Is this a submanifold?
$begingroup$
Let $(M,g)$ be a compact Riemannian manifold with an isometric action $rho : G to mathrm{Iso}(M)$ by a compact Lie group $G$. There is a natural extension of $rho$ to $TM$ given by:
$$psi : G times TM to TM$$
$$psi(g,p,X) := (rho(g)p,drho(g)X).$$
I would like to know if the set:
$$TM supset tilde S := {(p,X) in TM : G_X = G_p}$$ is a submanifold of $TM$, and further, if $pi : TM to M$ is the natural projection, then $pi(tilde S)$ is a submanifold of $M$.
I tried the following approach:
For each $gin G$ consider $eta_g(p,X) equiv eta(g,p,X) := d^2_{TM}left((p,X),psi(g,p,X)right).$ Then, one has:
$$eta_g^{-1}(0) = {(p,X) :(rho(g)p,drho(g)X) = (p,X)}.$$
So,
$$tilde S = bigcup_{gin G}eta_g^{-1}(0). $$
But according to my calculation $0$ is not a regular value of $eta_g$.
I appreciate any help.
EDIT
Thanks to all the answers and comments. I shall change a little the candidate to manifold to another that will be more helpful to me.
I would like to know if one denotes by $cal H_p$ the orthogonal complement to $T_pGcdot p$ on the $g$-metric, then the set
$$S := {p in M : exists X in mathcal H_p : G_X = G_p}$$
is a submanifold of $M$. In fact, this is what I was trying to prove at first.
dg.differential-geometry riemannian-geometry differential-topology group-actions
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $(M,g)$ be a compact Riemannian manifold with an isometric action $rho : G to mathrm{Iso}(M)$ by a compact Lie group $G$. There is a natural extension of $rho$ to $TM$ given by:
$$psi : G times TM to TM$$
$$psi(g,p,X) := (rho(g)p,drho(g)X).$$
I would like to know if the set:
$$TM supset tilde S := {(p,X) in TM : G_X = G_p}$$ is a submanifold of $TM$, and further, if $pi : TM to M$ is the natural projection, then $pi(tilde S)$ is a submanifold of $M$.
I tried the following approach:
For each $gin G$ consider $eta_g(p,X) equiv eta(g,p,X) := d^2_{TM}left((p,X),psi(g,p,X)right).$ Then, one has:
$$eta_g^{-1}(0) = {(p,X) :(rho(g)p,drho(g)X) = (p,X)}.$$
So,
$$tilde S = bigcup_{gin G}eta_g^{-1}(0). $$
But according to my calculation $0$ is not a regular value of $eta_g$.
I appreciate any help.
EDIT
Thanks to all the answers and comments. I shall change a little the candidate to manifold to another that will be more helpful to me.
I would like to know if one denotes by $cal H_p$ the orthogonal complement to $T_pGcdot p$ on the $g$-metric, then the set
$$S := {p in M : exists X in mathcal H_p : G_X = G_p}$$
is a submanifold of $M$. In fact, this is what I was trying to prove at first.
dg.differential-geometry riemannian-geometry differential-topology group-actions
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Is this a pigeon? ;-)
$endgroup$
– David Roberts
Mar 9 at 21:54
$begingroup$
@DavidRoberts, I am sorry, what are you asking if it is a pigeon?
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 22:11
4
$begingroup$
It's a meme, meant in good humour.
$endgroup$
– David Roberts
Mar 9 at 22:57
$begingroup$
By $G_X$ and $G_p$ you are referring to the vector and point stabilizers, respectively? I would imagine that generally this is not a manifold without some pretty restrictive assumptions. I'm imagining the action of $G$ degenerating along a stratum, with the stabilized vector space changing. What are you hoping to do with a result like this?
$endgroup$
– Ryan Budney
Mar 10 at 0:41
$begingroup$
Dear @RyanBudney, please, consider seeing my edit, as It was suggested on the comments $S$ possibly is a manifold, and that was my original problem. I am working on positive curvature and I need on some step of my argument to be sure that $S$ is a submanifold.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 10 at 0:43
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $(M,g)$ be a compact Riemannian manifold with an isometric action $rho : G to mathrm{Iso}(M)$ by a compact Lie group $G$. There is a natural extension of $rho$ to $TM$ given by:
$$psi : G times TM to TM$$
$$psi(g,p,X) := (rho(g)p,drho(g)X).$$
I would like to know if the set:
$$TM supset tilde S := {(p,X) in TM : G_X = G_p}$$ is a submanifold of $TM$, and further, if $pi : TM to M$ is the natural projection, then $pi(tilde S)$ is a submanifold of $M$.
