$f: X \to Y$ and $Z$ are appropriate for intersection theory ($X,Y,Z$ are boundaryless oriented manifolds, $X$ is compact, $Z$ is closed submanifold of $Y$, and $\dim X + \dim Z = \dim Y$), $f$ is transversal to $Z$. According to the text:

If $f(x) = z \in Z$, then transversality plus dimensional complementarity give a direct sum $$df_xT_x(X) \oplus T_z(Z) = T_z(Y). \tag{1}$$ - Guillemin and Pollack, Differential Topology Page 108

So I am missing a piece here. From transversality, I know $$df_xT_x(x) + T_z(Z) = T_z(Y). \tag{2}$$

From dimensional complementarity, I know $$\dim X + \dim Z = \dim Y,$$ and by linearity of tangent space, I know $$\dim T_x(X) + \dim T_y(Z) = \dim T_y(Y). \tag{3}$$

But in order to get $(1)$ from $(2)(3)$, I need $\dim T_x(X) = \dim df_x T_x(X).$

Can anyone fill this up for me?

Also, consequently,

The orientation of $X$ provides an orientation of $df_xT_x(X).$ Then the orientation number at $x$ is $+1$ if the orientation on $df_xT_x(X)$ and $T_z(Z)$ "add up" to the prescribed orientation on $Y$.

So I am totally confused. What does it mean by "add up" to the prescribed orientation?

Definition: Orientation of $V$, a finite-dimensional real vector space: Let $\beta, \beta^\prime$ be ordered basis of $V$, then there is a unique linear isomorphism $A: V \to V$ such that $\beta = A \beta^\prime$. The sign given an ordered basis $\beta$ is called its orientation.

Definition: Orientation of $X$, a manifold with boundary: A smooth choice of orientations for all the tangent space $T_x(X).$

  • $\begingroup$ I changed numerous instances of \operatorname{dim} to \dim. That's always something to consider trying before using \operatorname{}. I also put in some proper uses of \tag{}. $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy Jul 19 '13 at 20:23
  • $\begingroup$ Dear @MichaelHardy I see, I'll follow it in the future. thanks a lot. $\endgroup$ – 1LiterTears Jul 19 '13 at 20:23
  • $\begingroup$ The text: what text? $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Jul 19 '13 at 20:24
  • $\begingroup$ . . . . also, when there are so MANY instances, you might write \newcommand{\whatever}{\operatorname{whatever}} and the top of the posting and then just type \whatever as many times as it's needed in the sequel. (It doesn't work in headings, though.) $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy Jul 19 '13 at 20:25
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ :_(.... @MarianoSuárez-Alvarez........I'm sorry.. I won't do it again... $\endgroup$ – 1LiterTears Jul 19 '13 at 20:26

Regarding the first part, for every linear map $\Lambda \colon V \to W$, you have

$$\dim V = \dim \ker \Lambda + \dim \operatorname{im} \Lambda,$$

as can be seen by extending a basis of $\ker \Lambda$. Consequently, $\dim \operatorname{im} \Lambda \leqslant \dim V$.

So you have

$$\begin{align} T_z(Y) = T_z(Z) + df_x T_x() &\Rightarrow \dim df_x T_x(X) \geqslant \dim Y - \dim Z = \dim X\\ \dim df_x T_x() = \dim X - \dim \ker df_x &\Rightarrow \dim df_x Tx(X) \leqslant \dim Y - \dim Z = \dim X \end{align}$$

together, that implies $\dim df_x T_x(X) = \dim T_x(X) = \dim X$, and therefore $df_x T_x(X) \cap T_z(Z) = \{0\}$, hence the sum is direct.

Regarding the second, $df_x$ maps a basis belonging to the orientation of $X$ at $x$ to a basis $\mathcal{B}_X = (v_1,\, \dotsc,\, v_k)$ of $df_x Tx(X) \subset T_z(Y)$. You then pick a basis $\mathcal{B}_Z = (w_1,\, \dotsc,\, w_m)$ of $T_z(Z) \subset T_z(Y)$ belonging to the orientation of $Z$ at $z$. You then combine the two bases to a basis $(v_1,\, \dotsc,\, v_k,\, w_1,\, \dotsc,\, w_m)$ of $T_z(Y)$ - it is a basis because you have a direct sum decomposition of $T_z(Y)$. That's how the two orientations "add up". If the combined basis belongs to the orientation, the orientation number is $+1$ else $-1$.

  • $\begingroup$ Hi Daniel, thanks a lot for your help with the first question. I understand now, and it is really very very helpful. Thanks a lot. I added the definition of orientation - sorry that I should had done so. I made it a new problem here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/447864/… $\endgroup$ – 1LiterTears Jul 20 '13 at 6:03
  • $\begingroup$ I've adjusted the second part to the used definition (though admittedly somewhat short). Does that help? $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Jul 20 '13 at 9:38
  • $\begingroup$ Dear Daniel, that certainly clears up my doubts! Thank you so much! Do you mind copy your answer to the second question here? Thanks! math.stackexchange.com/questions/447864/… $\endgroup$ – 1LiterTears Jul 21 '13 at 21:10

From transversality (2), you know $\dim f_xT_x(X)\geq \dim Y-\dim Z$. From linear algebra, you know that the image of a linear map has at most the dimension of the domain, so $\dim f_xT_x(X)\leq\dim X$. Combine those two inequalities with the complementarity equation (3) to see that both inequalities are in fact equalities, and you have what you needed.


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.