Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am currently reading some notes where an operator, originally defined on functions over Euclidean Space is now transferred to the setting of a compact, smooth Riemannian manifold.

There is a statement in the notes which says the following:

"Let $M$ be a smooth compact Riemannian manifold without boundary. Cover $M$ by a finite number of coordinate charts $U_i$ with diffeomorphisms $h_i : O_i \to U_i$ where the $O_i$ are open subsets of $\mathbb{R}^m$ with compact closure. We assume the coordinate charts $U_i$ are chosen so that the union $U_i \cup U_j$ is also contained in a larger coordinate chart for all $(i,j)$."

This last statement confuses me a little, because I cannot see this as being trivial. How can I justify this assumption ?

That is, given I have a smooth atlas $\{ U_i \}$ for $M$ (which we can take to consist of finitely many charts since $M$ is compact), how do I adjust this chart so that the last sentence above holds ?

Many thanks for your help!

share|improve this question
    
Are you sure you are citing this correctly? In this generality (for each pair $(i,j)$) I doubt that this can be achieved. Is there something missing? E.g. for each pair $(i,j)$ such that $U_i\cap U_j$ is not empty? –  user20266 Apr 25 '12 at 12:47
    
@Thomas thanks for your comment ! I have copied the whole definition now into the post above in order to reduce the possibility that I have missed something. –  harlekin Apr 25 '12 at 12:55
    
This is interesting. You would need to heavily restrict. For example, you could not take the two charts on $S^n$ given by stereographic projection. –  Neal Apr 25 '12 at 13:59
1  
I'd start checking what happens with the cover and what is really needed. –  user20266 Apr 25 '12 at 14:38
    
Hm ... ok it sounds like I have to search for a result that says something like "for each compact manifold there exists such a cover", instead of a statement of the form "any given cover can be adjusted so that the statement holds." –  harlekin Apr 25 '12 at 15:04

1 Answer 1

up vote 5 down vote accepted

I'm interpreting the statement as follows:

There is a finite collection of distinguished coordinate charts $U_i$ covering $M$ where each $U_i\cup U_j$ is contained in another (perhaps nondistinguished) coordinate chart $W_{ij}$.

I am not necessarily claiming that $W_{ij}\cup W_{kl}$ is contained in a chart $Z_{ijkl}$ and each $Z_{ijkl}\cup Z_{mnop}$ is contained in a chart ...., just that the union of the $U$s are contained in charts.

Here's a proof that such things always exist, though it may use tools you don't have access to.

Equip $M$ with any Riemannian metric $g$. This gives rise to several functions. First, for each point, there is a map called the exponential map, $\operatorname{exp}_p :T_p M\rightarrow M$ with the property that $\operatorname{exp}_p$ is a diffeomorphism onto its image when restricted to a small enough ball around the origin in $T_p M$. It is a fact that when $\operatorname{exp}_p$ is restricted to a ball of radius $r$ in $T_p M$, the image consists of all points in $M$ a distance $r$ away from $p$.

Another important function coming from a choice of metric is the function $\operatorname{inj}:M\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$. It is called the injectivity radius and defined as the largest radius of a ball around the origin in $T_p M$ such that $\operatorname{exp}_p:B(r)\rightarrow M$ is a diffeomorphism onto its image. It is known that $\operatorname{inj}$ is a continuous function and, on a compact manifold, bounded away from $0$.

Let $\rho$ denote the minimum value of $\operatorname{inj}$ on $M$. Then, by definition, at every point $p$, if we restrict $\operatorname{exp}_p$ to the ball of radius $\rho$, it's a diffeomorphism onto its image. In particular, we can use $\operatorname{exp}_p(B(\rho))$ as a chart on $M$.

Let $U_p$ denote $\operatorname{exp}_p(B(\frac{\rho}{2}))$. I claim that the collection of $\{U_p\}$ has the property that the union of any 2 are contained in a coordinate chart and that they cover $M$. Once we establish all this, use compactness of $M$ to extract a finite subcollection of the $U_p$, giving the desired collection of charts.

First, $p\in U_p$ since $\operatorname{exp}_p(0) = p$ always. Thus, these do cover.

Now, why do they have the property that the union is contained in a coordinate chart? We'll break into 2 cases depending on whether or not $U_p\cap U_q$ is empty or not.

If $U_p\cap U_q =\emptyset$, then $U_p\cup U_q$ is a (disconnected) chart. The diffeomorphism between it and an open subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$ is given by $$\begin{cases} \operatorname{exp}_p^{-1}(r) & r\in U_p \\ \operatorname{exp}_q^{-1}(r) + v & r\in U_q\end{cases}, $$ where $v$ is some vector of very large (compared to $\rho$) length. The point of $v$ is to shift the ball $\operatorname{exp}_q^{-1}(U_q)$ in $T_q M\cong \mathbb{R}^n$ far enough away from the origin so that it wont intersect the image of $\operatorname{exp}_p^{-1}(U_p)$ in $T_p M \cong\mathbb{R}^n$

On the other hand, if $U_p\cap U_q \neq \emptyset$, choose $r\in U_p\cap U_q$. I claim that $U_p\cup U_q \subseteq \operatorname{exp}_r(B(\rho))$. To see this, we'll use the triangle inequality. Using $d$ to denote distance, we have for any $s\in U_p$, that $d(s,r)\leq d(s,p) + d(p,r) < \frac{\rho}{2} + \frac{\rho}{2} = \rho$. This same argument works for $U_q$, so we have $U_p\cup U_q\subseteq \operatorname{exp}_r(B(\rho))$.

share|improve this answer
2  
Incidentally, if this is applied to $S^2$, the unit sphere in $\mathbb{R}^3$ with usual metric, then one finds that $\operatorname{exp}_p$ is nothing but stereographic projection from the antipodal point. Hence, $U_p$ is the open hemisphere containing $p$ in the center and it's easy to see these really do work. –  Jason DeVito May 16 '12 at 14:59

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.