Personally I'd say $M$ wasn't a valid manifold with boundary because the $\{2\}$ doesn't have a neighborhood with any structure like an open ball/half-ball.

  • This is actually an exercise from An Introduction to Manifolds by Loring W. Tu and is not mentioned in an errata.

enter image description here

enter image description here

  • I have spent almost 2 hours thinking about an exercise that looked like it would take only 15 minutes and even tried pasting lemma (it's a good thing Professor Tu has solutions unlike Professor Lee): The result of all that thinking is that I don't think $[0,1) \cup \{2\}$, $(\varepsilon,1) \cup \{2\}$ or $\{2\}$ is homeomorphic to any open subset of $\mathscr H^1$ or $\mathscr L^1$. I was able to show $\{0\} \subseteq \partial M$ and $(0,1)\subseteq M^0$, but I don't quite know where $2$ belongs. I believe $M$ is not locally $\mathscr H^1$.

  • Also, I have double checked: I believe "manifold boundary" was defined for manifolds with boundary, so this isn't some trick where "manifold boundary" is actually defined for a Hausdorff and second countable space that need not be locally $\mathscr H^n$.

To generalize,

Is a half-open interval and a point not in the interval's closure a manifold with boundary?


We need to refer to a definition of manifold with boundary.

Tu says

A topological $n$-manifold with boundary is a second countable, Hausdorff topological space that is locally ${\cal H}^n$.

where ${\cal H}^1 = [0,\infty)$ with the usual topology, and

We say that a topological space $M$ is locally ${\cal H}^n$ if every point $p \in M$ has a neighborhood $U$ homeomorphic to an open subset of ${\cal H}^n$.

Now consider $[0,1) \cup \{2\}$. Because of the line segment, it can only be a manifold with boundary if it is $n=1$ dimensional.

Now consider $p = 2$. Then every neighbourhood $U$ of $p$ contains an open set containing only one point. But no open set in ${\cal H}^1$ contains only one point. Hence $U$ cannot be homeomorphic to any subset of ${\cal H}^1$. Therefore, this is not a manifold with boundary.

As far as I can see, this isn't really open for debate given Tu's definitions (though perhaps I'm missing something!).

Edit: I should emphasize that it's fairly arbitrary whether one defines only "topological $n$-manifold" and "topological $n$-manifold with boundary", or if one generalizes to "topological manifold" and "topological manifold with boundary" where the $n$ can vary between different $p \in M$. As far as I can see, Tu does not actually define the latter notions.

If one does define these notions, then clearly this is a topological manifold which is a union of an $n=0$ manifold $\{2\}$ and a $n=1$ dimensional manifold with boundary $[0,1)$.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Does Tu define topological manifold or just topological n-manifold? I agree that $[0,1) \cup \{2\}$ is not a topological $n$-manifold with boundary for any fixed $n$, but I would definitely call it a topological manifold with boundary. $\endgroup$ – Jason DeVito Mar 13 at 13:56
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I don't know about Tu, but the standard definition is that $M$ is a topological manifold if there exists $n \in \{0,1,2,\ldots\}$ such that $M$ is a topological $n$-manifold. So by this definition, $[0,1) \cup \{2\}$ is not a topological manifold (with boundary or otherwise). @JasonDeVito $\endgroup$ – Lee Mosher Mar 13 at 14:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Lee: The standard definition I am used to allows $M$ to have components of different dimensions. I agree that by your "standard" definition, $[0,1)\cup\{2\}$ is not a manifold with boundary. But I also think that with my "standard" definitition, it is. $\endgroup$ – Jason DeVito Mar 13 at 14:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JasonDeVito The given definition is the only definition of a manifold with boundary. For what it's worth, the without-boundary definitions technically also restrict to topological $n$-manifold: "A topological space $M$ is locally Euclidean of dimension $n$...", and "A topological manifold is a Hausdorff, second countable, locally Euclidean space. It is said to be of dimension $n$ if it is locally Euclidean of dimension $n$." It's purely a semantic issue though. I'll edit the answer to emphasize this a matter of convention only. $\endgroup$ – Sharkos Mar 13 at 21:07
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Sharkos! $\endgroup$ – Selene Auckland Apr 13 at 8:28

The subset $[0,1[ \cup \{2\}$ of the real line is a manifold with boundary having two connected components of different dimensions. The component $[0,1[$ is a 1-dimensional manifold with boundary, and the single point {2} is a 0-dimensional manifold.


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.