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

First let me make a definition. Let $M$ be a smooth manifold and $S \subset M $ a topological subspace of $M$. We say that $S$ has "dimenion" at most $k$ if $S$ is a subset of
$$ X_1 \cup X_2 \ldots \cup X_n $$ such that each of the $X_i$ is a smooth manifold of dimension less than or equal to $k$. Of course $n$ is finite. Note that as per my definition if $S$ has dimension at most $4$ then it also has dimension at most $5$. Also note that the $X_i$ need not be closed.

Suppose $\pi: E \rightarrow M $ be a compact fiber bundle over a compact manifold $M$ (everything is smooth). Suppose $S \subset E$ is a topological subspace that has dimension at most $k$. Is it true that $\pi(S)$ also has dimension at most $k$?

It seems to me that this should follow from the fact that there can not be a smooth surjective map from $f:\mathbb{R}^m \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ if $n > m$, but I am not sure.

In case the answer is no, suppose everything was in the complex setting, ie $\pi: E \rightarrow M$ is a compact complex fiber bundle, $M$ is complex manifold, $\pi$ is a homolomorphic and $S$ has complex dimension at most $k$ (there is an obvious definition for having complex dimension at most $k$). Is my claim true in that case, ie $\pi(S)$ has complex dimsnion at most $k$?

share|improve this question
    
Is there some reason why you want to use this particular definition of dimension? If you use Hausdorff dimension instead, for example, then there is a well-developed theory for this sort of thing. –  Neil Strickland Jun 30 '13 at 10:42
    
My reason is the following fact: Let $V \rightarrow M$ be a rank $k+1$ vector bundle over $M$ and $X$ a smooth submanifold of $M$ of dimension $k$. Then the zero set of a generic smooth section $s: M \rightarrow V$ does not intersect $X$. Would such a statement be true if $X$ was a space with hausdorf dimension $k$? –  Ritwik Jun 30 '13 at 11:48
    
I have heard that one can deduce this kind of thing from the results in Section 4.3.20 of "Geometric measure theory" by Federer. However, I have never tried to work out the details myself. –  Neil Strickland Jun 30 '13 at 18:50
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 2 down vote accepted

I guess "smooth manifold" means "smooth submanifold". In particular a curve which pass through a given point infinitely many times is not a smooth submanifold.

If yes then it is easy to construct an example. Take a smooth curve $\gamma\colon(0,1)\to \mathbb R^2$ which pass through $(0,0)$ infinitely many times under different angles. Then the curve $t\mapsto (t,\gamma(t))\in\mathbb R^3$ has dimension 1 in your sense while its projection $\gamma(0,1)$ on $\mathbb R^2$ has dimension 2.

You can do the same construction in the 3-torus, so everything can be made to be compact.

share|improve this answer
    
I see what you are saying. What about in the complex setting (the second question I asked)? Is there still a counter example? –  Ritwik Jun 30 '13 at 11:52
    
Yes, you can complexity the example. –  Anton Petrunin Jun 30 '13 at 12:10
add comment

Apply Sard's theorem to $\pi$ restricted to each $S_i$; thus $\pi$ cannot increase the dimension of any $X_i$.

share|improve this answer
1  
I am not seeing why $\pi(X_i)$ is contained inside a FINITE union of manifolds of dimension less than or equal to the dimension of $X_i$. The image of $X_i$ need not be smooth. –  Ritwik Jun 30 '13 at 9:33
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.