I tried the following approach:
For each $gin G$ consider $eta_g(p,X) equiv eta(g,p,X) := d^2_{TM}left((p,X),psi(g,p,X)right).$ Then, one has:
$$eta_g^{-1}(0) = {(p,X) :(rho(g)p,drho(g)X) = (p,X)}.$$
So,
$$tilde S = bigcup_{gin G}eta_g^{-1}(0). $$
But according to my calculation $0$ is not a regular value of $eta_g$.
I appreciate any help.
EDIT
Thanks to all the answers and comments. I shall change a little the candidate to manifold to another that will be more helpful to me.
I would like to know if one denotes by $cal H_p$ the orthogonal complement to $T_pGcdot p$ on the $g$-metric, then the set
$$S := {p in M : exists X in mathcal H_p : G_X = G_p}$$
is a submanifold of $M$. In fact, this is what I was trying to prove at first.
dg.differential-geometry riemannian-geometry differential-topology group-actions
$endgroup$
Let $(M,g)$ be a compact Riemannian manifold with an isometric action $rho : G to mathrm{Iso}(M)$ by a compact Lie group $G$. There is a natural extension of $rho$ to $TM$ given by:
$$psi : G times TM to TM$$
$$psi(g,p,X) := (rho(g)p,drho(g)X).$$
I would like to know if the set:
$$TM supset tilde S := {(p,X) in TM : G_X = G_p}$$ is a submanifold of $TM$, and further, if $pi : TM to M$ is the natural projection, then $pi(tilde S)$ is a submanifold of $M$.
I tried the following approach:
For each $gin G$ consider $eta_g(p,X) equiv eta(g,p,X) := d^2_{TM}left((p,X),psi(g,p,X)right).$ Then, one has:
$$eta_g^{-1}(0) = {(p,X) :(rho(g)p,drho(g)X) = (p,X)}.$$
So,
$$tilde S = bigcup_{gin G}eta_g^{-1}(0). $$
But according to my calculation $0$ is not a regular value of $eta_g$.
I appreciate any help.
EDIT
Thanks to all the answers and comments. I shall change a little the candidate to manifold to another that will be more helpful to me.
I would like to know if one denotes by $cal H_p$ the orthogonal complement to $T_pGcdot p$ on the $g$-metric, then the set
$$S := {p in M : exists X in mathcal H_p : G_X = G_p}$$
is a submanifold of $M$. In fact, this is what I was trying to prove at first.
dg.differential-geometry riemannian-geometry differential-topology group-actions
dg.differential-geometry riemannian-geometry differential-topology group-actions
edited Mar 10 at 0:42
L.F. Cavenaghi
asked Mar 9 at 18:35
L.F. CavenaghiL.F. Cavenaghi
610213
610213
$begingroup$
Is this a pigeon? ;-)
$endgroup$
– David Roberts
Mar 9 at 21:54
$begingroup$
@DavidRoberts, I am sorry, what are you asking if it is a pigeon?
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 22:11
4
$begingroup$
It's a meme, meant in good humour.
$endgroup$
– David Roberts
Mar 9 at 22:57
$begingroup$
By $G_X$ and $G_p$ you are referring to the vector and point stabilizers, respectively? I would imagine that generally this is not a manifold without some pretty restrictive assumptions. I'm imagining the action of $G$ degenerating along a stratum, with the stabilized vector space changing. What are you hoping to do with a result like this?
$endgroup$
– Ryan Budney
Mar 10 at 0:41
$begingroup$
Dear @RyanBudney, please, consider seeing my edit, as It was suggested on the comments $S$ possibly is a manifold, and that was my original problem. I am working on positive curvature and I need on some step of my argument to be sure that $S$ is a submanifold.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 10 at 0:43
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Is this a pigeon? ;-)
$endgroup$
– David Roberts
Mar 9 at 21:54
$begingroup$
@DavidRoberts, I am sorry, what are you asking if it is a pigeon?
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 22:11
4
$begingroup$
It's a meme, meant in good humour.
$endgroup$
– David Roberts
Mar 9 at 22:57
$begingroup$
By $G_X$ and $G_p$ you are referring to the vector and point stabilizers, respectively? I would imagine that generally this is not a manifold without some pretty restrictive assumptions. I'm imagining the action of $G$ degenerating along a stratum, with the stabilized vector space changing. What are you hoping to do with a result like this?
