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 trying to construct a diffeomorphism between $S^1 = \{x^2 + y^2 = 1; x,y \in \mathbb{R}\}$ with subspace topology and $\mathbb{R P}^1 = \{[x,y]: x,y \in \mathbb{R}; x \vee y \not = 0 \}$ with quotient topology and I am a little stuck.

I have shown that both are smooth manifolds, and I used stereographic projection for $S^1$, but now I am runing into trouble when I give the homeomorphism between $S^1$ and $\mathbb{RP}^1$ as the map that takes a line in $\mathbb{RP}^1$ to the point in $S^1$ that you get when letting the parallel line go through the respective pole used in the stereographic projection.

If I use the south and north poles I get a potential homeomorphism, but I cannot capture the horizontal line in my image, but when I pick say north and east then my map is not well defined as I get different lines for the same point in $S^1$. Can somebody give me a hint how to make this construction work, or is it better to move to a different representation of $S^1$ ?

share|improve this question
add comment

3 Answers

up vote 5 down vote accepted

The easiest explicit map I know is: $$(\cos(\theta), \sin(\theta))\mapsto [\cos(\theta/2):\sin(\theta/2)]$$

Note that although $\cos(\theta/2)$ and $\sin(\theta/2)$ depend on $\theta$ and not just $\sin(\theta)$ and $\cos(\theta)$, the map is well-defined so long as we use the same value of $\theta$ when computing coordinates in $S^1$.That is, $$\cos(\frac{\theta+2\pi}{2})=-\cos(\theta/2) \text{ and } \sin(\frac{\theta+2\pi}{2})=-\sin(\theta/2)$$ So the choice of $\theta$ modulo $2\pi$ does not affect $[\cos(\theta/2):\sin(\theta/2)]$, since $[x,y]=[-x,-y]$.

share|improve this answer
    
Yes, this is much easier. Very nice. –  THW Feb 10 '13 at 13:14
add comment

I am not sure that I follow all parts of the question. In particular, it is unclear to me what ``a line in $\mathbb{RP}^{1}$'' is, but this might be something that is clear to others. However, I can say that I do not like the idea of viewing both $S^{1}$ and $\mathbb{RP}^{1}$ in the same copy $\mathbb{R}^{2}$ as (I think) that it could lead to confusion since $S^{1}$ is a double cover of $\mathbb{RP}^{1}$ with the quotient map. This may or may not be where your confusion comes in.

Anyway, here is how I see the construction (I can't promise that I preserved the orientations of each, but you can fiddle with that if needed). Start with $S^{1} \subset \mathbb{R}^{2}_{(x, y)}$ and view $\mathbb{RP}^{2}$ as coming form a quotient of $\mathbb{R}^{2}_{(u, v)}$, where I use the subscripts $(x, y)$ and $(u, v)$ to denote coordinates. (Note: This is admittedly a superficial labeling, but it provides a clearer picture (at least for me)).

I will walk through the entire of the construction both geometrically and in coordinates, and I apologize if the response is too wordy. The intuition should be be clear however: cut a $S^{1}$ and compress it appropriately so that the ends will be close to the same point in $\mathbb{RP}^1$. With the hindsight of having a working construction, there are easier ways to see what is happening.

Now, define a map $\phi : S^{1}\backslash N \to \mathbb{R}$ via stereographic projection from the North Pole. For a point $P(x, y) \in S^{1}\backslash N$ we thus have $\phi(P) = \frac{-x}{y -1}$. This identifies $S^{1}\backslash N$ with $\mathbb{R}_{t}$, and now we simply need to map this copy of the real line to cover one hemisphere of $S^{1} \subset \mathbb{R}^{2}$ and then send the North Pole to the appropriate equivalence class.

Define $\gamma : \mathbb{R}_{t} \to \mathbb{R}^{2}_{(u,v)}$ by $$\gamma(t) = \left( \frac{t}{\sqrt{t^2 + 1}}, \frac{1}{\sqrt{t^2 + 1}}\right),$$ and observe that this covers all of the (strict) northern hemisphere of $S^{1} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{2}_{(u, v)}$. This map is described geometrically below.

Your desired map from $S^{1} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{2}_{(x, y)} \to \mathbb{RP}^{1}$ is then given by

$$ \Phi(P) = \begin{cases} [\gamma \circ \phi (P(x,y))] = \left[\frac{-x}{\sqrt{x^2 + (y-1)^2}}, \frac{1-y}{\sqrt{x^2 + (y-1)^2}}\right], & \text{if } P(x, y) \ne N \text{ } \\ [1,0], & \text{if } P(x, y) = N \end{cases}. $$

We have come this far (and I don't particularly like coordinates for maps like these), so I will briefly summarize the construction for the more geometric minded and point to a similar one that I observed after the fact.

  1. Stereographic projection from $S^{1}\backslash N$ to $\mathbb{R}_{t}$.
  2. Identify $\mathbb{R}_{t}$ with the line $u = 1$ in $\mathbb{R}^{2}_{(u, v)}$.
  3. Define a map from the line $u = 1$ to the northern hemisphere of $S^{1} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{2}_{(u, v)}$ by looking at the intersection of the position vector $\langle u, 1 \rangle$ with the northern hemisphere. (2. and 3. define the map $\gamma$).
  4. Take equivalence classes and send $N$ to $[1,0]$.

After the fact it occurred to me that you could just as easily do the following (without superficial labels on the coordinates):

  1. Stereographically project from $S^{1}\backslash (South Pole)$ to the line $y = 1$
  2. Repeat the map described in 3. above.
  3. Take Equivalence classes and send the South Pole to [1,0].
share|improve this answer
add comment

Consider the stereographic atlas $\{(U_\alpha, \varphi_\alpha), (U_\beta, \varphi_\beta)\}$ where $U_\alpha=\mathbb S^1-\{(0, 1)\}$ and $U_\beta=\mathbb S^1-\{(0, -1)\}$. Here $\varphi_\alpha$ is given by $$(x, y)\mapsto u=\frac{x}{1-y},$$ whereas $\varphi_\beta$ is given by $$(x, y)\mapsto v=\frac{x}{1+y}.$$ I don't know if I have given the right names for the south and north projection, but you decide later..Now consider the atlas $\{(U_1, \varphi_1), (U_2, \varphi_2)\}$ for $\mathbb R\mathbb P^1$ given by $\varphi_1:U_1\rightarrow \mathbb R-\{0\}$, $$[(x, y)]\mapsto \frac{y}{x}$$ and $\varphi_2:U_2\rightarrow \mathbb R-\{0\}$ is given by, $$[(x, y)]\mapsto \frac{x}{y}.$$ Define $\psi:\mathbb R\mathbb P^1\rightarrow \mathbb S^1$ setting $$\psi(u)=\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}\varphi_\alpha^{-1}\circ \varphi_1&\textrm{if}&u\in U_1\\ \varphi_\beta^{-1}\circ \varphi_2&\textrm{if}&u\in U_2\end{array}\right..$$ In this case $\psi$ is defined in $U_1\cup U_2=\mathbb R\mathbb P^1$, but for it to be well defined you must check that in $U_1\cap U_2$, $$\varphi_\alpha^{-1}\circ \varphi_1=\varphi_\beta^{-1}\circ \varphi_2.$$ This will be your diffeomorphism..

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.