Question about proof of n-1 form inducing normal unit vector field












0














Suppose we have a $n-1$ dimensional manifold $M subset mathbb{R}^n$ and a non-vanishing $n-1$ form $omega$ on $M$. This implies the existence of a normal unit vector field on $M$.



The proof of this goes as follows:



"Let $xin M$, there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $x$ in $mathbb{R}^n$, a submersion $f:Urightarrow mathbb{R}$ such that $Mcap U=f^{-1}(0)$, $T_xM={uin T_xmathbb{R}^n:df_x(u)=0}$. Write $df_x=(partial f_1(x),...,partial f_n(x))$. You can identify $(partial f_1(x),...,partial f_n(x))$ with a vector $u_x$ of $T_xmathbb{R}^n$ such that $Vect(u_x)$ is a supplementary space to $T_xM$. Let $Omega$ be the canonical volume form $dx_1wedge...wedge dx_n$, $(partial f_1(x)dx_1+...+partial f_n(x)dx_n)wedge omega =cOmega$, if $c>0$, define $n(x)={1over{|u_x|}}u_x$ if $c<0$, define $n(x)=-{1over{|u_x|}}u_x$. Remark that $n(x)$ is well defined in a neighborhood of $x$ since it does not depend of the choice of $f$. In fact $u_x$ is a unit vector orthogonal to $T_xM$ relatively to the usual scalar product and it continuously depends of $x$."



Anyways, I have a few questions about the proof
The first one is: Why is the wedge "$(partial f_1(x)dx_1+...+partial f_n(x)dx_n)wedge omega = cOmega $" important, how is fundamentally linked to $n(x)$, I don't see the importance, and okay $omega$ is non vanishing and there is an $i$ such that $partial f_i(x)$ is not zero, but that's no reason to say that the wedge product is not zero, so $c$ could still be zero.










share|cite|improve this question



























    0














    Suppose we have a $n-1$ dimensional manifold $M subset mathbb{R}^n$ and a non-vanishing $n-1$ form $omega$ on $M$. This implies the existence of a normal unit vector field on $M$.



    The proof of this goes as follows:



    "Let $xin M$, there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $x$ in $mathbb{R}^n$, a submersion $f:Urightarrow mathbb{R}$ such that $Mcap U=f^{-1}(0)$, $T_xM={uin T_xmathbb{R}^n:df_x(u)=0}$. Write $df_x=(partial f_1(x),...,partial f_n(x))$. You can identify $(partial f_1(x),...,partial f_n(x))$ with a vector $u_x$ of $T_xmathbb{R}^n$ such that $Vect(u_x)$ is a supplementary space to $T_xM$. Let $Omega$ be the canonical volume form $dx_1wedge...wedge dx_n$, $(partial f_1(x)dx_1+...+partial f_n(x)dx_n)wedge omega =cOmega$, if $c>0$, define $n(x)={1over{|u_x|}}u_x$ if $c<0$, define $n(x)=-{1over{|u_x|}}u_x$. Remark that $n(x)$ is well defined in a neighborhood of $x$ since it does not depend of the choice of $f$. In fact $u_x$ is a unit vector orthogonal to $T_xM$ relatively to the usual scalar product and it continuously depends of $x$."



    Anyways, I have a few questions about the proof
    The first one is: Why is the wedge "$(partial f_1(x)dx_1+...+partial f_n(x)dx_n)wedge omega = cOmega $" important, how is fundamentally linked to $n(x)$, I don't see the importance, and okay $omega$ is non vanishing and there is an $i$ such that $partial f_i(x)$ is not zero, but that's no reason to say that the wedge product is not zero, so $c$ could still be zero.










    share|cite|improve this question

























      0












      0








      0







      Suppose we have a $n-1$ dimensional manifold $M subset mathbb{R}^n$ and a non-vanishing $n-1$ form $omega$ on $M$. This implies the existence of a normal unit vector field on $M$.



