manifolds defined more abstractly, requiring an embedding before one can consider a tangent space may be an awkward way to proceed, and a somewhat more abstract notion of tangent space may be useful. Spivak's Differential Geometry goes through about 5 different equivalent definitions, and is enlightening.
– John Hughes
Jul 23 '18 at 13:00
add a comment |
I think the simplest way to define tangent vectors is to not use curves at all. Just say that a vector $v$ is tangent to $M$ at point $p$ if $$operatorname{dist}(p+tv,M)=o(t),qquad tto 0^+tag{1}$$ This agrees with the usual definition at the non-boundary points. At the boundary points the above definition yields halfspace, as in wspin's comment. If you insist on having a linear space, then either
- take the linear span; or
- require (1) to hold for either $tto 0^+$ or $tto 0^-$. (The choice may be different for different $t$.)
But you can use curves too, by taking one-sided derivative at the point that is mapped to the boundary. Again, the natural way of doing so (curves begin at $p$) leads to half-plane as the tangent plane. Allowing curve that either begin or terminate at $p$ yields the whole plane.
Aside: from the viewpoint of metric geometry, a tangent space is the [pointed] Gromov-Hausdorff limit of rescaled copies of the surface; as such, it is naturally a halfplane at the boundary points. (And quarter-plane at right-angled corners, etc.)
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
answered Mar 1 '14 at 2:05
user127096
8,09011039
I think the simplest way to define tangent vectors is to not use curves at all. Just say that a vector $v$ is tangent to $M$ at point $p$ if $$operatorname{dist}(p+tv,M)=o(t),qquad tto 0^+tag{1}$$ This agrees with the usual definition at the non-boundary points. At the boundary points the above definition yields halfspace, as in wspin's comment. If you insist on having a linear space, then either
- take the linear span; or
- require (1) to hold for either $tto 0^+$ or $tto 0^-$. (The choice may be different for different $t$.)
But you can use curves too, by taking one-sided derivative at the point that is mapped to the boundary. Again, the natural way of doing so (curves begin at $p$) leads to half-plane as the tangent plane. Allowing curve that either begin or terminate at $p$ yields the whole plane.
Aside: from the viewpoint of metric geometry, a tangent space is the [pointed] Gromov-Hausdorff limit of rescaled copies of the surface; as such, it is naturally a halfplane at the boundary points. (And quarter-plane at right-angled corners, etc.)
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
answered Mar 1 '14 at 2:05
user127096
8,09011039
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
1
answered Mar 1 '14 at 2:05
user127096
8,09011039
answered Mar 1 '14 at 2:05
user127096
8,09011039
answered Mar 1 '14 at 2:05
user127096
8,09011039
8,09011039
1
Thank you for the answer. From here math.stackexchange.com/a/62808/16273 it follows that if we consider our surface as a manifold with boundary then the tangent space at boundary points is a linear span of your construction (author cites Lee's Introduction to Smooth Manifolds). I think it is better to consider tangent space at boundary as a linear space, no? It leads to natural definition of normal space to boundary at its points (in presence of metric, it is the orthogonal complement of $T_p gamma$ in $T_p M$, $p in gamma$).
– Appliqué
Mar 1 '14 at 7:49
This answer assumes that the manifold $M$ is an embedded manifold in some linear space (probably $Bbb R^n$). Since finite-dimensional compact manifolds can in fact be embedded, by Whitney, that's half reasonable, and for OP's question about surfaces in 3-space, it's totally reasonable. For manifolds defined more abstractly, requiring an embedding before one can consider a tangent space may be an awkward way to proceed, and a somewhat more abstract notion of tangent space may be useful. Spivak's Differential Geometry goes through about 5 different equivalent definitions, and is enlightening.
– John Hughes
Jul 23 '18 at 13:00
add a comment |
1
Thank you for the answer. From here math.stackexchange.com/a/62808/16273 it follows that if we consider our surface as a manifold with boundary then the tangent space at boundary points is a linear span of your construction (author cites Lee's Introduction to Smooth Manifolds). I think it is better to consider tangent space at boundary as a linear space, no? It leads to natural definition of normal space to boundary at its points (in presence of metric, it is the orthogonal complement of $T_p gamma$ in $T_p M$, $p in gamma$).
