2
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to follow Lee's book Introduction to Smooth Manifold in details. In chapter 2, Exercise 2.19 asks the reader to prove that if $F:M \to N$ is a smooth diffeomorphism between manifolds with boundary, then $F (\partial M) = \partial N$.

It suffices to show that $F(\partial M) \subseteq \partial N$. I thought about mimicking the proof given in the book that, in a smooth manifold, a point cannot be a boundary point and be in the domain of an interior chart at the same time (Theorem 1.46).

However, I noticed that the argument would rely on knowing forehand that the two manifolds have the same dimension, that is to say their charts map to open subsets of the same $\mathbb{H}^n$, but it is not clear for me at all that I can assume that.

For completeness, a sketch of my proof would go like this:

Given $p \in \partial M$, by definition of $F$ smooth there exists $(U, \phi)$ and $(V, \psi)$ charts such that $F(U) \subseteq V$ and $\hat{F} = \psi \circ F \circ \phi^{-1}$ is smooth. Since $p$ is a boundary point, this means there exists an open set $U_x$ containing $x = \phi(p)$ and $F_x: U_x \to \mathbb{R}^n$ such that $F_x = F$ in $\phi (U) \subset \mathbb{H}^m$ (and not necessarily $m = n$).

Now let us suppose that $F(p) \in \mathrm{int} \, M$. Then, since $F$ is a diffeomorphism (and thus an open mapping), by restricting if necessary we may suppose that $F(U) = V$. If $G = F^{-1}: N \to M$, it is known that $\hat{G} = \phi \circ G \circ \psi^{-1}: \psi (V) \to \phi (U)$ is smooth (in the sense of $\mathbb{R}^n$, because $F(p)$ is an interior point).

Now, we may find a ball $B$ around $\psi (F(p)) = \hat{F} (x)$ such that $\hat{G}(B) \subseteq \phi(U) \cap U_x$. Thus, we could write $$\mathrm{Id}_B = F_x \circ \hat{G} $$ as a composition of smooth functions in the regular sense (defined on open subsets of $\mathbb{R}^n$ and $\mathbb{R}^m$, respectively).

The conclusion would follow by noticing that pointwise $DF_x \circ D\hat{G} = \mathrm{Id}$ and thus $D \hat{G}$ is non-singular, but this would only be true if $m = n$ - otherwise I can only conclude it has a left-inverse.

I wonder if:

  1. there's some independent more basic argument that allows me suppose that $m = n$ right from the start; or
  2. the actual proof of this fact goes in a completely different direction, and implies somewhere along the way that $m = n$.

An answer for 1. or a tip for 2. would be appreciated.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Invariance of the domain is a difficult topic in topology, but in the differentiable context It follows from the inverse function theorem (or, equivalently, the implicit function theorem), that a diffeomorphism preserves the dimension. See the third remark on this page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffeomorphism $\endgroup$ – Thomas Sep 30 '17 at 20:12
  • $\begingroup$ I know that a diffeomorphism preserves dimension when it exists between two manifolds without boundary. This is easy because all charts are interior charts, and thus the expression of $F$ in coordinates yields a diffeomorphism between open sets of $\mathbb{R}^m$ and $\mathbb{R}^n$, and thus by the inverse function theorem the dimensions are the same. Here the question is slightly more subtle. $\endgroup$ – ulilaka Sep 30 '17 at 20:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ No, it's not more subtle. You determine the dimension away from boundary points. (If you like, start with a point of $N-\partial N$.) Assuming connectedness, it stays constant. $\endgroup$ – Ted Shifrin Sep 30 '17 at 22:39
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, I thought about that, but then what ensures that the inverse image of a neighborhood of such point, say $F^{-1} (U)$, will be contained in $\mathrm{int} \, M$? The argument relies in finding interior charts around both $p$ and $F(p)$ as well. $\endgroup$ – ulilaka Sep 30 '17 at 23:40
  • $\begingroup$ @TedShifrin Could you explain the connectedness part? $\endgroup$ – Zero Oct 21 '17 at 22:53
2
$\begingroup$

I thought exactly the same and I think I've found a satisfactory solution. Basically your po\text{int } 1. is right, but the argument is indeed quite subtle. I'm gonna divide this proof in 4 parts:

Part 1: If $M$ is a nonempty manifold with boundary then $\text{int }(M)\neq \emptyset$.

Proof: I'll leave this one as homework :) because it's not subtle.

Part 2: If $M\to N$ are nonempty diffeomorphic smooth manifolds with boundary then $\dim M=\dim N$.

Proof: This part is subtle, so I'll write the details carefully. Let $f:M\to N$ be a diffeomorphism. Then $f|\text{int } M:\text{int } M\to f(\text{int } M)$ is a diffeomorphism where $\text{int } M$ is a nonempty smooth manifold (this is because of part 1.) and $f(\text{int } M)$ is a nonempty smooth manifold with boundary. Let's rename $f|\text{int } M:\text{int } M\to f(\text{int } M)$ as $f_1:M_1\to N_1$. Using the same trick $f_1|f_1^{-1}(\text{int } N_1):f_1^{-1}(\text{int } N_1)\to \text{int } N_1$ is a diffeomorphism between nonempty smooth manifolds. By Proposition 2.17 (Diffeomorphism Invariance of Dimension) we have that $f_1^{-1}(\text{int } N_1)$ and $\text{int } N_1$ have the same dimension, so the same is true for $M$ and $N$.

Part 3: If $M$ is a smooth manifold with boundary, $(U,\phi)$ is a smooth chart for $M$ and $f:\phi(U)\to V$ is a diffeomorphism between open subsets of $\mathbb{H}^n$ or $\mathbb{R}^n$ then $(U,f\circ \phi)$ is a smooth chart for $M$.

Proof: I'll also leave this one for homework because it's also not subtle.

Part 4: (Theorem 2.18, Diffeomorphism Invariance of the Boundary): Suppose $M$ and $N$ are smooth manifolds with boundary and $F:M\to N$ is a diffeomorphism. Then $F(\partial M)=\partial N$.

Proof: Let $p\in \partial M$. This means there is a smooth chart $(U,\phi)$ for $M$ such that $p\in U$, $\phi(U)\subseteq \mathbb{H}^n$ and $\phi(U)\in \partial \mathbb{H}^n$. By restricting $U$ (this is essentially what Lee does in his proof of Theorem 2.17, Diffeomorphism Invariance of Dimension) we may find a chart $(F(U),\psi)$ for $N$. Then $\psi\circ F\circ \phi^{-1}:\phi(U)\to \psi(F(U))$ is a diffeomorphism between open subsets of the same $\mathbb{H}^n$ or $\mathbb{R}^n$ because of part 2. Define $\hat{F}=\psi\circ F\circ \phi^{-1}$, then by part 3. $(U,\hat{F}\circ \phi)$ is a smooth chart for $M$. By Theorem 1.46 (Smooth Invariance of the Boundary) $\hat{F}(\phi(U))\subseteq \mathbb{H}^n$ and $\hat{F}(\phi(p))\in \partial \mathbb{H}^n$, this is the same as saying $\psi(F(U))\subseteq \mathbb{H}^n$ and $\psi(F(p))\in \partial \mathbb{H}^n$, which implies $F(p)\in \partial N$. So $F(\partial M)\subseteq \partial N$ and we are done.

This is the kind of details that always drives me crazy, but hopefully now I can fill most of the gaps. When I ask people about this kind of details I sometimes get offtopic answers by people that think this is a trivial detail. For example, I don't see how connectedness plays a role here, care to explain @Ted Shifrin?

$\endgroup$

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.