20
$\begingroup$

Recall that to any manifold $X$, I can assign in a canonical way a manifold $\mathrm T ^* X$, the total space of the cotangent bundle over $X$. Recall also that, unlike the tangent bundle construction, the map $X \mapsto \mathrm T^* X$ is not an endofunctor on the category of manifolds: whereas tangent vectors push forward along smooth maps, cotangent (co)vectors do not (they also do not pull back).

Nevertheless, $X \mapsto \mathrm T^* X$ is functorial for some restricted classes of maps. For example, there is a category whose objects are manifolds and whose morphisms are étale maps, and the cotangent construction is (covariantly) functorial for this category.

My question is:

Do the étale maps comprise the largest class of morphisms of manifolds for which $\mathrm T^*$ is functorial?

In my particular situation, I have a (surjective) submersion $Y \to X$, and I can construct by hand a (Poisson) map $\mathrm T^* Y \to \mathrm T^*X$ covering it, because I know of some extra structure for $Y,X$. But I would like to know if there is a more canonical reason that I have this map.

$\endgroup$
9
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Of course, there's a different target category in which cotangent manifolds are always functorial, that of symplectic varieties with morphisms given by (compositions of) Lagrangian subvarieties of the product. This is essentially why functoriality of D-modules is possible. $\endgroup$
    – Ben Webster
    Apr 20, 2011 at 3:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It is true that that Lagrangian is the graph of a map if and only if the map is etale. $\endgroup$
    – Ben Webster
    Apr 20, 2011 at 3:24
  • $\begingroup$ @Ben: I'm very aware of the symplectic category. Unfortunately, I think for my application my target is not this category, but the category whose objects are Poisson manifolds and morphisms are Poisson maps (smooth maps $f$ for which the Poisson structures are $f$-related). That said, I'd love to hear more about functoriality of D-modules. $\endgroup$ Apr 20, 2011 at 3:58
  • $\begingroup$ I do not know a larger class of smooth mappings; and I considered this question intensively when co-writing the book "Natural operations in differential geometry". $\endgroup$ May 30, 2013 at 16:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Maybe I'm confused, but why don't covectors pull back? It seems to me that they do, and that a map of manifolds $f: X \to Y$ induces a map on the spaces of global sections $f^*: \Gamma(Y, T^*Y) \to \Gamma(X, T^*X)$. So the functor $X \mapsto \Gamma(X, T^*X)$ is functorial w.r.t. all smooth maps, even though the functor $X \mapsto T^*X$ isn't. $\endgroup$ Jun 1, 2013 at 18:28

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

I do not know a larger class of smooth mappings; and I considered this question intensively when co-writing the book "Natural operations in differential geometry, Springer-Verlag, 1993"(pdf).

See also 26.11 -- 26.16 in this book for a determination of all natural transformations $T T^* \to T^*T$, viewed as functors on the category of $m$-dimensional manifolds and local diffeomorphisms (etale mappings), and similar questions.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.