enter image description here

The following lemma is my question. (cf GTM218, Introduction to Smooth manifold) I can prove (b) using partion of unity as follows:

$Proof$ for any $p \in S$ choose a slice chart $W_p$ centered at $p$ and extend the restriction $f|W_p \cap S$ to some $f_p \in C^{\infty} (W_p)$. Now ,take a partition of unity $\{\phi_P: p \in S\}\cup\{\chi\}$, which issubordinate to the covering $\{W_P: p \in S\}\cup\{M \smallsetminus S\}$ of $M$( in this book, the condition $S$ is properly embedded is equivalent to the condition that $S$ is closed and embedded). Then ,we set $$ \tilde f = \sum_{p \in S} \phi_p f_p$$ One can check this function is a extension for $f$.

However, this method cannot be applied to show (a), where $S$ is not assumed to be closed.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How can you extend $f|W_p \cap S$ to $f_p \in C^{\infty}(W_p)$ for part(a)? $\endgroup$ – tattwamasi amrutam Mar 1 '17 at 16:31
  • $\begingroup$ Given $p \in S$, let $\phi_p=(x_p,y_p)$ be a local chart of $M$ around $p$ which is adapted to $S$. Define $f_p: W_p \to \mathbb{R}$ as $f_p(q)=f \circ {\phi_p}^{-1} \circ x_p (q)$. Why is this function a smooth extension of $\left.f\right|_{W_p \cap S}$ to $W_p$? $\endgroup$ – gpr1 Sep 17 '18 at 5:13

If I haven't missed something, the only thing you cannot do in the case of (a) is adding $M\setminus S$ to the covering. Despite this, $\{W_p\mid p\in S\}$ is still a covering of some neighborhood $$U=\bigcup_{p\in S}W_p$$ of $S$. Therefore, simply taking a partition of unity $(\phi_p)_{p\in S}$ subordinate to this cover allows you to construct the desired function $f\in C^{\infty}(U)$ in exactly the same way as you did for point (b).

Added: In fact, $S$ is properly embedded in $U$. It is embedded, since each point lies in a slice chart, so we only have to see that it is closed. To see this, notice that $W_p\cap S$ is closed in $W_p$ (since $W_p$ is a slice chart). So $W_p\setminus S$ is open in $W_p$, which is open in $M$. Therefore $W_p\setminus S$ is open in $M$ for each $p$, so $$\bigcup_{p\in S}(W_p\setminus S) = U\setminus S$$ is open in $M$. But $U\setminus S\subseteq U$, so $U\setminus S$ is in fact open in $U$. Therefore, $S$ is closed in $U$.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer. Do you mean that "S is embedded" implies "S is closed"? $\endgroup$ – Hang May 27 '15 at 15:51
  • $\begingroup$ @Henry: I mean that $S$ being embedded in $M$ implies that $S$ is properly embedded in $U$ (a neighborhood); i.e. it is closed in $U$, but not necessarily in $M$. (For example, $(-\infty,0)\times\{0\}$ is closed in $(-\infty,0)\times\mathbb R$, but it is not closed in $\mathbb R^2$.) $\endgroup$ – Dejan Govc May 27 '15 at 16:30
  • $\begingroup$ OK, I get it, What's more, could you give a simple example so that this $U$ cannot be the whole $M$? Thanks! $\endgroup$ – Hang May 28 '15 at 11:41
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, take the example from my previous comment, $(-\infty,0)\times\{0\}$ and define $f:(-\infty,0)\times\{0\}\to\mathbb R$ by $f(x,0)=-\frac1x$. This cannot be continuously extended to the point $(0,0)$, since it goes to infinity there, so it also cannot be extended to $\mathbb R^2$. But it can by extended to $(-\infty,0)\times\mathbb R$, take for example $\tilde f(x,y)=-\frac1x$. $\endgroup$ – Dejan Govc May 28 '15 at 12:11

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.