Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I observed some naive examples. Spheres, for example, when we cut out one point, can be embedded into $\mathbb{R}^n$. And if we cut out a measure zero set of a projective space, it can be embedded into the Euclidean space of the same dimension. So I wonder if all manifolds can be embedded into a same dimensional Euclidean space when we cut out a measure zero set? Can anyone prove it or disprove it by giving me some counterexamples?

share|cite|improve this question
+1, interesting question! Another way of phrasing it is, how big can we make a chart? I tried to make a title that was easier to parse, but feel free to change it to something else if you want. – Zev Chonoles Mar 6 '13 at 1:35
@Zev: In your phrasing, the question is a duplicate of both… and also of…. I'm not sure what the policy is on closing because something is provable equivalent to a duplicate ;-). – Jason DeVito Mar 6 '13 at 1:46
One way to get at this question is to put a Riemannian metric on the manifold and then to consider how big the cut locus of a point can be. I believe it is known that the cut-locus of a point has measure zero, although I forget the proof. If this is the case, you could always remove a measure zero set and then use the exponential map at a point to get the required embedding. – treble Mar 6 '13 at 1:46
What is cut locus? – lee Mar 6 '13 at 13:16
Another idea would be to take a Morse function with a unique minimum. Then, take the union of all the ascending manifolds from higher index critical points. This is of codimension 1 and thus of measure 0. I'm pretty sure the complement is the ascending manifold of the minimum and thus diffeomorphic to a ball. Oh, wait, that's the link that Jason gave. Sorry. – Sam Lisi Mar 20 '13 at 13:39
up vote 4 down vote accepted

This question was essentially answered here, namely, that the cut-locus has measure zero (see the references provided in the link). I assume that your manifold $M$ is smooth, otherwise, I am not sure what notion of measure zero you would be using. I will also assume that $M$ is connected. (If not, apply this argument to each connected component.) Then, put a complete Riemannian metric on $M$, consider the cut-locus $C(p)$ of a point $p\in M$ and the open subset $U(p)=M\setminus C(p)$. The exponential map $\exp_p: T_pM\to M$ restricts to a diffeomorphism $V(p)\to U(p)$, where $V(p)\subset T_pM$ is a certain open subset (diffeomorphic to the open $n$-ball, where $n$ is the dimension of $M$).

One can ask a similar question in the context of connected $n$-dimensional topological manifolds $M$. Instead of removing a measure zero set, one can remove a closed nowhere dense subset. Then in all dimensions but 4 it follows from the results in the book by Kirby and Siebenmann that $M$ contains an open subset $U$ homeomorphic to $R^n$. (Maybe it was also known prior to their work, I am not sure.) I do not know what to say about dimension 4.

One last thing, Sullivan proved that every topological manifold $M$ of dimension $\ne 4$ admits a unique Lipschitz structure, i.e., an atlas where transition maps are locally Lipshitz. This implies that topological $n$-manifolds ($n\ne 4$) have a well-defined notion of measure zero sets (very indirect though). However, I do not know if the residual set in Kirby-Sibenmann will have measure zero in this sense, this goes well beyond my understanding of the work of their work and the one by Sullivan.

Edit. A better reference for topological manifolds (instead of Kirby-Siebenmann) is in my answer here, to papers by Brown (compact case) and Berlanga (noncompact case).

share|cite|improve this answer
I know, that every manifold can be equipped with a Riemannian metric. But what ensures, that we can put a complete Riemannian metric on every manifold? – hase_olaf May 18 at 9:00
@hase_olaf It is a theorem, and not a difficult one, that every Riemannian metric conformal to a complete one. Alternatively, take a pull back of the flat metrics using a proper embedding in Euclidean space (Whitney embedding theorem). The pull back will be complete. – studiosus May 18 at 13:16

Your Answer


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.