Let $n=dim(T_pM)$ for every $p\in M$, where $M$ is a smooth manifold. I understand that specifying $p$ is not enough to determine an element of $TM$, but what if do we specify only $v\in T_pM\subset TM$? Since the tangent spaces are disjoint, specifying $v$ is all we need to determine the respective element of $TM$, which is $v$ itself. Therefore I don't understand why $dim(TM)=2n$.

PS: I know there are some related posts over here, but none of them have answered my question.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The bundle being dimension $2n$ includes both the dimension of $M$ itself as well as the dimension of the tangent space. $\endgroup$ – Rolf Hoyer Jun 7 '16 at 16:17
  • $\begingroup$ To specify a point in the bundle, you need both a point $p$ and a vector $v\in T_pM$. Just a vector, without a point to "pin" it to makes no sense. $\endgroup$ – Arthur Jun 7 '16 at 16:19
  • $\begingroup$ Specifying that $v$ (i.e. specifying which of the disjoint tangent spaces we're looking at and where in the tangent space we are) requires $2n$ numbers, no matter how you do it. If you don't give enough information to say what $p$ is, then you haven't specified an element of $TM$. $\endgroup$ – Omnomnomnom Jun 7 '16 at 16:19
  • $\begingroup$ Specifying $v$ requires two pieces of information: the base point $p \in M$ which has $n$ degrees of freedom; and the choice of a vector in $T_p(M)$ which has $n$ independent degrees of freedom. Add those up and you get $n+n=2n$ degrees of freedom altogether. $\endgroup$ – Lee Mosher Jun 7 '16 at 16:21

If all you specify is $v$, you haven't picked a point in $TM$, you have (simultaneously) picked a point in each $T_pM$. (Edit: Assuming that point $v$ actually is in each $T_pM$.) To pick a single point in $TM$, you need to pick a $p \in M$ and then a $v \in T_pM$ (or vice versa -- either way, two choices).

Example: $T\Bbb{R} \cong \Bbb{R}^2$ and to pick a point in the plane takes two coordinates. (This Cartesian product relation between $M$ and $TM$ is relatively uncommon, but is easy to see for Euclidean spaces.)

Edit: Further elaboration: A $T_pM$ is a vector space. It contains vectors. It doesn't contain tagged vectors. In particular, the elements of a $T_pM$ do not in any way indicate to which $p$ they are associated. $TM$ is the disjoint union $\sqcup_{p \in M} T_pM$. One standard set theoretic implementation of the disjoint union is as the set of ordered pairs $(p, v)$ (the $p$s are the index of the disjoint union). Since a given tangent vector may be in several such pairs, it is not enough to merely indicate the $v$. You must indicate both $p$ and $v$ to pick a specific element of $TM$.

  • $\begingroup$ That's the thing, how can $v$ be in more than one tangent space? If we say $v\in T_pM$ we need only $n$ numbers to specify $v$ (the information that $v$ is based on $p$ is already in $v$ itself), then somehow when we embed the tangent space into the tangent bundle, saying now $v\in T_pM\subset TM$, we need $2n$. Why do we loose the information about the base point in this case? $\endgroup$ – Mr. K Jun 7 '16 at 16:36
  • $\begingroup$ @Mr.K : Which $T_p\Bbb{R}$ is $\partial/\partial x$ in? Tangent vectors do not indicate their base points. $\endgroup$ – Eric Towers Jun 7 '16 at 16:45
  • $\begingroup$ "the elements of a $T_p M$ do not in any way indicate to which $p$ they are associated": this depends on how you construct the tangent space, and in general they certainly do. $TM$ is a topological space, equipped with a projection $\pi : TM \to M$. How could that projection even be defined if an element of $TM$ didn't already have the information of which point it is lying over? But if say $M$ is parallelized, $TM \cong M \times \mathbb{R}^n$, then no, a bare element of $\mathbb{R}^n$ doesn't define a tangent vector, as indeed an element of $TM$ is a pair $(x, v) \in M \times \mathbb{R}^n$. $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Jun 7 '16 at 17:34
  • $\begingroup$ @NajibIdrissi : An element of $TM$ is an element of a disjoint union. Elements of disjoint unions are pairs, $(p,v) \in M \times T_pM$ and note that the space of the second element depends on the first element. But the elements of $T_pM$ are just vectors, not tagged vectors, so a particular $v \in T_pM$ has no way of knowing that it is based at $p$ -- it's just a vector. The pair $(p,v)$ can trivially be projected onto its first element, so there is a map from $TM \rightarrow M$, but there is no map $\pi_2(TM) \rightarrow M: v \mapsto p$ because $v$ has no information on $p$. $\endgroup$ – Eric Towers Jun 7 '16 at 23:07
  • $\begingroup$ Let's start from the beginning... What's your (precise) definition of $T_pM$? $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Jun 8 '16 at 6:00

