Definition of a smooth function on $[0,1]^k$
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Let $M$ be a smooth manifold, and $f: [0,1]^k rightarrow M$ be a continuous function which is smooth on $(0,1)^k$. I have seen two definitions of what it means for $f$ to be smooth. First, there exists an open neighborhood $U subset mathbb R^k$ such that $f$ extends to a smooth function on $U$. Second, at each point $p$ on the boundary of $[0,1]^k$, there exists an open neighborhood $U$ of $p$ such that $f$ extends to a smooth function on $U cap (0,1)^k$.
Are these two definitions equivalent? If not, what should be the "correct" definition? Say, for the purpose of defining singular homology and integration of differential forms?
calculus differential-geometry smooth-manifolds
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Let $M$ be a smooth manifold, and $f: [0,1]^k rightarrow M$ be a continuous function which is smooth on $(0,1)^k$. I have seen two definitions of what it means for $f$ to be smooth. First, there exists an open neighborhood $U subset mathbb R^k$ such that $f$ extends to a smooth function on $U$. Second, at each point $p$ on the boundary of $[0,1]^k$, there exists an open neighborhood $U$ of $p$ such that $f$ extends to a smooth function on $U cap (0,1)^k$.
Are these two definitions equivalent? If not, what should be the "correct" definition? Say, for the purpose of defining singular homology and integration of differential forms?
calculus differential-geometry smooth-manifolds
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Let $M$ be a smooth manifold, and $f: [0,1]^k rightarrow M$ be a continuous function which is smooth on $(0,1)^k$. I have seen two definitions of what it means for $f$ to be smooth. First, there exists an open neighborhood $U subset mathbb R^k$ such that $f$ extends to a smooth function on $U$. Second, at each point $p$ on the boundary of $[0,1]^k$, there exists an open neighborhood $U$ of $p$ such that $f$ extends to a smooth function on $U cap (0,1)^k$.
Are these two definitions equivalent? If not, what should be the "correct" definition? Say, for the purpose of defining singular homology and integration of differential forms?
calculus differential-geometry smooth-manifolds
Let $M$ be a smooth manifold, and $f: [0,1]^k rightarrow M$ be a continuous function which is smooth on $(0,1)^k$. I have seen two definitions of what it means for $f$ to be smooth. First, there exists an open neighborhood $U subset mathbb R^k$ such that $f$ extends to a smooth function on $U$. Second, at each point $p$ on the boundary of $[0,1]^k$, there exists an open neighborhood $U$ of $p$ such that $f$ extends to a smooth function on $U cap (0,1)^k$.
Are these two definitions equivalent? If not, what should be the "correct" definition? Say, for the purpose of defining singular homology and integration of differential forms?
calculus differential-geometry smooth-manifolds
calculus differential-geometry smooth-manifolds
edited Nov 21 at 1:20
asked Nov 21 at 1:04
D_S
13.1k51551
13.1k51551
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Yes, these definitions are equivalents. The first one clearly implies the second. Using the notion of partition of unity (see here), you can show that the second one also implies the first.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Yes, both definition are equivalent. You can use partitions of unity: Suppose that for every $x$ in $[0,1]^k$ there exists an open neighborhood of $x$ and a smooth function $f_x:Ucap (0,1)^k to M$ wich agrees with $f$. By compactness of $[0,1]^k$ there exists a finite cover ${U_1,ldots, U_r}$ of $[0,1]^k$ consisting in some of such neighborhoods. Take a partition of unity ${varphi_1,ldots,varphi_r}$ subordinated to the cover and define $F:cup_iU_ito M$ by the formula $F(x)=sum_ivarphi_i(x)f_i(x)$.
New contributor
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Yes, these definitions are equivalents. The first one clearly implies the second. Using the notion of partition of unity (see here), you can show that the second one also implies the first.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Yes, these definitions are equivalents. The first one clearly implies the second. Using the notion of partition of unity (see here), you can show that the second one also implies the first.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Yes, these definitions are equivalents. The first one clearly implies the second. Using the notion of partition of unity (see here), you can show that the second one also implies the first.
Yes, these definitions are equivalents. The first one clearly implies the second. Using the notion of partition of unity (see here), you can show that the second one also implies the first.
answered Nov 21 at 1:18
rldias
2,9301522
2,9301522
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Yes, both definition are equivalent. You can use partitions of unity: Suppose that for every $x$ in $[0,1]^k$ there exists an open neighborhood of $x$ and a smooth function $f_x:Ucap (0,1)^k to M$ wich agrees with $f$. By compactness of $[0,1]^k$ there exists a finite cover ${U_1,ldots, U_r}$ of $[0,1]^k$ consisting in some of such neighborhoods. Take a partition of unity ${varphi_1,ldots,varphi_r}$ subordinated to the cover and define $F:cup_iU_ito M$ by the formula $F(x)=sum_ivarphi_i(x)f_i(x)$.
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Yes, both definition are equivalent. You can use partitions of unity: Suppose that for every $x$ in $[0,1]^k$ there exists an open neighborhood of $x$ and a smooth function $f_x:Ucap (0,1)^k to M$ wich agrees with $f$. By compactness of $[0,1]^k$ there exists a finite cover ${U_1,ldots, U_r}$ of $[0,1]^k$ consisting in some of such neighborhoods. Take a partition of unity ${varphi_1,ldots,varphi_r}$ subordinated to the cover and define $F:cup_iU_ito M$ by the formula $F(x)=sum_ivarphi_i(x)f_i(x)$.
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Yes, both definition are equivalent. You can use partitions of unity: Suppose that for every $x$ in $[0,1]^k$ there exists an open neighborhood of $x$ and a smooth function $f_x:Ucap (0,1)^k to M$ wich agrees with $f$. By compactness of $[0,1]^k$ there exists a finite cover ${U_1,ldots, U_r}$ of $[0,1]^k$ consisting in some of such neighborhoods. Take a partition of unity ${varphi_1,ldots,varphi_r}$ subordinated to the cover and define $F:cup_iU_ito M$ by the formula $F(x)=sum_ivarphi_i(x)f_i(x)$.
New contributor
Yes, both definition are equivalent. You can use partitions of unity: Suppose that for every $x$ in $[0,1]^k$ there exists an open neighborhood of $x$ and a smooth function $f_x:Ucap (0,1)^k to M$ wich agrees with $f$. By compactness of $[0,1]^k$ there exists a finite cover ${U_1,ldots, U_r}$ of $[0,1]^k$ consisting in some of such neighborhoods. Take a partition of unity ${varphi_1,ldots,varphi_r}$ subordinated to the cover and define $F:cup_iU_ito M$ by the formula $F(x)=sum_ivarphi_i(x)f_i(x)$.
New contributor
New contributor
answered Nov 21 at 1:24
Dante Grevino
4516
4516
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3007119%2fdefinition-of-a-smooth-function-on-0-1k%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown