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 a bit struggling with one of the many definitions of orientability. In what follows $M$ will always denote a smooth, connected manifold, $T_{m}M$ will be the tangent space at $m$, $\mathcal{B}_{m}$ will be the set of ordered bases of $T_{m}M$, i.e. $$\mathcal{B}_{m}:=\{(v_{1},\ldots,v_{n})\in (T_{m}M)^{n};\operatorname{span}_{\mathbb{R}}\{v_{1},\ldots,v_{n}\}=T_{m}M\}$$$\sim_{m}$ will denote the equivalence relation on $\mathcal{B}_{m}$ obtained by $v\sim_{m}w:\Leftrightarrow \det(A(v,w))>0$, where $v=(v_{1},\ldots,v_{n})$ and $w=(w_{1},\ldots,w_{n})$ are elements in $\mathcal{B}_{m}$ and $A(v,w)$ is the unique element in $\operatorname{GL}(T_{m}M)$ satisfying $A(v,w)v_{i}=w_{i}$ for all $1\leq i\leq n$. Finally $\Lambda_{n}(T_{m}M)$ denotes the space of alternating $n$-forms on $T_{m}M$ and $\Lambda_{n}^{\ast}(M):=\bigcup_{m\in M}\{m\}\times\Lambda_{n}(T_{m}M)$. I have topologized $\Lambda_{n}^{\ast}(M)$ by requiring that if $(U,\rho)$ is a chart in the maximal atlas on $M$, then the map $\tilde{\rho}:\tilde{U}\to\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ is smooth, where: $$\tilde{U}:=\bigcup_{m\in U}\Lambda_{n}(T_{m}M) \text{ and }\tilde{\rho}(m,\omega):=\left(\rho(m),\omega\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{1}}\bigg|_{m},\ldots,\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{n}}\bigg|_{m}\right)\right)$$ Indeed the image of $\tilde{\rho}$ is open in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ and so on. The main goal is to put more sense into the following statement:

Definition

M is orientable iff $\Lambda_{n}^{\ast}(M)\setminus N$ has two connected components, where $N$ is the range of the map $\omega:M\to\Lambda_{n}^{*}(M): \omega(m):=(m,0)$.

I am struggling with the following statement:

Problem

$\Lambda_{n}^{\ast}(M)\setminus N$ has at most two components.

That is it has either one or two. I approached it by comparing different notions of orientability. So far I have managed to prove the following statement:

Theorem

Let $M$ be a smooth manifold and $\dim M=n$. Then the following are equivalent:

  1. There exists a smooth, no-where vanishing differential $n$-form on $M$
  2. There exists an atlas $\mathcal{A}$ on $M$ such that for all $(U,\rho),(V,\psi)\in\mathcal{A}$ holds $\det(\operatorname{d}_{m}(\rho\circ\psi^{-1}))>0$ for all $m\in U\cap V$.
  3. There exists a map $\epsilon:M\to\bigcup_{m\in M}\mathcal{B}_{m}/\sim_{m}$ and for all $m\in M$ there exists $U\subseteq M$ an open neighbourhood of $m$ and smooth vector fields $X_{1},\ldots,X_{n}$ on $U$ such that for all $p\in U$ holds $(X_{1}(p),\ldots,X_{n}(p))\in\epsilon(p)$.
  4. $\Lambda_{n}^{\ast}(M)\setminus N$ has two components.

This does not tell me why we have either one or two components (and definitely not more). I have no idea what to do (I even tried a direct proof).

Edit: It seems to me to be most promising to prove that non-3 implies that $\Lambda_{n}^{\ast}(M)$ has only one component, i.e. I would try to show that if for every $\epsilon:M\to\bigcup_{m\in M}\mathcal{B}_{m}/\sim_{m}$ there exists $m\in M$ such that for every open neighbourhood $m\in U\subseteq M$ and all smooth vector fields $X_{1},\ldots,X_{n}$ on $U$ satisfying $(X_{1}(p),\ldots,X_{n}(p))\in\mathcal{B}_{p}$ for all $p\in U$ we can find $p,q\in U$ such that $(X_{1}(p),\ldots,X_{n}(p))\in\epsilon(p)$ and $(X_{1}(q),\ldots,X_{n}(q))\not\in\epsilon(q)$, then $\Lambda_{n}^{\ast}(M)\setminus N$ has one component. What do you think of this? Is this feasible?

Thank you so much

Manuel

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted

A sketch of a possible proof:

let $\pi: \Lambda_n^*(M) \to M$ be the natural projection map.

  1. Let $C$ be a connected component of $\Lambda_n^*(M)$. Show that $\pi(C) = M$.
  2. Let $U$ be a nonempty connected trivializing open subset of $M$, then $\pi^{-1}(U) - U = U \times \mathbb{R}_{> 0} \cup U \times \mathbb{R}_{< 0}$. (1) shows that $C$ contains at least one of these two components.

a. If for some $U$, $C$ contains both components, prove that $C = \Lambda_n^*(M)$.

b. If for all $U$, $C$ contains only one component, let $D$ be the union of all the other components. Show that $D$ is connected and $\Lambda_n^*(M) = C \cup D$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you. I will try it out within the next few days. Have you done this already, i.e. are you sure that this will work or do you need any feedback? –  M. Luethi Jan 21 '13 at 18:27
    
@M.Luethi, I'm pretty certain that this works. –  user27126 Jan 21 '13 at 18:31
    
A quick question: do you mean by $\pi^{-1}(U)-U$ the preimage without the part intersecting the range of the zero-section, i.e. in fact $\pi^{-1}(U)-U\equiv\pi^{-1}(U)-N$? –  M. Luethi Jan 21 '13 at 18:52
    
@M.Luethi, yes. –  user27126 Jan 21 '13 at 18:57

You can easily show that $\dim\Lambda_n^*(V) = 1$ (as a vector bundle), so you only need to show, that for every section $\omega\neq 0$ and $\lambda > 0$, $\lambda\omega\in\Lambda_n^*(V)\setminus\{0\}$. That way, for all $\omega\neq 0$ you'd get path-connectedness to all other $\omega'$ on the same “side” of $0$ (always remembering that you are working on the real axis here), so you have at most 2 connected components.

share|improve this answer
    
What do you mean by for all $\omega \neq 0$ you would get path-connectedness? –  user27126 Jan 21 '13 at 9:26
    
I've edited it, is it clearer now? –  filmor Jan 21 '13 at 10:12
    
I still don't quite understand it. 1. You seem to be connecting sections. Can you make it a bit more precise how this connects to the connectedness of the line bundle - zero section? –  user27126 Jan 21 '13 at 10:19
    
2. Non-vanishing global sections may not exist. How do you deal with the zeros of sections? –  user27126 Jan 21 '13 at 10:21
    
@filmor: Thank you. The first part ("you can easily show ...") is clear. So let's stick with the rest of your suggestion. Am I mistaken by interpreting it as "if there exists a non-vanishing section, then $\Lambda_{n}^{\ast}(M)\setminus N$ has two components"? This is what I have done in mentioned theorem. What I need is somehow that if I can NOT find such a section, then $\Lambda_{n}^{\ast}(M)\setminus N$ has ONE component. Please let me know what's wrong about my "understanding". –  M. Luethi Jan 21 '13 at 10:24

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.