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.

This is an extremely technical question about handle attachments.  I am asking why two definitions are equivalent.  My question appears in the second to last paragraph after I've described the two procedures whose equivalence I want to prove.

In the book "Differential Manifolds" by Antoni Kosinski, the following procedure is given for attaching two smooth n-manifolds $N_1, N_2$ along submanifolds of their boundaries:

Let $E := E' \oplus \mathbb{R}^{\geq 0}$ be the "upper half" of a rank n-m riemannian vector bundle over a smooth m- manifold $M$ and let $\phi_i : E \rightarrow N_i$   be imbeddings extending imbeddings $E' \rightarrow \partial N_i$. Now if $\alpha$ is any orientation reversing diffeomorphism $(0,\infty) \rightarrow (0, \infty )$, we make the following identifications:  $x \rightarrow \phi_2\{ \alpha (|\phi_1^{-1}(x)|) \frac{ \phi_1^{-1}(x)}{|\phi_1^{-1}(x)|}\}$ when $x \in \phi_1 (E- M)$ ( I.e. $x$ is an element of the first tubular neighborhood minus the zero section) The quotient space of $N_1 - \phi_1 (M) \sqcup N_2 -\phi_2 (M)$ under this identification is then the desired manifold.

Kosinski then says that "attaching a handle" to a manifold N is just a special case of the above when $N_1 = N$ and $N_2 = \mathbb{D}^n$ but his definition is a bit different:  Let $n= \lambda + \mu$ and write $x \in \mathbb{D}^n$ as $x = (x_\lambda, x_\mu)$. For $0\leq \epsilon < 1$,  Let $T(\epsilon)  := \{ x \in \mathbb{D}^n : |x_\lambda|^2 > \epsilon \}$ .  Now the analogue of the involution map $\alpha$ in the above paragraph is the map $\beta : T(\epsilon)-S^{\lambda-1} \rightarrow T(\epsilon)-S^{\lambda-1}$ given by

$(x_\lambda, x_\mu) \mapsto (\frac{x_\lambda}{|x_\lambda|} (1- |x_\lambda|^2 + \epsilon)^{1/2}, x_\mu \frac{(|x_\lambda|^2-\epsilon)^{1/2} }{(1-|x_\lambda|^2)^{1/2}})$.

Which is not as mysterious as it might appear because it is just the composition of the obvious diffeomorphism $\psi: \mathbb{D}^n - S^{\lambda -1} \rightarrow (\mathbb{D}^{\lambda}-S^{\lambda-1}) \times \mathbb{D}^{\mu}$ followed by an involution in the $\lambda$ coordinate followed by the inverse of $\psi$. 

Now to attach a $\lambda$ handle to a manifold $N$, we choose an imbedding $h: T(\epsilon), \partial T(\epsilon) \rightarrow N, \partial N$ and then identify $x \in T(\epsilon)-S^{\lambda-1}$ with $h\beta (x)$. And finally, the quotient of $N-h(S^{\lambda -1}) \sqcup \mathbb{D}^n - S^{\lambda -1}$ under this identification is the desired handle attachment. 

Phew!

Ok here's my question: What is the vector bundle structure $\phi: E' \oplus \mathbb{R}^{\geq 0} \rightarrow T(\epsilon)$ which makes the second definition equivalent to the first?  More to the point, why should one exist at all? I have been thinking about this for a long time and I have no idea what it should be. I think I know what $\phi |_{E'}$ should be but I have no idea how to extend it in such a way that the involutions $\alpha$ and $\beta$ will "line up." Thank you for reading such an appallingly technical question.

