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.

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 am currently reading Lee's book "Introduction to Smooth Manifolds (2nd edition)".

Corollary 6.27 in that book states that a smooth map $f : A \rightarrow M$ where $M$ is a smooth manifold without(!) boundary and $A \subset N$ is closed (where $N$ is a manifold with possibly nonempty boundary) can be extended to a smooth map $F: N \rightarrow M$ iff it has a continuous extension.

Lee claims (and leaves this as Problem 6-7), that the claim is in general false if $M$ has nonempty boundary. The Problem asks you to show this by considering $F: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{H}^2, t \mapsto (t, |t|)$ with $\mathbb{H}^2 = \mathbb{R} \times [0,\infty)$ and $A = [0,\infty)$.

The problem with this Problem is that Lee defines a map $f : A \rightarrow M$ on a subset $A \subset N$ to be smooth if for every $p \in A$ there is an (open) neighborhood $W_p \subset N$ of $p$ and a smooth map $f_p : W_p \rightarrow M$ that agrees with $f$ on $A \cap W_p$.

This condition is clearly not satisfied for the above $F$ at $t = 0$.

My question is, whether the claim nevertheless fails (with another counterexample).

The problem in instead proving the claim in this case is that Lee uses an embedding of $M$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$ (no problem) and then uses the existence of a "tubular neighborhood" which fails if $M$ has nonempty boundary.

Any help would be appreciated.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 13 down vote accepted

Uh-oh ... this is a flaw in my definition of smoothness of a map defined from a subset of a manifold (with or without boundary) into a manifold with boundary. If $M=\mathbb R$, $N=[0,\infty)$, and $A = [0,\infty)\subset M$, we would certainly want to consider the map $f\colon A\to N$ defined by $f(x)=x$ to be smooth, but it's not by the definition I gave. I've added a revised definition to my list of corrections (available here; see the correction to p. 45) that fixes this problem.

Good catch!

share|cite|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.