Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have heard that for a locally ringed space $X$ whose topology is second countable and Hausdorff, $X$ is a smooth manifold if and only if it is locally ringed space which is locally isomorphic to the sheaf of differentiable functions of some open sets in $\mathbb{R}^n$.

Question: What about the maps between smooth manifolds? Let $M, N$ smooth manifolds and $\phi: M \rightarrow N$ be a continuous map. Does every locally ringed space morphism $\mathcal{O}_N \rightarrow \phi_* \mathcal{O}_M$ come from $\phi$?

I'm asking this because I thought it was true - so that I agree that locally ringed spaces are useful generalizations of (whatever) manifolds - until I tried to prove it tonight. In the process it seems to me that this is NOT true. But if this is not true, why is locally ringed space a good generalization of manifolds if the maps don't behave well? (As opposed to rings $A \rightarrow B$ and spectrum maps $SpecB \rightarrow SpecA$?)


share|improve this question
I'm not quite sure I understand the question. Is it: "Every smooth map of smooth manifolds induces a map of locally ringed spaces. Is this a bijection of sets of maps?" –  Reid Barton Jan 8 '10 at 20:28
Yes. This is what I mean. –  Ho Chung Siu Jan 8 '10 at 21:21

1 Answer 1

up vote 7 down vote accepted

For a morphism $f: (X,{\mathcal O}_X)\to (Y,{\mathcal O}_Y)$ of locally ringed spaces the locality of the maps $f^{\sharp}_x: {\mathcal O} _{Y,f(x)}\to {\mathcal O} _{X,x}$ implies that for each function $\lambda\in{\mathcal O}_Y(U)$ we have $v(f^{\sharp}_U(\lambda)) = f^{-1}(v(\lambda))$ (here $v(\lambda)$ denotes the zero set of $\lambda$, i.e. the set of all points $y\in U$ such that $\lambda_y\in{\mathfrak m}_y$.

(*) Therefore the zero set of $f^{\sharp}_U (\lambda)$ is determined by the topological component of $f$ alone, and it equals $f^{-1}(v(\lambda))$

From now on, let $X,Y$ be topological spaces and ${\mathcal O} _X$, ${\mathcal O} _Y$ denote the sheaves of continuous real-valued functions on $X$ and $Y$, respectively. If you know that $f^{\sharp}$ preserves constant functions, then by translating a function $\lambda\in{\mathcal O}_Y (U)$ by a real number $\alpha\in{\mathbb R}$, you see by (*) that the niveau set $v_\alpha(f^{\sharp}_U(\lambda)) := \{x\in f^{-1}(U)\ |\ f^{\sharp}_U(\lambda)(x) = \alpha\}$ equals $f^{-1}(v_\alpha(\lambda))$, so $f^{\sharp}_U(\lambda) = \lambda\circ f$ as suspected.

Now $f^{\sharp}$ has to preserve constant functions, because each map $\overline{f^{\sharp}_x}: {\mathbb R} = {\mathcal O}_{Y,f(x)}/{\mathfrak m}_{Y,f(x)}\to{\mathcal O}_{X,x}/{\mathfrak m}_{X,x} = {\ mathbb R}$ is an automorphism of ${\mathbb R}$, thus equals the identity. (Ok, one could use this to argue directly that $f^{\sharp}_U(\lambda)(x)=\lambda(f(x))$ - didn't see this when starting to write)

For a field different from ${\mathbb R}$, this argument doesn't work any more, because there may be nontrivial automorphims. For example, if you take ${\mathbb C}$-valued continuous functions, you could set $f^{\sharp}_U(\lambda) := \text{conj}\circ \lambda\circ f$ for the algebraic component of $f$.

share|improve this answer
There's a typo in your first paragraph : $\lambda \in \mathcal{O}_Y (U)$. For some reason I thought that one side of$ v(f^{\#}(\lambda))=f^{−1}(v(\lambda))$ is wrong, which made me stuck. Thanks! –  Ho Chung Siu Jan 8 '10 at 21:38
I'm not sure I understand your comment about any automorphism of $\mathbb{R}$ being the identity: isn't the map induced by swapping two different transcendental numbers a ring automorphism of $\mathbb{R}$ different from the identity? I would understand you r comment better if we were in the context of locally ringed $\mathbb{R}$-algebras. –  Qfwfq Feb 27 '11 at 14:58
No, every ring endomorphism $\mathbb{R}$ is the identity. Proof: $\mathbb{Q}$ is fixed, so monotony suffices. But the order is definable via squares. –  Martin Brandenburg Mar 6 '11 at 21:18
So what you've actually proven is that the topological spaces embed fully faithfully into locally ringed spaces, by, taking as their structure sheaves the sheaf of $\mathbb{R}$-valued functions, great! –  David Carchedi Mar 26 at 5:14

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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