      The proof of this goes as follows:



      "Let $xin M$, there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $x$ in $mathbb{R}^n$, a submersion $f:Urightarrow mathbb{R}$ such that $Mcap U=f^{-1}(0)$, $T_xM={uin T_xmathbb{R}^n:df_x(u)=0}$. Write $df_x=(partial f_1(x),...,partial f_n(x))$. You can identify $(partial f_1(x),...,partial f_n(x))$ with a vector $u_x$ of $T_xmathbb{R}^n$ such that $Vect(u_x)$ is a supplementary space to $T_xM$. Let $Omega$ be the canonical volume form $dx_1wedge...wedge dx_n$, $(partial f_1(x)dx_1+...+partial f_n(x)dx_n)wedge omega =cOmega$, if $c>0$, define $n(x)={1over{|u_x|}}u_x$ if $c<0$, define $n(x)=-{1over{|u_x|}}u_x$. Remark that $n(x)$ is well defined in a neighborhood of $x$ since it does not depend of the choice of $f$. In fact $u_x$ is a unit vector orthogonal to $T_xM$ relatively to the usual scalar product and it continuously depends of $x$."



      Anyways, I have a few questions about the proof
      The first one is: Why is the wedge "$(partial f_1(x)dx_1+...+partial f_n(x)dx_n)wedge omega = cOmega $" important, how is fundamentally linked to $n(x)$, I don't see the importance, and okay $omega$ is non vanishing and there is an $i$ such that $partial f_i(x)$ is not zero, but that's no reason to say that the wedge product is not zero, so $c$ could still be zero.










      share|cite|improve this question













      Suppose we have a $n-1$ dimensional manifold $M subset mathbb{R}^n$ and a non-vanishing $n-1$ form $omega$ on $M$. This implies the existence of a normal unit vector field on $M$.



      The proof of this goes as follows:



      "Let $xin M$, there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $x$ in $mathbb{R}^n$, a submersion $f:Urightarrow mathbb{R}$ such that $Mcap U=f^{-1}(0)$, $T_xM={uin T_xmathbb{R}^n:df_x(u)=0}$. Write $df_x=(partial f_1(x),...,partial f_n(x))$. You can identify $(partial f_1(x),...,partial f_n(x))$ with a vector $u_x$ of $T_xmathbb{R}^n$ such that $Vect(u_x)$ is a supplementary space to $T_xM$. Let $Omega$ be the canonical volume form $dx_1wedge...wedge dx_n$, $(partial f_1(x)dx_1+...+partial f_n(x)dx_n)wedge omega =cOmega$, if $c>0$, define $n(x)={1over{|u_x|}}u_x$ if $c<0$, define $n(x)=-{1over{|u_x|}}u_x$. Remark that $n(x)$ is well defined in a neighborhood of $x$ since it does not depend of the choice of $f$. In fact $u_x$ is a unit vector orthogonal to $T_xM$ relatively to the usual scalar product and it continuously depends of $x$."



      Anyways, I have a few questions about the proof
      The first one is: Why is the wedge "$(partial f_1(x)dx_1+...+partial f_n(x)dx_n)wedge omega = cOmega $" important, how is fundamentally linked to $n(x)$, I don't see the importance, and okay $omega$ is non vanishing and there is an $i$ such that $partial f_i(x)$ is not zero, but that's no reason to say that the wedge product is not zero, so $c$ could still be zero.







      differential-geometry manifolds differential-forms vector-fields tangent-spaces






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Dec 4 '18 at 15:41









      AkatsukiMaliki

      308110




      308110






















          0






          active

          oldest

          votes











          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',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          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%2f3025723%2fquestion-about-proof-of-n-1-form-inducing-normal-unit-vector-field%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          0






          active

          oldest

          votes








          0






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes
















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3025723%2fquestion-about-proof-of-n-1-form-inducing-normal-unit-vector-field%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

          Basket-ball féminin

          Different font size/position of beamer's navigation symbols template's content depending on regular/plain...

          I want to find a topological embedding $f : X rightarrow Y$ and $g: Y rightarrow X$, yet $X$ is not...