Sternberg in his "Lectures on differential geometry" considers the set $Cu(M)$ of all pairs $(p,\gamma)$ with $p\in M$ and $\gamma:(-\epsilon,\epsilon)\to M$ differentiable with $\gamma(0)=p$. Evidently, $Cu(M)$ is the space of all curves in $M$. Now on $Cu(M)$ he introduces an equivalence relation $$ (p,\gamma) \sim (\tilde{p},\tilde{\gamma}) \ :\Leftrightarrow \ p=\tilde{p} \ \text{and} \ \ \left.\dfrac{dx^\mu \circ \gamma}{dt}\right|_{t=0}=\left.\dfrac{dx^\mu \circ \tilde{\gamma}}{dt}\right|_{t=0}. $$ It is $Cu(M)/_\sim$ that is what is called the tangent bundle $TM$.

He argues then that he needs to exhibit that the equivalence relation is independent of the chart $x:U\subset M\to \mathbb{R}^n$. This is where my question lies:

Much like when I have a map $f:A/_\sim \to B$, where I use a representative to define the map and then I have to show that the map is well-defined by showing that the image point is independent of the representative chosen to define the map; it seems to me that choosing a chart is similar to choosing a representative, and whenever I define something in terms of a chart, I need to make sure that what I define is independent of the representative. So, in the case of a smooth manifold, what is the coset space from which I pick charts?

  • $\begingroup$ I dont understand the question. Maybe you can make it more concrete a little. $\endgroup$ – Sou Nov 5 '17 at 6:16
  • $\begingroup$ Okay. I have noticed that whenever one uses a chart on a manifold to define a concept, one afterwards needs to make sure that the notion is chart independent. Now, on the other hand, whenever you have a function from a coset space, say, $f:A/_\sim \to B$, ($[a]\mapsto f(a)\in B$) you always define it using a representative (some $[a]\in A_\sim$) and then of course you need to show that the function is well-defined, namely if $a\sim \tilde{a}$ then $f(a)=f(b)$. $\endgroup$ – EEEB Nov 5 '17 at 11:03
  • $\begingroup$ Now what I am noticing is that the process of showing chart independence reminds me of a function from a coset space, it is as if a chart is really $[\phi]$, an equivalence class of charts. What I wanted to know is whether there is such thing as coset space of charts, and hence that is why whenever I choose a chart I need to show chart independence. $\endgroup$ – EEEB Nov 5 '17 at 11:05

I don't really understand what do you mean but maybe what your intuition tells you is this.

Usually, there are three different kind of construction of tangent space $T_p M$ of a manifold.

The first, which is the most geometric and intuitive way is by defining it as equivalence class of curves. That is if $p\in M$, we define the elements of $T_pM$, the tangent vectors as equivalence class of curves $[c]$ that pass through $p$. The equivalence relation define by $c_1 \sim c_2$ where $c_1(0)=c_2(0)=p$ if and only if $(f \circ c_1)'(0) = (f \circ c_2)'(0)$ as you reference define it. This kind of tangent space is $T_pM = \scr{C}_p/\sim$ where $\scr{C}_p$ is set of all curves defined in some small interval contain $0$ that pass $p \in M$.

The second formulation is an abstract one rely heavily on the concept of derivation. In this case, the tangent vector $v_p$ defined as a linear map $v_p : C^{\infty}(M) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ which is obeys product rule $$ v_p(fg) = f(p) v_p g + g(p) v_p f $$ This is the most common one and easy to work with despite the lack of intuitiveness.

The third (i think this is that you're asking) is by defining $T_pM$ via equivalence class of charts. For a fix $p\in M$, we consider the set $\Gamma_p$ consists of all triplets $(p, v, (U,x)) \in \{p\} \times \mathbb{R}^n \times \scr{A}$ such that $p\in U$ ($\scr{A}$ is the maximal atlas for $M$.). And define an equivalence relation on $\Gamma_p$ by requiring that $((p, v, (U,x)) \sim (p, w, (V,y)))$ if and only if $$ w = D(y \circ x^{-1})|_{x(p)} \cdot v $$ That is we define tangen vector as an object that doesnt change under coordinate transformation. The equivalence class of this $[(p, v, (U,x))]$ is defined as tangent vector in $T_pM$. So $T_pM = \Gamma_p / \sim$.

All of this formulation is actually same. That is we can identified one with another by isomorphism (Lookmore details in Jeffrey Lee's book or Conlon's book).


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.