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?










share|cite|improve this question




























    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?










    share|cite|improve this question


























      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?










      share|cite|improve this question















      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






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 21 at 1:20

























      asked Nov 21 at 1:04









      D_S

      13.1k51551




      13.1k51551






















          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer




























            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 $F(x)=sum_ivarphi_i(x)f_i(x)$.






            share|cite|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Dante Grevino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.


















              Your Answer





              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              });
              });
              }, "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function() {
              var channelOptions = {
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "69"
              };
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
              createEditor();
              });
              }
              else {
              createEditor();
              }
              });

              function createEditor() {
              StackExchange.prepareEditor({
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              convertImagesToLinks: true,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: 10,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader: {
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              },
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              });


              }
              });














               

              draft saved


              draft discarded


















              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

























              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.






              share|cite|improve this answer

























                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.






                share|cite|improve this answer























                  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.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  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.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Nov 21 at 1:18









                  rldias

                  2,9301522




                  2,9301522






















                      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 $F(x)=sum_ivarphi_i(x)f_i(x)$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      Dante Grevino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                        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 $F(x)=sum_ivarphi_i(x)f_i(x)$.






                        share|cite|improve this answer








                        New contributor




                        Dante Grevino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                          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 $F(x)=sum_ivarphi_i(x)f_i(x)$.






                          share|cite|improve this answer








                          New contributor




                          Dante Grevino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.









                          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 $F(x)=sum_ivarphi_i(x)f_i(x)$.







                          share|cite|improve this answer








                          New contributor




                          Dante Grevino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.









                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer






                          New contributor




                          Dante Grevino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.









                          answered Nov 21 at 1:24









                          Dante Grevino

                          4516




                          4516




                          New contributor




                          Dante Grevino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.





                          New contributor





                          Dante Grevino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.






                          Dante Grevino is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.






























                               

                              draft saved


                              draft discarded



















































                               


                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              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





















































                              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







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Wiesbaden

                              Marschland

                              Dieringhausen