Definition of smooth manifold using sheaves.











up vote
9
down vote

favorite
2












While defining differential manifolds using the concept of sheaves wikipedia gives the following definition.




A differentiable manifold (of class $C_k$) consists of a pair $(M, mathcal{O}_M)$ where $M$ is a topological space, and $mathcal{O}_M$ is a sheaf of local $mathbb{R}$-algebras defined on $M$, such that the locally ringed space $(M,mathcal{O}_M)$ is locally isomorphic to $(mathbb{R}^n, mathcal{O})$.
[$mathcal{O}(U)=C^k(U,mathbb{R})$ is the structure sheaf on $mathbb{R}^n$.]


In one of my courses I have been asked to verify whether the above definition is equivalent to the standard definition using atlases, but in that the condition of "locally" ringed spaces is missing, that is I am supposed to prove that $M$ is a smooth manifold if and only if there is a sheaf $mathcal{O}_M$ of local $mathbb{R}$-algebras defined on $M$, such that the ringed space $(M,mathcal{O}_M)$ is locally isomorphic to $(mathbb{R}^n, mathcal{O})$ where $mathcal{O}(U)=C^{infty}(U,mathbb{R})$ is the structure sheaf on $mathbb{R}^n$.



So I was wondering if the condition of every stalk being a local ring (locally ringed space) is necessary in the case of smooth manifolds.






differential-geometry manifolds smooth-manifolds sheaf-theory ringed-spaces







share|cite|improve this question




























    up vote
    9
    down vote

    favorite
    2












    While defining differential manifolds using the concept of sheaves wikipedia gives the following definition.




    A differentiable manifold (of class $C_k$) consists of a pair $(M, mathcal{O}_M)$ where $M$ is a topological space, and $mathcal{O}_M$ is a sheaf of local $mathbb{R}$-algebras defined on $M$, such that the locally ringed space $(M,mathcal{O}_M)$ is locally isomorphic to $(mathbb{R}^n, mathcal{O})$.
    [$mathcal{O}(U)=C^k(U,mathbb{R})$ is the structure sheaf on $mathbb{R}^n$.]


    In one of my courses I have been asked to verify whether the above definition is equivalent to the standard definition using atlases, but in that the condition of "locally" ringed spaces is missing, that is I am supposed to prove that $M$ is a smooth manifold if and only if there is a sheaf $mathcal{O}_M$ of local $mathbb{R}$-algebras defined on $M$, such that the ringed space $(M,mathcal{O}_M)$ is locally isomorphic to $(mathbb{R}^n, mathcal{O})$ where $mathcal{O}(U)=C^{infty}(U,mathbb{R})$ is the structure sheaf on $mathbb{R}^n$.



    So I was wondering if the condition of every stalk being a local ring (locally ringed space) is necessary in the case of smooth manifolds.






    differential-geometry manifolds smooth-manifolds sheaf-theory ringed-spaces







    share|cite|improve this question


























      up vote
      9
      down vote

      favorite
      2









      up vote
      9
      down vote

      favorite
      2






      2





      While defining differential manifolds using the concept of sheaves wikipedia gives the following definition.




      A differentiable manifold (of class $C_k$) consists of a pair $(M, mathcal{O}_M)$ where $M$ is a topological space, and $mathcal{O}_M$ is a sheaf of local $mathbb{R}$-algebras defined on $M$, such that the locally ringed space $(M,mathcal{O}_M)$ is locally isomorphic to $(mathbb{R}^n, mathcal{O})$.
      [$mathcal{O}(U)=C^k(U,mathbb{R})$ is the structure sheaf on $mathbb{R}^n$.]


      In one of my courses I have been asked to verify whether the above definition is equivalent to the standard definition using atlases, but in that the condition of "locally" ringed spaces is missing, that is I am supposed to prove that $M$ is a smooth manifold if and only if there is a sheaf $mathcal{O}_M$ of local $mathbb{R}$-algebras defined on $M$, such that the ringed space $(M,mathcal{O}_M)$ is locally isomorphic to $(mathbb{R}^n, mathcal{O})$ where $mathcal{O}(U)=C^{infty}(U,mathbb{R})$ is the structure sheaf on $mathbb{R}^n$.



