1
$\begingroup$

I am reading Lee's ''Introduction to Smooth Manifolds'' and it states that the tangent bundle TM has a natural topology and smooth structure that makes it a 2n-dimensional manifold.

I get most of the proof, my only problem is to check the Hausdorff condition. And it is because it does not specify which topology they use, so I thought of one that works but I do not know if it is the usual one.

Having the specified topology does not bother most of the proof, since you have a proyection: $\pi: TM \to M$ defined as $\pi(p,X)=p$

And just take open sets as $\pi^{-1}(U)$ where $U$ is open in $M$. This works well for most of the proof, but when you want to check the Hausdorff condition in two points in the same fiber $(p,X),(p,Y)$.

So to avoid this I can define the open sets as the collection of sets:

$(U,\{V_x\}_{x \in U}):=\{ (x,v) : x \in U, v \in V_x \}$ Where $U$ is an open set of $M$ and $\{V_x\}_{x \in U}$ a collection of open sets $V_x \subset T_xM$ where many but not all can be the empty set.

Is this right? I checked and it does not change the smooth structure since the local charts $(U,\phi^{\sim})$ can be seen as $((U, \{T_xM\}_{x\in M}),\phi^{\sim})$ in my topology. Thanks in advanced.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

You know that each chart $\phi : U \to V \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ for $M$ induces a canonical bijection $\tilde{\phi} : TM \mid_U = p^{-1}(U) \to V \times \mathbb{R}^n$. We define $W \subset TM$ to be open if $\tilde{\phi}(W \cap p^{-1}(U))$ is open in $V \times \mathbb{R}^n$ for all $\phi$.

It is an easy exercise to show that this is in fact a Hausdorff topology.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ok.. I get it, thanks. I think you can also take $\{V_n\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ a countable basis of $R^n$ and $\{U_n\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ a countable basis of $M$, then define a subbasis where the elements are exacly $\tilde{\phi}(V_n \cap p^{-1}(U_m))$ for positive intergers $n,m$ This is mostly to assure asmooth manifold structure. $\endgroup$ – Bajo Fondo Jul 25 '18 at 2:18
1
$\begingroup$

I guess the theorem that you mention is Proposition 3.18 on Lee's book.

For any smooth chart $(U_{\alpha},\varphi_{\alpha})$ of $M$, we have a map $\widetilde{\varphi}_{\alpha} : \pi^{-1}(U_{\alpha}) \to \Bbb{R}^{2n}$ defined as $$ \widetilde{\varphi}_{\alpha} (v_p) = (x^1(p),\dots,x^n(p),v^1,\dots,v^n) . $$ This map is a bijection onto its image $\varphi_{\alpha}(U) \times \Bbb{R}^n$. The topology defined on $TM$ is the one that generated by $\{\widetilde{\varphi}_{\alpha}^{-1}(V) : \forall \alpha \in A, V\subseteq \Bbb{R}^{2n} \text{ is open}\}$. You can check directly that the collection above indeed generate a topology.

To show the Hausdorff property, let $p \in U \subseteq M$, where $U$ is the domain of some smooth chart $(U,\varphi)$ of $M$. And $v_p,w_p \in \pi^{-1}(p) \subseteq \pi^{-1}(U)\subseteq TM$, be a pair of points that lie in the same fiber.

With this topology, the map $\widetilde{\varphi} : \pi^{-1}(U) \to \Bbb{R}^{2n}$ is a homeomorphism onto its image. We can write $\widetilde{\varphi}(v_p) = (\hat{p},v)$, with $\hat{p} = \varphi(p)$. So let $\widetilde{\varphi}(v_p)=(\hat{p},v)$ and $\widetilde{\varphi}(w_p) = (\hat{p},w)$ be their images and $v,w \in \Bbb{R}^n$ be two distinct vectors. To obtain disjoint neighbourhoods of $v_p$ and $w_p$, just take disjoint neighbourhoods $B_1,B_2 \subseteq \Bbb{R}^n$ of $v$ and $w$ resp. and maped back the disjoint open sets $\varphi(U)\times B_1$ and $\varphi(U)\times B_2$ to $\pi^{-1}(U)$. So $\widetilde{\varphi}^{-1}(\varphi(U) \times B_1)$ and $\widetilde{\varphi}^{-1}(\varphi(U) \times B_2)$ are the desired neighbourhoods for $v_p$ and $w_p$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, in my book is Lemma 4.1 (There is also, no prop 3.18), there is a little subtletly here since you are asserting an homeomorphism, that might not be true with your defined topology. Maybe define a subbasis with those pre-images, taking a countable basis of $\mathbb{R}^n$. I mixed your answer with Frost's and I think it works, thanks. $\endgroup$ – Bajo Fondo Jul 25 '18 at 2:20
  • $\begingroup$ @BajoFondo : Maybe you use different edition (mine was 2ed). Why you say that $\widetilde{\varphi}$ might not be a homeomorphism ? I think its clearly stated in the proposition (by exhibit its continous inverse). $\endgroup$ – Sou Jul 25 '18 at 2:35
  • $\begingroup$ Take $U \times V \subset \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{R}^n$ open set. Then $\widetilde{\varphi}^{-1}(U \times V)$ is not $\pi^{-1}(V_{\alpha})$ for any $V_{\alpha}$. Fix $p \in U$, then $\{p\} \times T_pM \subset \pi^{-1}(U)$ but take a $v_p$ that is not in $V$, then $(p,v_p) \in \{p\} \times T_pM \subset \pi^{-1}(U)$, but it is not in $\widetilde{\varphi}^{-1}(U \times V)$, hence $\widetilde{\varphi}^{-1}(U \times V)$ cannot be of the form $\pi^{-1}(U)$. The idea is that with your topology your open sets are the union of the elements of a class $\{\{p\} \times T_pM; p \in U_{\alpha}\}$. $\endgroup$ – Bajo Fondo Jul 25 '18 at 19:30
  • $\begingroup$ @BajoFondo You're right i made a mistake about the topology. Let me amend it. $\endgroup$ – Sou Jul 25 '18 at 20:06

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.