13
$\begingroup$

$\require{AMScd}$ In the context of smooth manifolds, the map $F:M\rightarrow N$ is smooth if $G$ on the below diagram is smooth.

$\begin{CD} M @> F > > N\\ @V \varphi V V @V V\psi V\\ \varphi(U) @> G >=\psi\circ F\circ\varphi^{-1} > \psi(V) \end{CD}$

Some notes I found say "if and only if this diagram commutes" however this diagram always commutes! if $F$ isn't smooth all it means is $G$ wont be smooth.

What does it mean to say a diagram commutes in this case?

Notes: http://www.math.toronto.edu/mat1300/smoothmaps.4.pdf

Definition: http://www.maths.kisogo.com/index.php?title=Smooth_map

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Sure, it commutes. Have you looked at other books on the subject? $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Apr 14 '15 at 14:10
  • $\begingroup$ Of course it commutes, I say that. What says the arrows must be smooth, the context? This is the /definition/ of $F$ being smooth @MartinBrandenburg $\endgroup$ – Alec Teal Apr 14 '15 at 14:11
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinBrandenburg by that I mean if $F$ isn't smooth, it'll still commute! Just $G$ wont be smooth $\endgroup$ – Alec Teal Apr 14 '15 at 14:13
9
$\begingroup$

"The diagram commutes" means exactly what it always means: that the map produced by following any path through the diagram is the same.

The notes you are reading made a mistake and forgot to require that $G$ be smooth.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ So "diagram commutes" means "under [whatever] constraints - the diagram makes sense" - my confusion was because nothing says an arrow has to be smooth (otherwise $F$ couldn't have one). When I use diagrams I must specify things like this. $\endgroup$ – Alec Teal Apr 14 '15 at 14:21
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Alec: Yes, I understood that that was your confusion. Now I am confused as to whether you understand my answer. I am saying that "a diagram commutes" means exactly, and only that certain compositions of maps are equal - absolutely nothing about the properties of those maps. I am agreeing with you that yes, it ought to have been said that $G$ was smooth, because the diagram given always commutes. The notes provide an incorrect (and in this case, vacuous) definition. $\endgroup$ – Zev Chonoles Apr 14 '15 at 14:25
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The following diagram commuting $$\begin{CD} A @> w > > B\\ @V x V V @V Vy V\\ C @> >z > D \end{CD}$$ means precisely that $y\circ w=z\circ x$. $\endgroup$ – Zev Chonoles Apr 14 '15 at 14:29
  • $\begingroup$ I see what you mean - I came very close to "forcing" that in the context of smooth manifolds, I defined arrows to be smooth and "commutative" to mean smooth too - which you've saved me from doing Before upvoting and ticking, maths.kisogo.com/… is that "how I ought to say it" (and last question while I've got you here, what do the curved and dashed arrows mean? - I've not found a book that defines this notion - you've given a superb and unambiguous definition of commutative) - Thanks $\endgroup$ – Alec Teal Apr 14 '15 at 14:32
2
$\begingroup$

I think part of the confusion is that the sentence below the definition - "In the above diagram, $G := \Psi \circ F \circ \phi^{-1}: \phi(U \cap F^{-1}(V)) \rightarrow \Psi(V)$" - is not meant to be part of the definition, rather it is a clarification. The definition given is that $F$ is smooth iff there exists $G$ (which, from its position in the diagram, is a morphism between open subsets of $\mathbb{R^s}$, that is, is a smooth map*) such that

$\begin{CD} M @> F > > N\\ @V \varphi V V @V V\psi V\\ \varphi(U) @> G > > \psi(V) \end{CD}$

commutes.

*- but I agree this should have been stated explicitly

Does that make things clearer at all?

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.