      So I was wondering if the condition of every stalk being a local ring (locally ringed space) is necessary in the case of smooth manifolds.






      differential-geometry manifolds smooth-manifolds sheaf-theory ringed-spaces







      share|cite|improve this question















      While defining differential manifolds using the concept of sheaves wikipedia gives the following definition.




      A differentiable manifold (of class $C_k$) consists of a pair $(M, mathcal{O}_M)$ where $M$ is a topological space, and $mathcal{O}_M$ is a sheaf of local $mathbb{R}$-algebras defined on $M$, such that the locally ringed space $(M,mathcal{O}_M)$ is locally isomorphic to $(mathbb{R}^n, mathcal{O})$.
      [$mathcal{O}(U)=C^k(U,mathbb{R})$ is the structure sheaf on $mathbb{R}^n$.]


      In one of my courses I have been asked to verify whether the above definition is equivalent to the standard definition using atlases, but in that the condition of "locally" ringed spaces is missing, that is I am supposed to prove that $M$ is a smooth manifold if and only if there is a sheaf $mathcal{O}_M$ of local $mathbb{R}$-algebras defined on $M$, such that the ringed space $(M,mathcal{O}_M)$ is locally isomorphic to $(mathbb{R}^n, mathcal{O})$ where $mathcal{O}(U)=C^{infty}(U,mathbb{R})$ is the structure sheaf on $mathbb{R}^n$.



      So I was wondering if the condition of every stalk being a local ring (locally ringed space) is necessary in the case of smooth manifolds.






      differential-geometry manifolds smooth-manifolds sheaf-theory ringed-spaces




      differential-geometry manifolds smooth-manifolds sheaf-theory ringed-spaces






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 20 hours ago









      Eric Wofsey

      175k12202326




      175k12202326










      asked Nov 12 '16 at 2:57









      HarshCurious

      1729




      1729






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          5
          down vote



          accepted
          +50










          Isomorphisms of locally ringed spaces are the same as isomorphisms of ringed spaces (which happen to be locally ringed), so you do not have to specify that $(M,mathcal{O}_M)$ is locally ringed. That is, if $(M,mathcal{O}_M)$ is a ringed space which is locally isomorphic to $(mathbb{R}^n, mathcal{O})$, then the stalks of $mathcal{O}_M$ are isomorphic to the corresponding stalks of $mathcal{O}$, and thus are local rings. The local isomorphisms from $(M,mathcal{O}_M)$ to $(mathbb{R}^n, mathcal{O})$ are then automatically isomorphisms of locally ringed spaces (basically, because the condition for a morphism to be "local" involves only the ringed space structure, and so is satisfied by any isomorphism of ringed spaces).



          So you can define a manifold as a ringed space that is locally isomorphic to $(mathbb{R}^n, mathcal{O})$. However, it is better to define it as a locally ringed space because smooth maps between manifolds correspond to morphisms of locally ringed spaces, not morphisms of ringed spaces. I don't know a counterexample off the top of my head (it seems rather complicated to construct one), but there isn't any reason to expect that a morphism of ringed spaces between two manifolds is the same thing as a smooth map. The local condition on morphisms says that pullback respects evaluation of smooth functions at points: that is, if $varphi:(M,mathcal{O}_M)to(N,mathcal{O}_N)$ is a morphism, $finmathcal{O}_N(U)$, and $pin varphi^{-1}(U)$, then $(varphi^*f)(p)=f(varphi(p))$. In this way, the pullback map $varphi^*$ on the sheaves is completely determined by the map of sets $Mto N$. If you drop this condition (i.e., you talk only about morphisms of ringed spaces instead of morphisms of locally ringed spaces), it seems very difficult to control what the pullback map $varphi^*$ can possibly look like.



