1
$\begingroup$

I've seen the following claim in some lectures notes which let me think that I might have a major misunderstanding:

The claim is that if $M$ is an embedded submanifold of $\mathbb R^d$ with boundary of codimension $1$ and $f$ and $V$ are differentiable scalar and vector fields, respectively, then $$\operatorname{div}fV=f\operatorname{div}V+\frac{\partial f}{\partial\nu}\langle V,\nu\rangle+\langle\nabla f,V_{\partial M}\tag1,$$ where $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial\nu}:=\langle\nabla f,\nu\rangle,$$ $\nu$ is the normal field and $V_{\partial M}$ is the tangential component of $V$ (i.e. the projection of $V$ onto the tangent space).

I don't understand why it is important that $M$ has codimension $1$. If $M$ is $k$-dimensional, then $\partial M$ is $(k-1)$-dimensional. If $M$ has codimension $1$, then it is $(d-1)$-dimensional and hence $\partial M$ is $(d-2)$-dimensional .... Why should this be of any use in $(1)$?

Assuming $M$ is $k$-dimensional, $(1)$ should trivially follow from $$\operatorname{div}(fV)(x)=\langle\nabla f(x),V(x)\rangle+f(x)\operatorname{div}V(x)\;\;\;\text{for all }x\in\mathbb R^k$$ and $$\langle\nabla f(x),V(x)\rangle=\langle\nabla f(x),\operatorname P_{T_x(\partial M)}V(x)\rangle+\langle V(x),\nu(x)\rangle\frac{\partial f}{\partial\nu}(x)\tag2$$ for all $x\in\partial M$, where $\operatorname P_{T_x(\partial M)}$ denotes the orthogonal projection of $\mathbb R^k$ onto the tangent space $T_x(\partial M)$ of $\partial M$ at $x\in\partial M$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ How do you define the normal field if the codimension is not 1? $\endgroup$
    – peek-a-boo
    Jul 10 '20 at 15:36
  • $\begingroup$ @peek-a-boo In the same way as described in my other question: math.stackexchange.com/q/3748993/47771. Isn't it only important the codimension of $\partial M$ is $1$ (which it always is)? $\endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    Jul 10 '20 at 15:47
3
$\begingroup$

First, perhaps you misread the requirement: it is not itself $M$ that must have codimension 1, it is instead the boundary of $M$, denoted $\partial M$, that must have codimension 1. But the phrase "... with boundary of codimension 1... " leaves out some information which could perhaps clarify the situation: that phrase should be parsed as

... such that the boundary of $M$ has codimension in $\mathbb R^d$ equal to 1...

Equivalently, $M$ itself must have codimension in $\mathbb R^d$ equal to 0.

So, why must $\partial M$ have codimension $1$ in $\mathbb R^d$?

As soon as you write the words "$\nu$ is the normal field and $V_{\partial M}$ is the projection of $V$ onto the tangent space", one wonders: normal field of what? Tangent space of what? The only sensible answer that I can see is that $\nu$ is the normal field to $\partial M$ and $V_{\partial M}$ is the projection of $V$ onto the tangent space of $\partial M$.

And in order that $\partial M$ even possess a normal field, it must have codimension 1. So, in order for the $v$ term in equation (1) to even be defined, $\partial M$ must have codimension 1.

(It might be clearer if one rewrites equation (1) with proper quantifiers: each term should have the argument $x$ in the correct position, sort of like you did in the later equations; and the equation should hold for each $x \in \partial M$.)

The point here is that a submanifold of dimension $n \ge 2$ or higher does not have a well-defined normal field. It does have a well-defined normal bundle, which is a vector bundle of dimension $n$. For example, for a circle $C$ embedded in $\mathbb R^3$, which has codimension 2, its normal bundle has fibers of dimension $2$: at each point $x \in C$, the normal plane $N_x C$ is the 2-dimensional subspace of $T_x \mathbb R^3$ ($= \mathbb R^3$) which is normal to the 1-dimensional tangent line $T_x C$.

In general, for an codimension $m$ submanifold $B \subset \mathbb R^n$, the normal bundle is an $m$-dimensional vector bundle over $B$, whose fiber $N_x B$ is the $m$-dimensional subspace of $T_x \mathbb R^n$ (which is identified with $\approx \mathbb R^n$) that is normal to the $n-m$ dimensional subspace $T_x B$ of $T_x \mathbb R^n$. It follows that there is an orthogonal direct sum $$T_x \mathbb R^n = T_x B \oplus N_x B $$ And then, as you asked in the comments, for the case that $n=d$ and that $B = \partial M$ has codimension 1 in $\mathbb R^n$, one obtains $$T_x \mathbb R^d = T_x (\partial M) \oplus N_x (\partial M) $$

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer. But doesn't isn't the codimension of the boundary $\partial M$ (which is a $k-1$-dimensional submanifold) of a $k$-dimensional submanifold with boundary $M$ always $(1)$? And we have the orthogonal decomposition $\mathbb R^k=T_x(\partial M)\oplus N_x(\partial M)$. $\endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    Jul 10 '20 at 16:00
  • $\begingroup$ I've rewritten the first paragraph of my answer a bit, in order to clarify the notion of "codimension" for purposes of your question and my answer. Does this clear things up? $\endgroup$
    – Lee Mosher
    Jul 11 '20 at 16:15
  • $\begingroup$ I also added some lines at the end regarding the orthogonal decomposition. $\endgroup$
    – Lee Mosher
    Jul 11 '20 at 16:18
  • $\begingroup$ I'm sorry, I don't know what I was thinking. For some reason, I thought about $\partial M$ as a submanifold of $\mathbb R^k$; which it is not. It is a submanifold of $\mathbb R^d$ with dimension $k-1$ and so the normal space has dimension $d-(k-1)$. $\endgroup$
    – 0xbadf00d
    Jul 11 '20 at 17:16

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.