$endgroup$
– Ryan Budney
Mar 10 at 0:41
$begingroup$
Dear @RyanBudney, please, consider seeing my edit, as It was suggested on the comments $S$ possibly is a manifold, and that was my original problem. I am working on positive curvature and I need on some step of my argument to be sure that $S$ is a submanifold.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 10 at 0:43
$begingroup$
Is this a pigeon? ;-)
$endgroup$
– David Roberts
Mar 9 at 21:54
$begingroup$
Is this a pigeon? ;-)
$endgroup$
– David Roberts
Mar 9 at 21:54
$begingroup$
@DavidRoberts, I am sorry, what are you asking if it is a pigeon?
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 22:11
$begingroup$
@DavidRoberts, I am sorry, what are you asking if it is a pigeon?
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 22:11
4
4
$begingroup$
It's a meme, meant in good humour.
$endgroup$
– David Roberts
Mar 9 at 22:57
$begingroup$
It's a meme, meant in good humour.
$endgroup$
– David Roberts
Mar 9 at 22:57
$begingroup$
By $G_X$ and $G_p$ you are referring to the vector and point stabilizers, respectively? I would imagine that generally this is not a manifold without some pretty restrictive assumptions. I'm imagining the action of $G$ degenerating along a stratum, with the stabilized vector space changing. What are you hoping to do with a result like this?
$endgroup$
– Ryan Budney
Mar 10 at 0:41
$begingroup$
By $G_X$ and $G_p$ you are referring to the vector and point stabilizers, respectively? I would imagine that generally this is not a manifold without some pretty restrictive assumptions. I'm imagining the action of $G$ degenerating along a stratum, with the stabilized vector space changing. What are you hoping to do with a result like this?
$endgroup$
– Ryan Budney
Mar 10 at 0:41
$begingroup$
Dear @RyanBudney, please, consider seeing my edit, as It was suggested on the comments $S$ possibly is a manifold, and that was my original problem. I am working on positive curvature and I need on some step of my argument to be sure that $S$ is a submanifold.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 10 at 0:43
$begingroup$
Dear @RyanBudney, please, consider seeing my edit, as It was suggested on the comments $S$ possibly is a manifold, and that was my original problem. I am working on positive curvature and I need on some step of my argument to be sure that $S$ is a submanifold.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 10 at 0:43
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Your definition implies that
$$ tilde S = bigcup_{pin M} T_pM^{G_p}. $$
In particular, $pi(tilde S) = M$, and $tilde S$ will be a submanifold of $TM$ iff the dimension of $T_pM^{G_p}$ is the same for all $pin M$.
$G$ being connected won't necessarily make this happen: Another counterexample is $S^1$ acting by rotation on $S^2$, fixing the north and south poles, $n$ and $s$. $tilde S$ is then $T(S^2setminus{n,s})cup {n,s}$, and the points $n$ and $s$ do not have neighborhoods homeomorphic to open balls.
EDIT
To address the modified question: If $pin S$, then the orbit $Gp$ has a neighborhood homeomorphic to $Gtimes_{G_p} mathcal H_p$ and we're assuming that $mathcal H_p^{G_p} neq 0$. If $qin mathcal H_p$ is any point, then $mathcal H_p^{G_p}$ will be fixed by $G_q$ and still be orthogonal to $Gq$, hence $q$ and every point in $Gq$ will be in $S$. This shows that a neighborhood of $Gp$ is contained in $S$. Thus $S$ is an open submanifold of $M$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
what if we change a little bit my definition by asking the following: $S = {p in M : exists 0 neq X in mathcal {H}_p subset T_pM : G_X = G_p}$? Now I ask if such $S$ is a submanifold of $M$, where $cal H_p$ is the space $g$-orthogonal to $T_pGcdot p$.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 23:13
1
$begingroup$
My first reaction is that, yes, $S$ will be a submanifold. In fact, an open submanifold: If $pin S$ then all points in an open neighborhood of $p$ should also satisfy your new condition. Essentially, a neighborhood of $p$ will look like $T_p M$ with the action of $G_p$.
$endgroup$
– Steve Costenoble
Mar 10 at 0:11
$begingroup$
I have edited the question in order to encompass $S$ to it, it would be extremely helpful if you explain to me your thoughts on why $S$ has a chance to be a submanifold.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 10 at 0:45
$begingroup$
I will accept your answer since I could prove it was true following your comment, I will post the proof on the question.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 10 at 18:45
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For the obvious reflection action of $mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z}$ on $S^1$ this set $tilde S $ has two singular points at the zero vectors tangent at points $p=(1,0)$ and $q=(-1,0)$.
