0
$\begingroup$

According to my lecture notes, the definition of tangent plane of a surface is given as follows:

Definition: Let $S$ be a regular surface and $p \in S$. Then the tangent plane of $S$ at $p$ is defined as $T_pS=\{ v \in \mathbb{R^3}: \exists \alpha:(-\epsilon,\epsilon) \rightarrow S \text{ such that } \alpha(0)=p, \alpha'(0)=v \}$

I can prove that the tangent plane is closed under scalar multiplications. However, I can't prove that it is closed under vector addition.

The basic difficulty of mine is that in first glance if $\alpha,\beta:(-\epsilon,\epsilon) \rightarrow S$ are two curves on the surface, then I thought the curve $\frac{\alpha(2t)+\beta(2t)}{2}$ could give me the tangent vector $\alpha'(0)+\beta'(0)$. However, the surface $S$ is in general not a vector space, hence the curve $\frac{\alpha(2t)+\beta(2t)}{2}$ is not a well-defined curve on $S$. Then I have no idea how to make the construction.

P.S.: According to the title, the fact that $T_pS$ is the span of the set $\{\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}, \frac{\partial F}{\partial y}\}$, where $F$ is any parametrization of $S$, is not allowed. (In fact, I think that the proof of this fact requires the fact that the tangent plane is a vector space, so using this fact to prove that the tangent plane is a vector space is kind of a circular argument.)

Edit: The definition of regular surface is given as follows:

Definition: Let $S\subset \mathbb{R}^3$. Then $S$ is called a regular surface if for any $p \in S$, there exists a neighborhood $U$ in $S$ of $p$ such that there is a smooth mapping $F:U'\subset\mathbb{R}^2 \rightarrow U$ (called a parametrization) such that

  1. $F$ is homeomorphism.

  2. $\{\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}, \frac{\partial F}{\partial y}\}$ is linearly independent.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It's hard to know what your starting point is, given the constraints of your problem. For example, what definition of a "regular surface" are you starting from? $\endgroup$ – Lee Mosher Jun 18 '18 at 16:11
  • $\begingroup$ I have edited my question, thank you. $\endgroup$ – Jerry Jun 18 '18 at 16:21
1
$\begingroup$

Here's a slightly more pedestrian solution to your particular problem. You've started with curves $\alpha$ and $\beta$ defined on a small interval, which I'll call $I$ to save me from writing greek letters.

The image $\alpha(I)$ (if $I$ is small enough) is contained in an open set $U$ of the kind that appears in the definition of "regular surface", and we can assume that associated to $U$ is a parameterization $F$. For each $t$, define $$ a(t) = F^{-1} (\alpha(t)) $$

Then $a$ is a curve in the plane, right? And $$ \alpha = F \circ a. $$ Similarly, you can define $b$, with $$ \beta = F \circ b. $$ Now it's easy to define $\gamma$ ... you add $a$ and $b$ instead of trying to add $\alpha$ and $\beta$: $$ \gamma(t) = F(a(t) + b(t)) $$ and if $I$ is small enough, then $a(t) + b(t)$ will always be in the domain of $F$, so this makes sense.

Now what's $\gamma'(0)$? Well, if there's any justice in the world, it'll be $\alpha'(0) + \beta'(0)$. And indeed it is that. The proof is to throw in one more function $$ P : \Bbb R \to \Bbb R^2 : t \mapsto a(t) + b(t) $$ so that $$ \gamma = F \circ P, $$ and now you can apply the chain rule.

This is really just @LeeMosher's answer with a lot more detail, but I hope it's of some help to you.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think the curve $\gamma(t)$ should be modified to be $F(\frac{a(t)+b(t)}{2})$, otherwise the assumption that $\gamma(0)=p$ cannot be satisfied. $\endgroup$ – Jerry Jun 19 '18 at 5:41
  • $\begingroup$ That won't work, @Jerry, in the case where $F$ is just a linear map, for instance. But you're right that I've forgotten something: I should redefined $F$ slightly. Suppose $F(c_0) = p$. Define $G(x) = F(x + c_0)$. Then $G$ is a parameterization with $G(0) = p$, and you can work with that. $\endgroup$ – John Hughes Jun 19 '18 at 10:59
  • $\begingroup$ Why won't that work? If $\gamma(t)=F(\frac{a(t)+b(t)}{2})$, then by chain rule we have $\gamma'(t)=dF_{\frac{a(t)+b(t)}{2}} (\frac{a'(t)+b'(t)}{2})$. Then $\gamma'(0)=dF_{p}(\frac{a'(0)+b'(0)}{2})$. $\endgroup$ – Jerry Jun 19 '18 at 11:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Because that makes $\gamma'(0) = \frac{\alpha'(0) + \beta'(0)}{2}$, while OP wanted $\alpha'(0) + \beta'(0)$; I think that at the very least, you'd need to use $F(\frac{a(2t) + b(2t)}{2})$ to get the constants right. (Then again, my chain-rule-fu could be weak today, and I could be completely wrong...) $\endgroup$ – John Hughes Jun 19 '18 at 12:16
0
$\begingroup$

Here's a hint.

The key is to use the total derivative of $F$, which is the linear mapping $D_qF : \mathbb{R}^2 \to \mathbb{R}^3$ such that $q = F^{-1}(p)$ and such that its matrix is the Jacobian matrix of $F$ at $q$. Then prove that the tangent space of $S$ at $p$ is the image of $D_qF$. Since the image of a linear transformation is a vector space, you'll be done.

$\endgroup$

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.