– Appliqué
Mar 1 '14 at 7:49
This answer assumes that the manifold $M$ is an embedded manifold in some linear space (probably $Bbb R^n$). Since finite-dimensional compact manifolds can in fact be embedded, by Whitney, that's half reasonable, and for OP's question about surfaces in 3-space, it's totally reasonable. For manifolds defined more abstractly, requiring an embedding before one can consider a tangent space may be an awkward way to proceed, and a somewhat more abstract notion of tangent space may be useful. Spivak's Differential Geometry goes through about 5 different equivalent definitions, and is enlightening.
– John Hughes
Jul 23 '18 at 13:00
1
1
Thank you for the answer. From here math.stackexchange.com/a/62808/16273 it follows that if we consider our surface as a manifold with boundary then the tangent space at boundary points is a linear span of your construction (author cites Lee's Introduction to Smooth Manifolds). I think it is better to consider tangent space at boundary as a linear space, no? It leads to natural definition of normal space to boundary at its points (in presence of metric, it is the orthogonal complement of $T_p gamma$ in $T_p M$, $p in gamma$).
– Appliqué
Mar 1 '14 at 7:49
Thank you for the answer. From here math.stackexchange.com/a/62808/16273 it follows that if we consider our surface as a manifold with boundary then the tangent space at boundary points is a linear span of your construction (author cites Lee's Introduction to Smooth Manifolds). I think it is better to consider tangent space at boundary as a linear space, no? It leads to natural definition of normal space to boundary at its points (in presence of metric, it is the orthogonal complement of $T_p gamma$ in $T_p M$, $p in gamma$).
– Appliqué
Mar 1 '14 at 7:49
This answer assumes that the manifold $M$ is an embedded manifold in some linear space (probably $Bbb R^n$). Since finite-dimensional compact manifolds can in fact be embedded, by Whitney, that's half reasonable, and for OP's question about surfaces in 3-space, it's totally reasonable. For manifolds defined more abstractly, requiring an embedding before one can consider a tangent space may be an awkward way to proceed, and a somewhat more abstract notion of tangent space may be useful. Spivak's Differential Geometry goes through about 5 different equivalent definitions, and is enlightening.
– John Hughes
Jul 23 '18 at 13:00
This answer assumes that the manifold $M$ is an embedded manifold in some linear space (probably $Bbb R^n$). Since finite-dimensional compact manifolds can in fact be embedded, by Whitney, that's half reasonable, and for OP's question about surfaces in 3-space, it's totally reasonable. For manifolds defined more abstractly, requiring an embedding before one can consider a tangent space may be an awkward way to proceed, and a somewhat more abstract notion of tangent space may be useful. Spivak's Differential Geometry goes through about 5 different equivalent definitions, and is enlightening.
– John Hughes
Jul 23 '18 at 13:00
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%2f693749%2ftangent-space-to-a-surface-at-boundary-points%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
Almost; the tangent space at a boundary point $p$ is the set of vectors $dot Gamma (0)$ of smooth curves $Gamma : ]-1,1[ to M$ such that $Gamma(0) = p$ and $Gamma([0,1[) subset M$ (not $Gamma(]-1,0]) subset M$, then you get too much)
– wspin
Feb 28 '14 at 13:30
@wspin But if we consider only $Gamma([0,1[) subset M$ (but not $Gamma(]-1,0]) subset M$) we will obtain only "inward" pointing vectors, won't we? I think that they won't form a vector space.
– Appliqué
Feb 28 '14 at 14:57
The tangent space at a boundary point is indeed not a vector space. If the boundary is smooth it is a half space. Compare this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Supporting_hyperplane1.svg
– wspin
Feb 28 '14 at 16:31
@wspin bizarre, I imagined the tangent space as the tangent plane translated to zero. Could you tell me please in what book have you found your definition? By the way, your image is about supporting hyperplane.
– Appliqué
Feb 28 '14 at 17:38
This is really a matter of definitions, in my opinion. For instance, if you use the "equivalence class on charts" definition of tangent space, then you get the full vector space. Sometimes this definition is useful, for instance when talking about Stoke's Theorem.
– Aloizio Macedo♦
Feb 5 '16 at 23:43