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

The two following theorems appear to be contradictory. Both are proved in Milnor's "Topology from the differentiable viewpoint." I'm sure I'm overlooking something incredibly trivial:

  1. Let $f$ be a smooth map from a smooth compact oriented manifold $K$ to a smooth connected oriented manifold $N$, both of dimension $m-1$. If $K$ is the oriented boundary of some smooth compact oriented $m$-manifold (with boundary) $Y$ and if $f$ extends to a smooth map from $Y$ to $N$ then the degree of $f$ (i.e. the sum of the signs of the determinants of the Jacobians at the elements of the preimage of any regular value) is zero.

  2. (Poincaré-Hopf) If $M$ is a smooth compact manifold and $V$ is a smooth vector field on $M$ with isolated singularities then the degree of the vector field is equal to the Euler characteristic of $M$.

Now consider the setting of the second statement and assume $M$ is oriented. delete a small open ball around each zero of $V$. This gives a manifold with boundary $Y$ and by normalizing $V$ we get a map $g$ from $Y$ to the $(m-1)$-sphere. Now if $K$ is the boundary of $M$ then the first statement says the degree of $g$ restricted to $K$ is zero while the second statement says it is the Euler characteristic of $M$.

share|cite|improve this question
1  
$K$ is the domain of $g$, there is no extension. The natural way to extend the definition of $g$ to all of $Y$ would be to trivialize the tangent bundle, and if you could do that, certainly the Euler characteristic would be zero. – Ryan Budney Aug 29 '11 at 3:20
    
thanks for your help ryan. maybe this doesn't fix the problem but let's assume M was imbedded in some Euclidean space. Now g makes sense on all of Y regardless of the whether the tangent bundle is trivial right? – Tim kinsella Aug 29 '11 at 3:33
    
$g$ does make sense, but not of something that you can take the degree of, since the domain and range have the wrong dimensions. – Ryan Budney Aug 29 '11 at 4:00
    
but I only speak of the degree of g restricted to K. K has dimension m-1 and the target space is the m-1 sphere. im clearly missing something basic and thank you for your patience. – Tim kinsella Aug 29 '11 at 4:06
    
maybe the cofusion is a result of my bad notation: the M from the first proposition is not the M from the counter example – Tim kinsella Aug 29 '11 at 4:07

Your Answer

 
discard

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.