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.

Lee in his book on topological manifolds says that

An $n$-manifold with a boundary is a second countable Hausdorff space in which any point has a neighborhood which is homeomorphic either to an open subset of $\mathbb R^n$ or to an open subset of $\mathbb H^n = \{x\in \mathbb R^n:x_n\geq 0\}$ endowed with a Euclidean topology.

As I understand, he means Euclidean topology which is a topology based on Eucledian metric and hence coincides with the subspace topology.

Isn't it equivalent to say that

An $n$-manifold with a boundary is a second countable Hausdorff space in which any point has a neighborhood which is homeomorphic to an open subset of $\mathbb H^n = \{x\in \mathbb R^n:x_n\geq 0\}$ endowed with a Euclidean topology.

As for me, since $\operatorname{Int}\mathbb H^n\approx \mathbb R^n$ by the homeomorphism $\varphi(x_1,...,x_n) = (x_1,...,\log x_n)$ these statements are equivalent, but maybe I'm missing something or there is another reason to put both $\mathbb H^n$ and $\mathbb R^n$ in the definition.

I guess my question does not itersects with About definitions of topological manifold with boundary since $\mathbb H^n$ is not homemorphic to $\overline{B_n}$ - closed unit ball in $\mathbb R^n$.

share|improve this question
2  
No, I don't think there's a difference. He probably just wants all of his old examples of manifolds to hold up without (minor, granted) change. –  Dylan Moreland Oct 19 '11 at 14:25
    
@DylanMoreland Thanks, that may be the case. I don't think that question needs more extended answer, so I will be happy to admit your comment if you put it as an answer. Oh, I'm sorry, Willie was the first. –  Ilya Oct 19 '11 at 14:42
    
@joriki: thank you for flagging the duplicate - I just noticed that there are two identical question on the list on my profile page. –  Ilya Oct 19 '11 at 15:39

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Yes they are equivalent.

But his way of writing has pedagogical/expository advantages:

  1. It becomes clear what is added compared to the definition of a manifold.
  2. It paves the way to defining manifolds with corners as a further generalisation.
  3. It allows one to make the statement that a boundary point is a point for which no neighborhood can be homeomorphic to an open subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$.

Sometimes the most efficient way of writing things is not the most illuminating.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you very much, Willie –  Ilya Oct 19 '11 at 14:44
    
In fact, I'm reading the book from 2011 while in the 2001 version of that book Lee introduced it only through $\mathbb H^n$. –  Ilya Oct 19 '11 at 16:18

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.