More thoughts:  What really stumps me is the following.  If the two involutions are to "line up,"  each ray emanating from the origin in (a fiber of) $E$ should be mapped to a set of the form $\psi^{-1} \{(t x_{\lambda},x_\mu ) : \epsilon < t^2 < 1 \}$ for fixed $x_\lambda \in S^{\lambda -1}$ and $x_\mu \in \mathbb{D}^{\mu}$ and where $\psi$ is define as above. But these latter sets seem to be elliptical arcs whose closures will not be transversal to the boundary ($S^{n-1}$).  Whereas most rays emanating from the origin in (fibers of) $E$ $do$ meet the boundary transversely!... :(

share|improve this question
    
If you don't get an answer soon I should be able to write one up sometime on Monday or Thursday. –  Ryan Budney Mar 24 '13 at 20:30
    
@RyanBudney : Wow that is very generous. Thanks, Ryan. –  Pliny the ill Mar 24 '13 at 20:32
    
What kind of illness? In Pliny's day you could have a surfeit of eels. –  Will Jagy Mar 25 '13 at 0:05
    
That and topology-induced anxiety attacks –  Pliny the ill Mar 25 '13 at 1:19
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote accepted

I haven't read the Kosinski text in a while so it's taken me some time to re-acquire my bearings with the notation.

Okay, I see what's going on. My impression is the author started off with a nice geometrically-pleasing trivialization of the tubular neighbourhoods involved, but then once he started writing things down and presenting things in front of a class, the "economics of a time constraint" seems to have caused him to cut out the geometrically-pleasing trivialization and write-out the identifications in a notationally-minimalist way.

Let $M$ be a Riemann manifold with boundary $\partial M$. If $p \in \partial M$ define the inward-pointing half-space $H_p M \subset T_p M$ to be

$$ H_p M = \{ v \in T_p M : \mu(v, \vec n(p)) \leq 0 \}$$

where $\mu$ is the Riemann metric and $\vec n : \partial M \to TM$ is the outward pointing unit normal vector.

So in $D^n$, if $p \in S^{n-1} = \partial D^n$, $H_p D^n = \{ v \in \mathbb R^n : v \cdot p \leq 0 \}$.

Given $p \in \partial D^n$ there is naturally-defined map $G : U \to D^n$ where $U \subset H_p D^n$ is some neighbourhood of the origin in $H_p D^n$. The map is defined by

$$G(q) = q + \left(\sqrt{ 1- |q-(q\cdot p)p|^2}\right) p$$

where $q \cdot p$ is the Euclidean dot product. This all motivates the construction below.

Consider $S^{\lambda-1} \times \{0\} \subset D^{\lambda+\mu}$. Our trivialization of the neighbourhood of $S^{\lambda-1} \times \{0\}$ in $D^{\lambda + \mu}$ is the map

$$H^{\mu+1} \times S^{\lambda-1} \to D^{\mu + \lambda}$$

given by $((q_0, \vec q), p) \longmapsto \left( 1- \sqrt{1-|\vec q|^2} - q_0 \right) p + (0, \vec q)$

where here $H^{\mu+1}$ is the half-space in $\mathbb R^{\mu+1}$, meaning the first coordinate $q_0 \geq 0$, so $\vec q \in \mathbb R^\mu$.

that is the vector space stucture on the tubular neighbourhood. You use the regular euclidean vector space structure on $H^{\mu+1} \subset \mathbb R^{\mu+1}$. Here $(0,\vec q)$ means the vector whose first $\mu$ coordinates are zero, and the remaining coordinates are those of $\vec q$.

Technically, this won't give you exactly the right formula but it will give you the same gluing up to diffeomorphism as your two distance functions (distance to $S^{\lambda -1}$ are isotopic to each other via a radial re-scaling that can be done with a straight-line isotopy.

I hope that makes sense.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks Ryan. I'm probably just being very dumb but do you maybe want something like $ \left( \sqrt{1-|\vec q|^2} - q_0 \right) p + (0, \vec q)$ instead of $ \left( 1- \sqrt{1-|\vec q|^2} - q_0 \right) p + (0, \vec q)$. Otherwise it seems like it doesn't send the zero section to the circle. –  Pliny the ill Mar 27 '13 at 6:20
    
Also, I think I have a vague idea, but what exactly do you mean by "your two distance functions"? –  Pliny the ill Mar 27 '13 at 6:32
    
Right, I think you're correct I appear to have made some kind of mistake with that formula. I'll think it over again to see what the mistake is. By the "distance function" I mean in all the formulas there's some kind of measure of distance from a point to either the sphere $S^{\lambda-1}$ or a set that corresponds to it in a different model. –  Ryan Budney Mar 27 '13 at 17:59
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.