Then $tilde S$ is $T(S^1setminus {p,q}) cup {p_0,q_0}$ where $p_0, q_0$ are zero vectors at $p,q$. This is a connected set and after removing $p_0,q_0$ we obtain a disconnected set. So obviously it is not a manifold because every connected manifold of dimension at least $2$, remains connected after removing a finite set.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
"every connected manifold remains connected after removing a finite set" -- this is not true for 1-dimensional manifolds. Nonetheless, your example is valid: if $x$ is one of the fixed points of the reflection action, then a neighborhood of $(x,0)intilde S$ is homeomorphic to $mathbb R^2$ minus the coordinate axes but including the origin, so it cannot be a manifold.
$endgroup$
– Arun Debray
Mar 9 at 21:42
$begingroup$
@ArunDebray yes thank you but $tilde S $ is 2 dimensional at generic points. I revise the answer. Thanks again for your correction!
$endgroup$
– Ali Taghavi
Mar 9 at 21:44
1
$begingroup$
@AliTaghavi, thank you very much. Do you know if one can restrict some hypothesis in order to obtain a manifold? Or, what kind of structure this set has?
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 22:18
$begingroup$
You are well come. What about if we assume $G$ is connected? I am not sure what is the answer in this case.
$endgroup$
– Ali Taghavi
Mar 9 at 22:29
1
$begingroup$
@AliTaghavi, take a look to the other answer and possible on the comments. I changed a little the problem.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 23:15
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: "504"
};
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%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f325024%2fis-this-a-submanifold%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Your definition implies that
$$ tilde S = bigcup_{pin M} T_pM^{G_p}. $$
In particular, $pi(tilde S) = M$, and $tilde S$ will be a submanifold of $TM$ iff the dimension of $T_pM^{G_p}$ is the same for all $pin M$.
$G$ being connected won't necessarily make this happen: Another counterexample is $S^1$ acting by rotation on $S^2$, fixing the north and south poles, $n$ and $s$. $tilde S$ is then $T(S^2setminus{n,s})cup {n,s}$, and the points $n$ and $s$ do not have neighborhoods homeomorphic to open balls.
EDIT
To address the modified question: If $pin S$, then the orbit $Gp$ has a neighborhood homeomorphic to $Gtimes_{G_p} mathcal H_p$ and we're assuming that $mathcal H_p^{G_p} neq 0$. If $qin mathcal H_p$ is any point, then $mathcal H_p^{G_p}$ will be fixed by $G_q$ and still be orthogonal to $Gq$, hence $q$ and every point in $Gq$ will be in $S$. This shows that a neighborhood of $Gp$ is contained in $S$. Thus $S$ is an open submanifold of $M$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
what if we change a little bit my definition by asking the following: $S = {p in M : exists 0 neq X in mathcal {H}_p subset T_pM : G_X = G_p}$? Now I ask if such $S$ is a submanifold of $M$, where $cal H_p$ is the space $g$-orthogonal to $T_pGcdot p$.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 23:13
1
$begingroup$
My first reaction is that, yes, $S$ will be a submanifold. In fact, an open submanifold: If $pin S$ then all points in an open neighborhood of $p$ should also satisfy your new condition. Essentially, a neighborhood of $p$ will look like $T_p M$ with the action of $G_p$.
$endgroup$
– Steve Costenoble
Mar 10 at 0:11
$begingroup$
I have edited the question in order to encompass $S$ to it, it would be extremely helpful if you explain to me your thoughts on why $S$ has a chance to be a submanifold.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 10 at 0:45
$begingroup$
I will accept your answer since I could prove it was true following your comment, I will post the proof on the question.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 10 at 18:45
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your definition implies that
$$ tilde S = bigcup_{pin M} T_pM^{G_p}. $$
In particular, $pi(tilde S) = M$, and $tilde S$ will be a submanifold of $TM$ iff the dimension of $T_pM^{G_p}$ is the same for all $pin M$.
$G$ being connected won't necessarily make this happen: Another counterexample is $S^1$ acting by rotation on $S^2$, fixing the north and south poles, $n$ and $s$. $tilde S$ is then $T(S^2setminus{n,s})cup {n,s}$, and the points $n$ and $s$ do not have neighborhoods homeomorphic to open balls.
