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.

Consider the graphs of the functions $f_1(x) = |x|$, and $f_2(x) = x$ under the subspace topology of $\mathbb{R}^2$. Both of these graphs are smooth manifolds, just pick coordinate charts to be $(x, f_i(x)) \leftrightarrow x$. Moreover, they are diffeomorphic via the map $(x, f_1(x)) \rightarrow (x, f_2(x))$. This seems to clash with my intuition. For example, the graph of $f_1$ has a corner, so it "shouldn't" be smooth, much less diffeomorphic to $f_2$, which is just a straight line. Can someone explain what's going on here? In light of these examples, how should I visualize smooth manifolds and diffeomorphisms?

share|improve this question
There's an old question on the first manifold. I think Prof Wong's answer could help a lot, here. –  Dylan Moreland Sep 4 '11 at 2:17
I think maybe your intuition isn't fully thought-out. You're giving a set a smooth structure based on a bijection with $\mathbb R$ -- this is not a very natural thing to do. You can make the Cantor set a smooth manifold diffeomorphic to $S^n$ or $\mathbb R^n$ for any $n \geq 2$ using this technique, so it's not particularly interesting. –  Ryan Budney Sep 4 '11 at 2:37

2 Answers 2

Your intuition is broken because the inclusion of the graph of $f_1$ (with the smooth structure you describe) into $\mathbb{R}^2$ isn't smooth. The graph of $f_1$, as a subset of $\mathbb{R}^2$ with its usual smooth structure, is not a smooth manifold for exactly the intuitive reason.

share|improve this answer

You could do the same thing with the set $T=\{(x,g(x))\}$ for any continuous $g$. The reason this seems non-intuitive is that you haven't used the smooth structure of $\mathbb{R}^2$ at all in defining the smooth structure of $T$; you've just taken the smooth structure on $\mathbb{R}$ and "transported" it onto $T$. Another way to say it: The intuitive non-smoothness of $T$ (for, say, $g(x)=|x|$) comes from looking at the way that $T$ is sitting in $\mathbb{R}^2$.

Abstractly, it's very much the same as the following situation, which may be clearer. The integers $\mathbb{Z}$ form a group under addition. The set $T = \{17,59\} \subset \mathbb{Z}$ is not a subgroup of $\mathbb{Z}$ under addition. It is true that $T$ can be made into group by transporting the structure of a 2-element group onto $T$, but you don't expect that this group will have anything to do with $\mathbb{Z}$ as a group anymore since you didn't use the group structure on $\mathbb{Z}$ to define the group structure on $T$.

share|improve this answer

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.