This is a proposition for topological manifolds. However, I am wondering if this prop holds when $M$ is a topological manifold "with boundary." Thus, can the expression like "a smooth atlas on a topological manifold with boundary defines(determines) a smooth structure on it" be used based on (a) of this proposition? I have a suspicion that my guess is true. However I am not perfectly sure. Am I correct?
2026-02-22 17:43:21.1771782201
"Defining a smooth structure on a topological manifold with boundary"
444 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in MANIFOLDS
- a problem related with path lifting property
- Possible condition on locally Euclidean subsets of Euclidean space to be embedded submanifold
- Using the calculus of one forms prove this identity
- "Defining a smooth structure on a topological manifold with boundary"
- On the differentiable manifold definition given by Serge Lang
- Equivalence of different "balls" in Riemannian manifold.
- Hyperboloid is a manifold
- Integration of one-form
- The graph of a smooth map is a manifold
- domain of exponential map for a compact manifold
Related Questions in SMOOTH-MANIFOLDS
- Smooth Principal Bundle from continuous transition functions?
- Possible condition on locally Euclidean subsets of Euclidean space to be embedded submanifold
- "Defining a smooth structure on a topological manifold with boundary"
- Hyperboloid is a manifold
- The graph of a smooth map is a manifold
- An elementary proof that low rank maps cannot be open
- What does it mean by standard coordinates on $R^n$
- Partial Differential Equation using theory of manifolds
- Showing that a diffeomorphism preserves the boundary
- Some questions on the tangent bundle of manifolds
Related Questions in MANIFOLDS-WITH-BOUNDARY
- Regular surfaces with boundary and $C^1$ domains
- Integration of one-form
- Showing that a diffeomorphism preserves the boundary
- Giving a counterexample for the extension lemma of smooth functions
- A question about the proof of Extension Lemma for Smooth functions
- Manifolds with boundary and foliations
- Pullbacks and differential forms, require deep explanation + algebra rules
- Possible to describe random 3D surfaces (geograhical height over limited area) by formula?
- Can you hear the pins fall from bowling game scores?
- compute integral of function of distance to the boundary only
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?

The proof of the cited proposition should go something like this. Notice that it's very general. The argument I give here, due to the generality I use for smoothness of a map should apply word for word to manifolds as well as manifolds with boundary, and generalize naturally to other similar situations where a structure is defined by atlases of compatible charts.
We say two smooth atlases $A$ and $B$ are compatible if their union is a smooth atlas. Note that this relation is trivially symmetric and reflexive, since union is symmetric and idempotent. Also note that if $A\subseteq B$, then $A\cup B = B$, so $A$ and $B$ are compatible. Hence all atlases containing $A$ are compatible with $A$. We'll use $A\sim B$ to mean that $A$ and $B$ are compatible.
To prove (a), we need that if $\{B_i\}$, $i\in I$ is a family of smooth atlases compatible with $A$, then $\bigcup_{i\in I} B_i$ is also a smooth atlas. Then the union of all atlases compatible to a given atlas $A$ is maximal among atlases compatible to $A$ (which includes all atlases containing $A$), and is in fact the unique maximal compatible atlas, since it contains all other compatible atlases. Let $M_A$ denote the smooth structure of $A$.
Then to prove (b), one just needs to check that compatibility is transitive. Then if $A$ and $B$ are compatible, $M_A\sim A\sim B \sim M_B$, so $M_A\sim B$, which implies $M_A\subseteq M_B$ and $M_B\sim A$, which implies $M_B\subseteq M_A$. Hence $M_B=M_A$. Conversely, if $M_A=M_B$, then $A\sim M_A=M_B\sim B$, so $A\sim B$.
I've broken the argument up like this, because the same general argument can be applied in any case where one defines a structure on an object by a family of compatible charts that cover the object to argue that there is a unique maximal chart for that structure.
Now we've reduced the argument to verifying two properties of atlases:
Now $A$ and $B$ are compatible if and only if $A\cup B$ is a smooth atlas if and only if for all pairs of charts $\phi\in A$, $\psi\in B$, $\phi$ and $\psi$ are compatible charts, i.e. $\phi\circ\psi^{-1}$ and $\psi\circ\phi^{-1}$ are smooth maps. Property 1 follows immediately from the elementwise criterion for compatibility, since $A$ is compatible with $\bigcup_{i\in I} B_i$ if and only if every chart in $A$ is compatible with every chart in every $B_i$ if and only if $A$ is compatible with every $B_i$.
Thus property 1 holds in the case of manifolds or manifolds with boundary, or in more general situations where other kinds of atlases are defined as families of compatible charts. In particular (a) always holds in such situations.
Thus one only needs to verify (b) by verifying property 2. This is the only part of the proof that depends on the definition of compatibility of charts. One needs to show if every chart of $A$ is compatible with every chart of $B$, and if every chart of $B$ is compatible with every chart of $C$, then every chart of $A$ is compatible with every chart of $C$. The proof goes as follows.
First recall that if $X\subseteq\mathbb{R}^n$ is an arbitrary subset, then a map $\phi:X\to \mathbb{R}^m$ is smooth if for each point $x\in X$, there exists an open neighborhood $U$ of $x$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$ and a smooth map (in the usual sense) $\psi : U\to \mathbb{R}^m$ such that $\phi|_{U\cap X}=\psi|_{U\cap X}$. Then clearly restrictions of smooth maps are still smooth. Moreover, compositions of smooth functions are smooth, because if $\phi: X\to Y$, and $\psi : Y\to Z$, then if $x\in X$, there is an nhood $V$ of $\phi(x)$ on which $\psi$ can be extended to a smooth function, $\psi'$, and since $\phi$ is smooth, an nhood $U$ of $x$ such that $\phi(U)\subseteq V$, and on which $\phi$ can be extended to a smooth function, $\phi'$. Restricting $U$ further if necessary, so that $\phi'(U)\subseteq V$, we then have that $\psi'\circ\phi'$ is a smooth extension of $\psi\circ \phi$ to an nhood of $x$. Also since smoothness is a local condition, the gluing of smooth maps is smooth.
Let $(U,\phi)\in A$, $(V,\psi)\in B$, $(W,\tau)\in C$ where $U$, $V$, and $W$ are the open subsets of $M$ that are the domains of $\phi$, $\psi$, and $\tau$ respectively. Then $\phi\circ \psi^{-1} : \psi(U\cap V) \to \phi(U\cap V)$ is smooth, and $\psi\circ\tau^{-1} : \tau(W\cap V) \to \psi(W\cap V)$ is smooth, so $\phi\circ\psi^{-1}\circ\psi\circ\tau^{-1}=\phi\circ\tau^{-1}|_{\tau(W\cap V\cap U)} : \tau(W\cap V\cap U) \to \phi(W\cap V\cap U)$ is smooth, since compositions of smooth maps are smooth. Then as $\psi$ varies over all possible charts in $B$, since the corresponding domains $V$ cover $M$, $W\cap V\cap U$ covers $W\cap U$, and $\tau(W\cap V\cap U)$ covers $\tau(W\cap U)$. Since the map $\phi\circ\tau^{-1}$ is locally smooth on each $\tau(W\cap V\cap U)$, it's therefore smooth on all of $W\cap U$. By symmetry, $\tau\circ\phi^{-1}$ is also smooth. Hence $\phi$ and $\tau$ are compatible. Since $\phi$ and $\tau$ were arbitrary, $A\sim C$.