EDIT
To address the modified question: If $pin S$, then the orbit $Gp$ has a neighborhood homeomorphic to $Gtimes_{G_p} mathcal H_p$ and we're assuming that $mathcal H_p^{G_p} neq 0$. If $qin mathcal H_p$ is any point, then $mathcal H_p^{G_p}$ will be fixed by $G_q$ and still be orthogonal to $Gq$, hence $q$ and every point in $Gq$ will be in $S$. This shows that a neighborhood of $Gp$ is contained in $S$. Thus $S$ is an open submanifold of $M$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
what if we change a little bit my definition by asking the following: $S = {p in M : exists 0 neq X in mathcal {H}_p subset T_pM : G_X = G_p}$? Now I ask if such $S$ is a submanifold of $M$, where $cal H_p$ is the space $g$-orthogonal to $T_pGcdot p$.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 23:13
1
$begingroup$
My first reaction is that, yes, $S$ will be a submanifold. In fact, an open submanifold: If $pin S$ then all points in an open neighborhood of $p$ should also satisfy your new condition. Essentially, a neighborhood of $p$ will look like $T_p M$ with the action of $G_p$.
$endgroup$
– Steve Costenoble
Mar 10 at 0:11
$begingroup$
I have edited the question in order to encompass $S$ to it, it would be extremely helpful if you explain to me your thoughts on why $S$ has a chance to be a submanifold.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 10 at 0:45
$begingroup$
I will accept your answer since I could prove it was true following your comment, I will post the proof on the question.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 10 at 18:45
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your definition implies that
$$ tilde S = bigcup_{pin M} T_pM^{G_p}. $$
In particular, $pi(tilde S) = M$, and $tilde S$ will be a submanifold of $TM$ iff the dimension of $T_pM^{G_p}$ is the same for all $pin M$.
$G$ being connected won't necessarily make this happen: Another counterexample is $S^1$ acting by rotation on $S^2$, fixing the north and south poles, $n$ and $s$. $tilde S$ is then $T(S^2setminus{n,s})cup {n,s}$, and the points $n$ and $s$ do not have neighborhoods homeomorphic to open balls.
EDIT
To address the modified question: If $pin S$, then the orbit $Gp$ has a neighborhood homeomorphic to $Gtimes_{G_p} mathcal H_p$ and we're assuming that $mathcal H_p^{G_p} neq 0$. If $qin mathcal H_p$ is any point, then $mathcal H_p^{G_p}$ will be fixed by $G_q$ and still be orthogonal to $Gq$, hence $q$ and every point in $Gq$ will be in $S$. This shows that a neighborhood of $Gp$ is contained in $S$. Thus $S$ is an open submanifold of $M$.
$endgroup$
Your definition implies that
$$ tilde S = bigcup_{pin M} T_pM^{G_p}. $$
In particular, $pi(tilde S) = M$, and $tilde S$ will be a submanifold of $TM$ iff the dimension of $T_pM^{G_p}$ is the same for all $pin M$.
$G$ being connected won't necessarily make this happen: Another counterexample is $S^1$ acting by rotation on $S^2$, fixing the north and south poles, $n$ and $s$. $tilde S$ is then $T(S^2setminus{n,s})cup {n,s}$, and the points $n$ and $s$ do not have neighborhoods homeomorphic to open balls.
EDIT
To address the modified question: If $pin S$, then the orbit $Gp$ has a neighborhood homeomorphic to $Gtimes_{G_p} mathcal H_p$ and we're assuming that $mathcal H_p^{G_p} neq 0$. If $qin mathcal H_p$ is any point, then $mathcal H_p^{G_p}$ will be fixed by $G_q$ and still be orthogonal to $Gq$, hence $q$ and every point in $Gq$ will be in $S$. This shows that a neighborhood of $Gp$ is contained in $S$. Thus $S$ is an open submanifold of $M$.
edited Mar 10 at 3:54
answered Mar 9 at 23:01
Steve CostenobleSteve Costenoble
1,0601514
1,0601514
$begingroup$
what if we change a little bit my definition by asking the following: $S = {p in M : exists 0 neq X in mathcal {H}_p subset T_pM : G_X = G_p}$? Now I ask if such $S$ is a submanifold of $M$, where $cal H_p$ is the space $g$-orthogonal to $T_pGcdot p$.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 23:13
1
$begingroup$
My first reaction is that, yes, $S$ will be a submanifold. In fact, an open submanifold: If $pin S$ then all points in an open neighborhood of $p$ should also satisfy your new condition. Essentially, a neighborhood of $p$ will look like $T_p M$ with the action of $G_p$.