          So to sum up: you don't need to say "locally ringed" instead of "ringed" when talking about the objects of the category of manifolds, but you (probably) do need to say it when talking about the morphisms (though I don't know a counterexample that would prove this).






          share|cite|improve this answer























            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%2f2010035%2fdefinition-of-smooth-manifold-using-sheaves%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            5
            down vote



            accepted
            +50










            Isomorphisms of locally ringed spaces are the same as isomorphisms of ringed spaces (which happen to be locally ringed), so you do not have to specify that $(M,mathcal{O}_M)$ is locally ringed. That is, if $(M,mathcal{O}_M)$ is a ringed space which is locally isomorphic to $(mathbb{R}^n, mathcal{O})$, then the stalks of $mathcal{O}_M$ are isomorphic to the corresponding stalks of $mathcal{O}$, and thus are local rings. The local isomorphisms from $(M,mathcal{O}_M)$ to $(mathbb{R}^n, mathcal{O})$ are then automatically isomorphisms of locally ringed spaces (basically, because the condition for a morphism to be "local" involves only the ringed space structure, and so is satisfied by any isomorphism of ringed spaces).



            So you can define a manifold as a ringed space that is locally isomorphic to $(mathbb{R}^n, mathcal{O})$. However, it is better to define it as a locally ringed space because smooth maps between manifolds correspond to morphisms of locally ringed spaces, not morphisms of ringed spaces. I don't know a counterexample off the top of my head (it seems rather complicated to construct one), but there isn't any reason to expect that a morphism of ringed spaces between two manifolds is the same thing as a smooth map. The local condition on morphisms says that pullback respects evaluation of smooth functions at points: that is, if $varphi:(M,mathcal{O}_M)to(N,mathcal{O}_N)$ is a morphism, $finmathcal{O}_N(U)$, and $pin varphi^{-1}(U)$, then $(varphi^*f)(p)=f(varphi(p))$. In this way, the pullback map $varphi^*$ on the sheaves is completely determined by the map of sets $Mto N$. If you drop this condition (i.e., you talk only about morphisms of ringed spaces instead of morphisms of locally ringed spaces), it seems very difficult to control what the pullback map $varphi^*$ can possibly look like.



            So to sum up: you don't need to say "locally ringed" instead of "ringed" when talking about the objects of the category of manifolds, but you (probably) do need to say it when talking about the morphisms (though I don't know a counterexample that would prove this).






            share|cite|improve this answer



























              up vote
              5
              down vote



              accepted
              +50










              Isomorphisms of locally ringed spaces are the same as isomorphisms of ringed spaces (which happen to be locally ringed), so you do not have to specify that $(M,mathcal{O}_M)$ is locally ringed. That is, if $(M,mathcal{O}_M)$ is a ringed space which is locally isomorphic to $(mathbb{R}^n, mathcal{O})$, then the stalks of $mathcal{O}_M$ are isomorphic to the corresponding stalks of $mathcal{O}$, and thus are local rings. The local isomorphisms from $(M,mathcal{O}_M)$ to $(mathbb{R}^n, mathcal{O})$ are then automatically isomorphisms of locally ringed spaces (basically, because the condition for a morphism to be "local" involves only the ringed space structure, and so is satisfied by any isomorphism of ringed spaces).



              So you can define a manifold as a ringed space that is locally isomorphic to $(mathbb{R}^n, mathcal{O})$. However, it is better to define it as a locally ringed space because smooth maps between manifolds correspond to morphisms of locally ringed spaces, not morphisms of ringed spaces. I don't know a counterexample off the top of my head (it seems rather complicated to construct one), but there isn't any reason to expect that a morphism of ringed spaces between two manifolds is the same thing as a smooth map. The local condition on morphisms says that pullback respects evaluation of smooth functions at points: that is, if $varphi:(M,mathcal{O}_M)to(N,mathcal{O}_N)$ is a morphism, $finmathcal{O}_N(U)$, and $pin varphi^{-1}(U)$, then $(varphi^*f)(p)=f(varphi(p))$. In this way, the pullback map $varphi^*$ on the sheaves is completely determined by the map of sets $Mto N$. If you drop this condition (i.e., you talk only about morphisms of ringed spaces instead of morphisms of locally ringed spaces), it seems very difficult to control what the pullback map $varphi^*$ can possibly look like.