There are various definitions of the tangent space. A possible one is, for $p \in M$: $$T_p M = \{ \gamma : (-\epsilon, \epsilon) \to M \mid \gamma(0) = p \} / \sim$$ where $\sim$ is, informally, the equivalence relation $\gamma_1 \sim \gamma_2 \iff \gamma_1'(0) = \gamma_2'(0)$ ($\gamma'(0)$ is not actually well defined, it is only defined if you choose a chart around $p$; but given two charts, the derivatives are equal in one iff they are equal in the other, so the equivalence relation is well-defined).

As a set, the tangent space $TM$ is then defined as the union of all the $T_pM$, i.e. $$TM = \bigcup_{p \in M} T_p M.$$

Using a chart, it's easy to see that if $M$ is an $n$-manifold, then $T_p M$ is a vector space of dimension $n$. And a tangent vector $v = [\gamma]$ does carry the information of which point $p$ it lies over, because $p = \gamma(0)$ (and this is independent of the representative of the equivalence class). There is no such thing as a "bare" tangent vector that would somehow be tangent to the manifold without specifying at which point it is tangent.*

But then why isn't $TM$ of dimension $n$ too? The thing is that there is a ton of vector spaces glued together to make up $TM$; in fact, one for each point of $M$. Just like $\mathbb{R}^2 = \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}$ is made up of a ton of vector spaces of dimension one glued together (e.g. the $\{x\} \times \mathbb{R}$ for $x \in \mathbb{R}$) and has dimension two, we cannot expect $TM$ to only have dimension $n$.

Heuristically, as Lee Mosher explains in the comments, we have $n$ degrees of freedom to choose the point $p \in M$, then another $n$ degrees of freedom to choose a tangent vector $v \in T_pM$. So in total $TM$ should have dimension $2n$.

To make this precise, you first need to give a topology to $TM$; informally, $[\gamma_1]$ and $[\gamma_2]$ will be "close" if 1/ $\gamma_1(0)$ and $\gamma_2(0)$ are "close" in $M$ and if in a chart, $\gamma'_1(0)$ and $\gamma'_2(0)$ are close in $\mathbb{R}^n$. Your differential topology textbook probably makes that precise. Then you need to cook up charts for $TM$, and in fact if $U \subset M$ is a chart $U \cong \mathbb{R}^n$, then $TU \subset TM$ will be homeomorphic to $U \times \mathbb{R}^{n} \cong \mathbb{R}^{2n}$ $\gets$ this is where the dimension $2n$ appears! Then you need to check that the change of chart maps are smooth.

* I think a possible source of confusion on this comes from framed manifolds. If your manifold $M$ is framed, then you have a bundle isomorphism $\phi : TM \to M \times \mathbb{R}^n$. It's then tempting to think of $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$ as a tangent vector to $M$. This is perhaps what some people in this thread are calling a "bare" vector, or an "untagged" vector. But really, this $x$ is a (tangent) vector field, given by $$\xi_x(p) = \phi(p,x) \in TM.$$ So it is no surprise that this "tangent vector" seems to lie over no point in particular, because it's not a tangent vector: it's something that associates a tangent vector to each point (and in a smooth way). This is for example the case for $\partial/\partial x$, which is really a tangent vector field over $\mathbb{R}$ and not just a tangent vector.

In general manifolds aren't framed though, so this kind of confusion cannot arise. If you define carefully the tangent space, then you will see that a tangent vector does have the information of both a point of $M$ and some kind of tangent vector in a chart or something like that. That's $2n$ coordinates worth of information, hence $\dim TM = 2n$.


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.