$endgroup$
– Steve Costenoble
Mar 10 at 0:11
$begingroup$
I have edited the question in order to encompass $S$ to it, it would be extremely helpful if you explain to me your thoughts on why $S$ has a chance to be a submanifold.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 10 at 0:45
$begingroup$
I will accept your answer since I could prove it was true following your comment, I will post the proof on the question.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 10 at 18:45
add a comment |
$begingroup$
what if we change a little bit my definition by asking the following: $S = {p in M : exists 0 neq X in mathcal {H}_p subset T_pM : G_X = G_p}$? Now I ask if such $S$ is a submanifold of $M$, where $cal H_p$ is the space $g$-orthogonal to $T_pGcdot p$.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 23:13
1
$begingroup$
My first reaction is that, yes, $S$ will be a submanifold. In fact, an open submanifold: If $pin S$ then all points in an open neighborhood of $p$ should also satisfy your new condition. Essentially, a neighborhood of $p$ will look like $T_p M$ with the action of $G_p$.
$endgroup$
– Steve Costenoble
Mar 10 at 0:11
$begingroup$
I have edited the question in order to encompass $S$ to it, it would be extremely helpful if you explain to me your thoughts on why $S$ has a chance to be a submanifold.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 10 at 0:45
$begingroup$
I will accept your answer since I could prove it was true following your comment, I will post the proof on the question.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 10 at 18:45
$begingroup$
what if we change a little bit my definition by asking the following: $S = {p in M : exists 0 neq X in mathcal {H}_p subset T_pM : G_X = G_p}$? Now I ask if such $S$ is a submanifold of $M$, where $cal H_p$ is the space $g$-orthogonal to $T_pGcdot p$.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 23:13
$begingroup$
what if we change a little bit my definition by asking the following: $S = {p in M : exists 0 neq X in mathcal {H}_p subset T_pM : G_X = G_p}$? Now I ask if such $S$ is a submanifold of $M$, where $cal H_p$ is the space $g$-orthogonal to $T_pGcdot p$.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 23:13
1
1
$begingroup$
My first reaction is that, yes, $S$ will be a submanifold. In fact, an open submanifold: If $pin S$ then all points in an open neighborhood of $p$ should also satisfy your new condition. Essentially, a neighborhood of $p$ will look like $T_p M$ with the action of $G_p$.
$endgroup$
– Steve Costenoble
Mar 10 at 0:11
$begingroup$
My first reaction is that, yes, $S$ will be a submanifold. In fact, an open submanifold: If $pin S$ then all points in an open neighborhood of $p$ should also satisfy your new condition. Essentially, a neighborhood of $p$ will look like $T_p M$ with the action of $G_p$.
$endgroup$
– Steve Costenoble
Mar 10 at 0:11
$begingroup$
I have edited the question in order to encompass $S$ to it, it would be extremely helpful if you explain to me your thoughts on why $S$ has a chance to be a submanifold.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 10 at 0:45
$begingroup$
I have edited the question in order to encompass $S$ to it, it would be extremely helpful if you explain to me your thoughts on why $S$ has a chance to be a submanifold.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 10 at 0:45
$begingroup$
I will accept your answer since I could prove it was true following your comment, I will post the proof on the question.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 10 at 18:45
$begingroup$
I will accept your answer since I could prove it was true following your comment, I will post the proof on the question.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 10 at 18:45
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For the obvious reflection action of $mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z}$ on $S^1$ this set $tilde S $ has two singular points at the zero vectors tangent at points $p=(1,0)$ and $q=(-1,0)$.
Then $tilde S$ is $T(S^1setminus {p,q}) cup {p_0,q_0}$ where $p_0, q_0$ are zero vectors at $p,q$. This is a connected set and after removing $p_0,q_0$ we obtain a disconnected set. So obviously it is not a manifold because every connected manifold of dimension at least $2$, remains connected after removing a finite set.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
"every connected manifold remains connected after removing a finite set" -- this is not true for 1-dimensional manifolds. Nonetheless, your example is valid: if $x$ is one of the fixed points of the reflection action, then a neighborhood of $(x,0)intilde S$ is homeomorphic to $mathbb R^2$ minus the coordinate axes but including the origin, so it cannot be a manifold.
$endgroup$
– Arun Debray
Mar 9 at 21:42
$begingroup$
@ArunDebray yes thank you but $tilde S $ is 2 dimensional at generic points. I revise the answer. Thanks again for your correction!