              So to sum up: you don't need to say "locally ringed" instead of "ringed" when talking about the objects of the category of manifolds, but you (probably) do need to say it when talking about the morphisms (though I don't know a counterexample that would prove this).






              share|cite|improve this answer

























                up vote
                5
                down vote



                accepted
                +50







                up vote
                5
                down vote



                accepted
                +50




                +50




                Isomorphisms of locally ringed spaces are the same as isomorphisms of ringed spaces (which happen to be locally ringed), so you do not have to specify that $(M,mathcal{O}_M)$ is locally ringed. That is, if $(M,mathcal{O}_M)$ is a ringed space which is locally isomorphic to $(mathbb{R}^n, mathcal{O})$, then the stalks of $mathcal{O}_M$ are isomorphic to the corresponding stalks of $mathcal{O}$, and thus are local rings. The local isomorphisms from $(M,mathcal{O}_M)$ to $(mathbb{R}^n, mathcal{O})$ are then automatically isomorphisms of locally ringed spaces (basically, because the condition for a morphism to be "local" involves only the ringed space structure, and so is satisfied by any isomorphism of ringed spaces).



                So you can define a manifold as a ringed space that is locally isomorphic to $(mathbb{R}^n, mathcal{O})$. However, it is better to define it as a locally ringed space because smooth maps between manifolds correspond to morphisms of locally ringed spaces, not morphisms of ringed spaces. I don't know a counterexample off the top of my head (it seems rather complicated to construct one), but there isn't any reason to expect that a morphism of ringed spaces between two manifolds is the same thing as a smooth map. The local condition on morphisms says that pullback respects evaluation of smooth functions at points: that is, if $varphi:(M,mathcal{O}_M)to(N,mathcal{O}_N)$ is a morphism, $finmathcal{O}_N(U)$, and $pin varphi^{-1}(U)$, then $(varphi^*f)(p)=f(varphi(p))$. In this way, the pullback map $varphi^*$ on the sheaves is completely determined by the map of sets $Mto N$. If you drop this condition (i.e., you talk only about morphisms of ringed spaces instead of morphisms of locally ringed spaces), it seems very difficult to control what the pullback map $varphi^*$ can possibly look like.



                So to sum up: you don't need to say "locally ringed" instead of "ringed" when talking about the objects of the category of manifolds, but you (probably) do need to say it when talking about the morphisms (though I don't know a counterexample that would prove this).






                share|cite|improve this answer














                Isomorphisms of locally ringed spaces are the same as isomorphisms of ringed spaces (which happen to be locally ringed), so you do not have to specify that $(M,mathcal{O}_M)$ is locally ringed. That is, if $(M,mathcal{O}_M)$ is a ringed space which is locally isomorphic to $(mathbb{R}^n, mathcal{O})$, then the stalks of $mathcal{O}_M$ are isomorphic to the corresponding stalks of $mathcal{O}$, and thus are local rings. The local isomorphisms from $(M,mathcal{O}_M)$ to $(mathbb{R}^n, mathcal{O})$ are then automatically isomorphisms of locally ringed spaces (basically, because the condition for a morphism to be "local" involves only the ringed space structure, and so is satisfied by any isomorphism of ringed spaces).



