1
$\begingroup$

This question might be very naive since I haven't taken much topology or differential geometry yet; so please make the answer more conceptual than mathematical. We can think of a two dimensional sheet as joining an infinite number of one dimensional lines along a second dimension that doesn't exist for the lines. This also works if the surface is curved, only now, the lines are one dimensional curves.

So, in a sense, spaces can be joined together along a higher dimension if the lower dimensional spaces change slowly enough as we move along the higher dimension - or else we would not have a smooth surface at the end. If what I meant is not clear, the image below might explain it better:

enter image description here

enter image description here

In a sense, what I mean by the curves changing too fast is that after combining them, the resulting surface might not be continuous or differentiable (but I suppose I can only say this if the surface can be embedded in a euclidean space).

So my question is this: given an infinite set of manifolds (reasonably smooth or continuous and not necessarily reimannian) of dimension "n", is there a way to connect them like above in a higher dimension to give us a n+1 dimensional manifold?

If so, what conditions do the manifolds need to satisfy (conceptually)? If this question is too mathematical to answer conceptually, please list a few sources or let me know what this is called so that I can read about this myself.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

This is a good question and there are a couple of different ways to make it precise, all of which lead to quite interesting mathematics. One is to ignore everything happening in the "middle" and focus on the "ends"; that is, we will settle for connecting two manifolds, forget about infinitely many for now. Then what you are talking about is known as a cobordism between two manifolds $M, N$, meaning a manifold in one higher dimension whose boundary is $M \sqcup N$. If a cobordism exists between $M, N$ they are said to be cobordant. As a simple example, the pair of pants is a cobordism between a circle $S^1$ and two circles $S^1 \sqcup S^1$:

enter image description here

If you slice up a pair of pants and think of it as a "movie" going forward in time you'll note that in the middle you get a wedge of two circles, which is not a manifold. This sort of thing is investigated in Morse theory, which is a whole fascinating topic in itself and about which I will say nothing more.

As a general question we can ask:

Question: When are two $n$-manifolds $M, N$ cobordant?

You might think that this is a hard and deep problem in manifold topology. Remarkably, for closed $n$-manifolds this question has a more-or-less complete answer due to Thom. Associated to any such $n$-manifold is a bunch of numbers called the Stiefel-Whitney numbers, which take values $\bmod 2$, and Thom showed:

Theorem (Thom): Two closed $n$-manifolds $M, N$ are cobordant iff their Stiefel-Whitney numbers are the same.

The simplest Stiefel-Whitney number to explain is called $w_n$, and it's given by the Euler characteristic $\bmod 2$. It's a nice exercise to show that this is a cobordism invariant, meaning that if $M$ and $N$ are cobordant then $\chi(M) \equiv \chi(N) \bmod 2$.

Corollary: A closed manifold with odd Euler characteristic is not cobordant to a closed manifold with even Euler characteristic.

For example, the real projective plane $\mathbb{RP}^2$ has Euler characteristic $1$ and so is not cobordant to the torus $T^2$ (Euler characteristic $0$) or the $2$-sphere $S^2$ (Euler characteristic $2$). However, the torus and the $2$-sphere are cobordant (exercise), and in fact every pair of closed orientable surfaces is cobordant (exercise). This is a very special case of Thom's theorem (which can be proven much more easily than what Thom did), since it turns out that for such surfaces both of the Stiefel-Whitney numbers (which are called $w_1^2$ and $w_2$) vanish.

There's a whole lot more to say here about cobordism rings and so forth but this is a good place to stop for now, I think.

$\endgroup$

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.