$endgroup$
– Ali Taghavi
Mar 9 at 21:44
1
$begingroup$
@AliTaghavi, thank you very much. Do you know if one can restrict some hypothesis in order to obtain a manifold? Or, what kind of structure this set has?
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 22:18
$begingroup$
You are well come. What about if we assume $G$ is connected? I am not sure what is the answer in this case.
$endgroup$
– Ali Taghavi
Mar 9 at 22:29
1
$begingroup$
@AliTaghavi, take a look to the other answer and possible on the comments. I changed a little the problem.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 23:15
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For the obvious reflection action of $mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z}$ on $S^1$ this set $tilde S $ has two singular points at the zero vectors tangent at points $p=(1,0)$ and $q=(-1,0)$.
Then $tilde S$ is $T(S^1setminus {p,q}) cup {p_0,q_0}$ where $p_0, q_0$ are zero vectors at $p,q$. This is a connected set and after removing $p_0,q_0$ we obtain a disconnected set. So obviously it is not a manifold because every connected manifold of dimension at least $2$, remains connected after removing a finite set.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
"every connected manifold remains connected after removing a finite set" -- this is not true for 1-dimensional manifolds. Nonetheless, your example is valid: if $x$ is one of the fixed points of the reflection action, then a neighborhood of $(x,0)intilde S$ is homeomorphic to $mathbb R^2$ minus the coordinate axes but including the origin, so it cannot be a manifold.
$endgroup$
– Arun Debray
Mar 9 at 21:42
$begingroup$
@ArunDebray yes thank you but $tilde S $ is 2 dimensional at generic points. I revise the answer. Thanks again for your correction!
$endgroup$
– Ali Taghavi
Mar 9 at 21:44
1
$begingroup$
@AliTaghavi, thank you very much. Do you know if one can restrict some hypothesis in order to obtain a manifold? Or, what kind of structure this set has?
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 22:18
$begingroup$
You are well come. What about if we assume $G$ is connected? I am not sure what is the answer in this case.
$endgroup$
– Ali Taghavi
Mar 9 at 22:29
1
$begingroup$
@AliTaghavi, take a look to the other answer and possible on the comments. I changed a little the problem.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 23:15
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For the obvious reflection action of $mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z}$ on $S^1$ this set $tilde S $ has two singular points at the zero vectors tangent at points $p=(1,0)$ and $q=(-1,0)$.
Then $tilde S$ is $T(S^1setminus {p,q}) cup {p_0,q_0}$ where $p_0, q_0$ are zero vectors at $p,q$. This is a connected set and after removing $p_0,q_0$ we obtain a disconnected set. So obviously it is not a manifold because every connected manifold of dimension at least $2$, remains connected after removing a finite set.
$endgroup$
For the obvious reflection action of $mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z}$ on $S^1$ this set $tilde S $ has two singular points at the zero vectors tangent at points $p=(1,0)$ and $q=(-1,0)$.
Then $tilde S$ is $T(S^1setminus {p,q}) cup {p_0,q_0}$ where $p_0, q_0$ are zero vectors at $p,q$. This is a connected set and after removing $p_0,q_0$ we obtain a disconnected set. So obviously it is not a manifold because every connected manifold of dimension at least $2$, remains connected after removing a finite set.
edited Mar 9 at 21:45
answered Mar 9 at 20:36
Ali TaghaviAli Taghavi
10252085
10252085
1
$begingroup$
"every connected manifold remains connected after removing a finite set" -- this is not true for 1-dimensional manifolds. Nonetheless, your example is valid: if $x$ is one of the fixed points of the reflection action, then a neighborhood of $(x,0)intilde S$ is homeomorphic to $mathbb R^2$ minus the coordinate axes but including the origin, so it cannot be a manifold.
$endgroup$
– Arun Debray
Mar 9 at 21:42
$begingroup$
@ArunDebray yes thank you but $tilde S $ is 2 dimensional at generic points. I revise the answer. Thanks again for your correction!
$endgroup$
– Ali Taghavi
Mar 9 at 21:44
1
$begingroup$
@AliTaghavi, thank you very much. Do you know if one can restrict some hypothesis in order to obtain a manifold? Or, what kind of structure this set has?
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 22:18
$begingroup$
You are well come. What about if we assume $G$ is connected? I am not sure what is the answer in this case.
