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

Given a triangulation of a compact, orientable and differentiable manifold $M^m$, it is possible to give a formula (in terms of real coordinates of the ambient space) for a vector field with only non-degenerated zeros which is "good" in the sense that there is exactly $\beta_q$=($q$-Betti number of $M^m$) zeros, each one with index $(-1)^q$, over the barycentre of each $q$-cell of the triangulation, $q=0,\cdots, m$?

For example, if $P=(a_0,\cdots,a_k)$ is the barycentre of a $q$-cell, it seems to me that the gradient $v$ of the function $f:M^m\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ given by $f=(x_0-a_0)^2-(x_1-a_1)^2+\cdots+(-1)^q(x_q-a_q)^2+(x_{q+1}-a_{q+1})^2+\cdots+(x_k-a_k)^2$ works, since in this case $sign (\ det \ d_Pv)=(-1)^q$.

But how we can "glue" these gradient fields to give a global vector field on $M^m$?

share|improve this question
    
joaohelder -- do you want the number of zeroes to be equal the number of the $q$-simplices or the $q$-th Betti number? –  algori Jan 13 '11 at 16:37
    
At least in well-behaved situations (as the above considered) this is the same. Correct? –  joaohelder Jan 13 '11 at 19:07
    
joaohelder -- any triangulation of the 2-sphere has 1-simplices, yet $H^1(S^2)=0$. In general there is no guarantee that a manifold $M$ admits a CW-structure such that the number of $q$-cells is the $q$-th Betti number. –  algori Jan 13 '11 at 20:12

1 Answer 1

This is not quite what you asked for, but hopefully similar enough. If $M^m \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is a closed submanifold, then for almost all $v \in \mathbb{R}^n$, the restriction of the function $x \mapsto \langle x,v\rangle$ is a Morse function $f:M \to \mathbb{R}$. The critical points of $f$ are all points $x \in M$ such that $T_x M$ is perpendicular to $v$. According to Morse theory, you get a CW decomposition of $M$ with a $p$-cell for each critical point of index $p$. The index of the gradient vector field of $f$ at a point of index $p$ is then $(-1)^p$.

Another approach which might be closer to what you want: see page 10 of this link

http://math.uchicago.edu/~amwright/PoincareHopf.pdf

There is a picture of such a vector field on a triagulated manifold which is clearer than anything I could write in words (but no formula).

share|improve this answer
    
In fact, this link was my motivation for the question. There is a similar justificative (2-dimensional) in the book "differential geometry in the large" (H. Hopf) but again it seems too much "intuitive". –  joaohelder Jan 13 '11 at 19:16
    
I recommend to read Bill Thurston's answer to this question: mathoverflow.net/questions/51091/computing-homotopies/…. What insight do you expect from an explicit formula? I believe that it is more interesting and important to convince yourself that the picture in the link is meaningful in dimensions larger than $2$. –  Johannes Ebert Jan 16 '11 at 17:29

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.