In the book vector bundle and K-theory of Allan Hatcher, proposition $1.3$ state that

If $p : E\to B$ is a vector bundle over a paracompact base $B$ and $E_{0} \subset E$ is a vector subbundle, then there is a vector subbundle $E_{0}^{\perp} \subset E$ such that $E_{0} \oplus E_{0}^{\perp} \cong E$

The basic idea is whenever $B$ is paracompact we can give it an inner product so it's natural to let $E_{0}^{\perp}$ be the subspace of $E$ which in each fiber consists of all vector orthogonal to vectors in $E_{0}$. If one can proves $E_{0}^{\perp}$ satisfies the local triviality condition then $E \cong E_{0} \oplus E_{0}^{\perp}$ via canonical map $(v,w) \to v + w$. Firstly, he assumed $E$ to be trivial and near each point $b_0 \in B$ ( a neighborhood ), the subbundle has $m$ independent local sections $s_1,s_2,.., s_m$ ( $m$ is dimension of bundle $E_{0} \to B$ ). Then he enlarged this $m$ sections to $n$ local sections of bundle $E \to B$ by choosing $s_{m+1},...s_n$ in each fiber $p^{-1}(b_0)$, then taking the same vectors for all nearby fibers and hence if $s_1,..s_n$ are independent at $b_0$, it will remain to be independent for all $b$ near $b_0$

I want to ask how to can taking the same vectors... and how it will be independent for nearby $b$. Maybe he explained so vaguely and brief?


Since $E$ is locally trivial, $E|_U \cong V \times U$ for some neigborhood $U$ of $b_0$ and some vector space $V$. This same congruence maps $E_0$ to subspaces $V_b$ of $V$ for each $b \in U$, which vary continuously with $b$. He picks sections that form a basis for each $V_b$ (potentially shrinking $U$ to a smaller neighborhood of $b_0$).

At $b_0$, he completes the basis for $V_{b_0}$ to full basis of $V$. The additional vectors can be considered constant sections of $V \times U$. Since the full set of sections give linearly independent vectors at $b_0$ and vary continuously, there must be some neighborhood where they remain linearly independent as you move away from $b_0$.

So when he is talking about keeping the same vectors, he means in the trivialization $V \times U$, not the original vector bundle $E$.

| cite | improve this answer | |

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.