let $S$ be the set of pairs $(x,y)$ where x,y are orthogonal unit vectors in $\mathbb R^3$. i am trying to show this is a topological manifold. for starters one needs to define a suitable topology on it. i was thinking let a set $U$ be open in $S$ iff $U \cap S^2$ (intersection with sphere) is open in $S^2$ in the subspace topology? am i going in the right direction? I'd really appreicate some help. thank you

this is really about topological manifold, sorry for not stating it earlier.

here is the definition:

a manifold is a second countable Hausdorff space that is locally Euclidean.

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ $S$ is a subset of $(\mathbb{R}^3)^2$, so the obvious thing to do is to give it its natural topology as a subspace of that product. $\endgroup$ – Chris Eagle Mar 4 '13 at 16:39
  • $\begingroup$ @ChrisEagle yeah right, not sure why i didn't think of that. thanks! $\endgroup$ – tom b. Mar 4 '13 at 16:41
  • $\begingroup$ @user58260: It is $\mathbb R^3\times\mathbb R^3$ $\endgroup$ – mrs Mar 4 '13 at 16:43

Your set $S$ is a subset of $\mathbb R^6$, so give it the subspace topology. That ensures it's 2nd countable and Hausdorff.

To show it's a manifold, notice $S$ is the pairs $(x,y) \in \mathbb R^3 \times \mathbb R^3$ such that:

$$ |x|^2 =1,\ \ |y|^2=1, \ \ x\cdot y = 0 $$

This is the same as saying $S = f^{-1}(1,1,0)$ where $f(x,y) = (|x|^2, |y|^2, x \cdot y)$.

So the idea would be to show $(1,1,0)$ is a regular-value of $f$, then apply the preimage theorem as Qiaochu cites. The pre-image theorem is basically just the implicit function theorem from calculus, but re-cast in a convenient formalism for saying things are manifolds.

  • $\begingroup$ thank you for this great answer. it means there is no getting around smooth maps? (since the preimage theorem also requires $f$ to be smooth) it is not clear to me that every subset of $\mathbb R^6$ with the subspace topology is second countable: what if the subspace is the set of all $x \in \mathbb R^6$ with $x_n \in \mathbb R \setminus \mathbb Q$? but maybe this is not what you're saying in your first sentence. $\endgroup$ – tom b. Mar 9 '13 at 7:53
  • $\begingroup$ Of course you can avoid smooth maps in the argument, but why bother? You don't need to, so don't bother with the extra effort. I think you're thinking too hard about the second countable claim -- the proof is direct. A base for the ambient topology restricts to a base for the subspace topology. So if one is countable, the other is too. $\endgroup$ – Ryan Budney Mar 11 '13 at 5:14
  • $\begingroup$ right, of course. thanks, $\endgroup$ – tom b. Mar 12 '13 at 19:16
  • $\begingroup$ Where does Qiaochu cite the preimage theorem? $\endgroup$ – Ben Millwood Mar 12 '13 at 19:41
  • $\begingroup$ Ben Millwood: These two threads were simultaneous math.stackexchange.com/questions/320700/… $\endgroup$ – Ryan Budney Mar 12 '13 at 21:22

It is a smooth manifold of dimension 3. Indeed : let $F : S^2 \times S^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be defined by $F(x,y)=\sum_i x_i y_i$ (the standard inner product). $F$ is a smooth map on the smooth manifold $S^2 \times S^2$ and its derivative does not vanish so it is a submersion. Bu the submersion property, the set of its zeroes is a manifold of dimension $2*2-1=3$.

  • $\begingroup$ what do i have to show if i just want to show it is a topological manifold with no smoothness intended? $\endgroup$ – tom b. Mar 4 '13 at 20:05
  • $\begingroup$ thanks for the great answer btw $\endgroup$ – tom b. Mar 4 '13 at 20:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Your map $F$ can't be a submersion, since there aren't any submersions $S^2 \times S^2 \to \mathbb R$. Submersions are open maps, but the domain is compact and the real numbers are not. $F$ fails to be a submersion on vectors $(v,v)$. But that shows you how to correct your argument. $\endgroup$ – Ryan Budney Mar 5 '13 at 7:38
  • $\begingroup$ if you edit your answer could you also add an explanation of what the submersion property is please? i tried to look it up but couldn't find it anywhere. thanks $\endgroup$ – tom b. Mar 5 '13 at 7:46
  • $\begingroup$ @Ryan: a very nice observation (that I had missed)! $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg Mar 7 '13 at 20:02

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.