                So you can define a manifold as a ringed space that is locally isomorphic to $(mathbb{R}^n, mathcal{O})$. However, it is better to define it as a locally ringed space because smooth maps between manifolds correspond to morphisms of locally ringed spaces, not morphisms of ringed spaces. I don't know a counterexample off the top of my head (it seems rather complicated to construct one), but there isn't any reason to expect that a morphism of ringed spaces between two manifolds is the same thing as a smooth map. The local condition on morphisms says that pullback respects evaluation of smooth functions at points: that is, if $varphi:(M,mathcal{O}_M)to(N,mathcal{O}_N)$ is a morphism, $finmathcal{O}_N(U)$, and $pin varphi^{-1}(U)$, then $(varphi^*f)(p)=f(varphi(p))$. In this way, the pullback map $varphi^*$ on the sheaves is completely determined by the map of sets $Mto N$. If you drop this condition (i.e., you talk only about morphisms of ringed spaces instead of morphisms of locally ringed spaces), it seems very difficult to control what the pullback map $varphi^*$ can possibly look like.



                So to sum up: you don't need to say "locally ringed" instead of "ringed" when talking about the objects of the category of manifolds, but you (probably) do need to say it when talking about the morphisms (though I don't know a counterexample that would prove this).







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Feb 8 '17 at 7:42

























                answered Feb 8 '17 at 7:25









                Eric Wofsey

                175k12202326




                175k12202326






























                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded



















































                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2010035%2fdefinition-of-smooth-manifold-using-sheaves%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

                    Can a sorcerer learn a 5th-level spell early by creating spell slots using the Font of Magic feature?

                    Image
                    28 6 $begingroup$ Per the Font of Magic feature, sorcerer can use Flexible Casting to create 5th-level spell slots at level 7, even though they are not typically available until level 9. You can transform unexpended sorcery points into one spell slot as a bonus action on your turn. The Creating Spell Slots table shows the cost of creating a spell slot of [5th level is 7] If such a sorcerer levels up while still having this 5th-level spell slot, can they choose a 5th-level spell as the spell they gain upon levelling up? The Spellcasting feature states: Additionally, when you gain a level in this class, you can choose one of the sorcerer spells you know and replace it with another spell from the sorcerer spell list, which also must be of a level for which you have spell slots.
                    Read more

                    Does disintegrating a polymorphed enemy still kill it after the 2018 errata?

                    Image
                    up vote 13 down vote favorite 1 After the 2018 errata, the disintegrate spell description now reads: A creature targeted by this spell must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the target takes 10d6 + 40 force damage. The target is disintegrated if this damage leaves it with 0 hit points. If you were to polymorph an enemy into a rat and then disintegrate it, would the enemy be disintegrated or would it just return to its original form? I know that for Druids, it’s not an instant kill anymore, but is this the case for polymorph as well? dnd-5e spells polymorph errata share | improve this question edited 18 hours ago
                    Read more

                    A Topological Invariant for $pi_3(U(n))$

                    Image
                    3 3 $begingroup$ Recently, I saw a construction of topological invariant for $pi_3(U(n))$ with $ngeq 2$ : $$ N=frac{1}{24pi^2}int_{S^3} d^3x epsilon^{ijk} Tr[(U^{-1}partial_{x_i}U)(U^{-1}partial_{x_j}U)(U^{-1}partial_{x_k}U)] , $$ where $Uin U(n)$ depends on $boldsymbol{x}=(x_1,x_2,x_3)in S^3$ , $epsilon^{ijk}$ is the Levi-Civita symbol, $i,j,k=1,2,3$ , and the duplicated indexes are summed over. It is claimed that $N$ is an integer, but why? Update 02/02/2019 I think I got an argument for $n=2$ . In this case, $U=e^{i varphi} q$ with $qin SU(2)$ . Due to the trace and the Levi-Civita symbol in $N$ , $varphi$ does not contribute to $N$ . As $Tr[q^{dagger}partial_i q]=0$ and $(q^{dagger}partial_i q)^{dagger}=-q^{dagger}partial_i q$ , $q^{dagger}partial_i q$ in geneeral has the form $q^{dagger}partia
                    Read more