$endgroup$
– Ali Taghavi
Mar 9 at 22:29
1
$begingroup$
@AliTaghavi, take a look to the other answer and possible on the comments. I changed a little the problem.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 23:15
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
"every connected manifold remains connected after removing a finite set" -- this is not true for 1-dimensional manifolds. Nonetheless, your example is valid: if $x$ is one of the fixed points of the reflection action, then a neighborhood of $(x,0)intilde S$ is homeomorphic to $mathbb R^2$ minus the coordinate axes but including the origin, so it cannot be a manifold.
$endgroup$
– Arun Debray
Mar 9 at 21:42
$begingroup$
@ArunDebray yes thank you but $tilde S $ is 2 dimensional at generic points. I revise the answer. Thanks again for your correction!
$endgroup$
– Ali Taghavi
Mar 9 at 21:44
1
$begingroup$
@AliTaghavi, thank you very much. Do you know if one can restrict some hypothesis in order to obtain a manifold? Or, what kind of structure this set has?
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 22:18
$begingroup$
You are well come. What about if we assume $G$ is connected? I am not sure what is the answer in this case.
$endgroup$
– Ali Taghavi
Mar 9 at 22:29
1
$begingroup$
@AliTaghavi, take a look to the other answer and possible on the comments. I changed a little the problem.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 23:15
1
1
$begingroup$
"every connected manifold remains connected after removing a finite set" -- this is not true for 1-dimensional manifolds. Nonetheless, your example is valid: if $x$ is one of the fixed points of the reflection action, then a neighborhood of $(x,0)intilde S$ is homeomorphic to $mathbb R^2$ minus the coordinate axes but including the origin, so it cannot be a manifold.
$endgroup$
– Arun Debray
Mar 9 at 21:42
$begingroup$
"every connected manifold remains connected after removing a finite set" -- this is not true for 1-dimensional manifolds. Nonetheless, your example is valid: if $x$ is one of the fixed points of the reflection action, then a neighborhood of $(x,0)intilde S$ is homeomorphic to $mathbb R^2$ minus the coordinate axes but including the origin, so it cannot be a manifold.
$endgroup$
– Arun Debray
Mar 9 at 21:42
$begingroup$
@ArunDebray yes thank you but $tilde S $ is 2 dimensional at generic points. I revise the answer. Thanks again for your correction!
$endgroup$
– Ali Taghavi
Mar 9 at 21:44
$begingroup$
@ArunDebray yes thank you but $tilde S $ is 2 dimensional at generic points. I revise the answer. Thanks again for your correction!
$endgroup$
– Ali Taghavi
Mar 9 at 21:44
1
1
$begingroup$
@AliTaghavi, thank you very much. Do you know if one can restrict some hypothesis in order to obtain a manifold? Or, what kind of structure this set has?
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 22:18
$begingroup$
@AliTaghavi, thank you very much. Do you know if one can restrict some hypothesis in order to obtain a manifold? Or, what kind of structure this set has?
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 22:18
$begingroup$
You are well come. What about if we assume $G$ is connected? I am not sure what is the answer in this case.
$endgroup$
– Ali Taghavi
Mar 9 at 22:29
$begingroup$
You are well come. What about if we assume $G$ is connected? I am not sure what is the answer in this case.
$endgroup$
– Ali Taghavi
Mar 9 at 22:29
1
1
$begingroup$
@AliTaghavi, take a look to the other answer and possible on the comments. I changed a little the problem.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 23:15
$begingroup$
@AliTaghavi, take a look to the other answer and possible on the comments. I changed a little the problem.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 23:15
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- 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.
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%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f325024%2fis-this-a-submanifold%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
$begingroup$
Is this a pigeon? ;-)
$endgroup$
– David Roberts
Mar 9 at 21:54
$begingroup$
@DavidRoberts, I am sorry, what are you asking if it is a pigeon?
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 9 at 22:11
4
$begingroup$
It's a meme, meant in good humour.
$endgroup$
– David Roberts
Mar 9 at 22:57
$begingroup$
By $G_X$ and $G_p$ you are referring to the vector and point stabilizers, respectively? I would imagine that generally this is not a manifold without some pretty restrictive assumptions. I'm imagining the action of $G$ degenerating along a stratum, with the stabilized vector space changing. What are you hoping to do with a result like this?
$endgroup$
– Ryan Budney
Mar 10 at 0:41
$begingroup$
Dear @RyanBudney, please, consider seeing my edit, as It was suggested on the comments $S$ possibly is a manifold, and that was my original problem. I am working on positive curvature and I need on some step of my argument to be sure that $S$ is a submanifold.
$endgroup$
– L.F. Cavenaghi
Mar 10 at 0:43