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

Why are Banach and Frechet manifolds studied not even remotely as much as Euclidean manifolds? I assume like many other mathematical subjects, theory of manifolds has been developed much more than the real world needs. So perhaps applicability is not a factor and there are some mathematically intrinsic reasons for unpopularity of Banach manifolds comparing to ordinary manifolds.

share|cite|improve this question

They are popular (in the sense of: people would like to use them, some methods of dealing with nonlinear PDE are based on the theory, for example), but in some respects more difficult to handle than the finite dimensional manifolds. B-Space can be, e.g., non-reflexive, which requires additional care when you want to study the cotangent space. Also, in infinite dimensions, compactness (which is one highly important ingredient in existence proofs) is a rather complex issue. This means, in particular, that they are often only treated/used in advanced courses.

share|cite|improve this answer
Good to know. How about Hilbert manifold? – Troy Woo Sep 2 '14 at 5:35
Hilbert spaces are reflexive, but the compactness issues are still there. – Thomas Sep 2 '14 at 6:06
Serge Lang write a book on them trying to do as much as possible of the standard differential topology in the Banach/Hilbert setting. – studiosus Sep 4 '14 at 20:32

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.