What does this definition of $C^k$ surface mean?

358 Views Asked by At

Reference: Richard Millman - Elements of differential geometry

I'm reading this book and there is a really wierd definition in this book:

To descrive the theorem, here are some definitions in this book

Definition1

Let $U$ be open in $\mathbb{R}^2$ and $x:U\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^3$ be an injective $C^k$ function.

Then, $x$ is said to be a $C^k$ coordinate patch iff $\frac{\partial x}{\partial u_1}\times\frac{\partial x}{\partial u_2}\neq 0$.

Moreover, we call $x$ is proper if $x$ is a topological embedding.

Definition2

Let $U$ and $V$ be two open sets in $\mathbb{R}^2$.

Let $f:U\rightarrow V$ be a $C^k$ -bijective function.

Then, $f$ is a $C^k$ coordinate transformation iff its inverse is $C^k$

And below is the definition I don't get:

A $C^k$ surface is a subset $M\subset \mathbb{R}^3$ such that for every point $P\in M$ there is a proper $C^k$ coordinate patch whose image is in $M$ and which contains an $\epsilon$ neighborhood of $P$ for some $\epsilon>0$. Furthermore, if both $x:U\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^3$ and $y:V\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^3$ are such coordinate patches with $U'=x(U)$, $V'=y(V)$, them $y^{-1}\circ x: (x^{-1}(U'\cap V'))\rightarrow (y^{-1}(U'\cap V'))$ is a $C^k$ coordinate transformation.

This definition is super strange since this is quite opposite view of the standard definition of atlases and charts.

I especially don't get the last sentence.

The definition starts with "If $p\in M$, then there exists a $C^k$-coordinate patch $x$ such that ...." -(1), however I think it should be "There exists a collection $\{(U,x)\}$ such that for each $p\in M$..." - (2)

Am I right?

And below is an example which comes after the definition and in this example, argument is based on (2).

Which one is he talking about?

Example

2

There are 2 best solutions below

2
On BEST ANSWER

Typically, one does not have an atlas at hand. For this reason it is not beneficial to describe a surface as being the image of an atlas, only that one exists (which is what he is claiming by saying that $M$ is contained in the images of such charts or, there is a chart for each $p\in M$).

They are actually not different definitions. Suppose for every $p$ there is such a chart. Then the collection of these charts forms an atlas. Conversely, if one has such an atlas, then at every point $p\in M$ there is a chart.

The definition given is the typical definition for a $C^k$ differentiable structure on $M$.

0
On

The same things, different wordings. Read it carefully and try to see how the author and you mean the same things.