8
$\begingroup$

Let $X$ be a locally compact Hausdorff space. Given a vector bundle $p: E\to X$, a subspace $Y$ of $X$ is called trivialising (for this bundle), if after restricting this bundle to $Y$, it is a trivial bundle. In other words, $p: p^{-1}(Y)\to Y$ is trivial. $Y$ is called maximally trivial, if it is trivial and there is no trivial subspace of $X$ which contains $Y$ as a proper subset.

Given a point $x$ in $X$, a maximal trivialising subspace containing $x$ may not be unique. Does any maximal trivialising subspace must be open? Can we say something others about maximal trivialising subspaces?

There is no reference about this topic in the existing literatures.

A similar question has been posted on stackexchange: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1581861/maximal-trivial-subspace-in-vector-bundles

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is every trivial subspace contained in a maximal one? $\endgroup$
    – Julian Rosen
    Commented Dec 24, 2015 at 20:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ Julian Rosen I think yes. Given any trivial subspace, keeping it trivial, we can enlarge it as much as possible, at last we get a maximal one. $\endgroup$
    – Strongart
    Commented Dec 26, 2015 at 4:53
  • $\begingroup$ Unfortunately, the question is not so meaningful. $\endgroup$
    – jhgfd
    Commented Dec 26, 2015 at 11:45
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It isn't obvious to me that it works to enlarge a trivial subspace as much as possible. The union of a nested sequence of trivial subspaces need not be trivial. $\endgroup$
    – Julian Rosen
    Commented Dec 26, 2015 at 20:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The example I had in mind was $X=S^1=\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}$, $E$ the Mobius bundle. Then $[0,1-1/n]$ (for $n=2,3,4,\ldots$) is an increasing sequence of trivial subspaces, but there is no trivial subspace containing them all because their union is $X$. Of course, the complement of any point is a maximal trivial subspace, this example is just to illustrates that it isn't obvious how to produce a maximal trivial from an increasing sequence of trivials. $\endgroup$
    – Julian Rosen
    Commented Dec 27, 2015 at 18:09

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
4
$\begingroup$

In addition to Mark's argument, a maximal trivialising $Y\subset X$ is also open, if we assume that $E$ is a $\Bbbk$-vector bundle with $\Bbbk=\mathbb R$ or $\mathbb C$. So every maximal trivialising subset is open and dense, but it is not (yet) clear that every trivialising subset is contained in a maximal one.

Assume $Y$ is trivialising, but not open. Then there exists $x\in Y$ such that no neighbourhood of $x$ is contained in $Y$. We choose a trivialising neighbourhood $U$ for $E$. We have maps $\varphi\colon E|_Y\to\Bbbk^r$ and $\psi\colon E|_U\to\Bbbk^r$ such that $$p\times\varphi\colon E|_Y\to Y\times\Bbbk^r\quad\text{and}\quad p\times\psi\colon E|_U\to U\times\Bbbk^r$$ are vector bundle isomorphisms. Hence there exists $g\colon Y\cap U\to GL_r(\Bbbk)$ such that $\psi(e)=g(p(e))\cdot\varphi(e)$ on $E|_{Y\cap U}$.

Because $g$ is continuous and $Y\cap U$ carries the subspace topology, there exists a compact neighbourhood $K\subset U$ of $x$ and a map $\xi\colon Y\cap K\to\mathfrak{gl}_r(\Bbbk)$ such that $g|_{K\cap Y}=\exp\circ\xi$. By Urysohn's lemma, there also exists a cutoff function $\rho\colon X\to[0,1]$ with $\mathrm{supp}(\rho)\subset K$ and such that $W=\rho^{-1}(1)$ is a neighbourhood of $x$. We replace the chosen trivialisation of $E|_Y$ by $$\varphi'(e)=\exp((\rho\cdot\xi)(p(e)))\cdot\varphi(e)\;.$$ Then $\varphi'$ agrees with $\varphi$ on $Y\setminus\mathring K$, and with $\psi$ on $W\cap Y$. Hence, we can extend $\varphi'$ by $\psi$ on $W$, contradicting the maximality of $Y$.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Does the Uryshon lemma can be used in a Tychonoff space ( not a normal space)? In the Tychonoff space, if U is a open set and x in U, there is a continuous function f such that supp(f)$\subseteq$U and f(x)=1, but maybe f$^{-1}$(1)={x}. $\endgroup$
    – Strongart
    Commented Dec 30, 2015 at 14:09
  • $\begingroup$ @Strongart I only need Urysohn on the compact set $K$, which is normal in its subspace topology inherited from $X$. I wrote $\rho\colon X\to [0,1]\to\mathbb R$, but you construct $\rho$ on $K$, then extend by zero. $\endgroup$
    – Sebastian Goette
    Commented Dec 30, 2015 at 15:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I see, choose a closed neighbourhood L of x such that L in K, then Urysohn' lemma can be uesd to get a continuous function f such that f(L)=1 and f($\partial$K)=0, then extend f by zero. $\endgroup$
    – Strongart
    Commented Jan 1, 2016 at 4:49
6
$\begingroup$

I claim that any maximal trivial subspace $Y$ is dense in $X$.

Otherwise, take $x\in X\setminus\operatorname{Cl}( Y) \neq\emptyset$. Since $X$ is locally compact Hausdorff, and hence regular, there are non-intersecting open neighbourhoods of $x$ and $\operatorname{Cl}(Y)$. It follows that the subspace topology on $Y\cup\{x\}$ is the disjoint union topology. Hence $E$ is trivial when restricted to $Y\cup\{x\}$ (since its trivial when restricted to each of $Y$ and $\{x\}$). Hence $Y\cup \{x\}$ is a trivial subspace, contradicting the maximality of $Y$.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Please do not change the topology of X,, we can choose a small open set U of x, which is trivial subspace and do not intersect Y, then we can get your claim. $\endgroup$
    – Strongart
    Commented Dec 26, 2015 at 4:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Strongart: I don't think we can say that there is a open neighbourhood of $x$ which does not intersect $Y$ and is a trivial subspace, without assuming $X$ is locally contractible or something similar. However, any vector bundle over a point is trivial, hence my argument involving the disjoint union topology. $\endgroup$
    – Mark Grant
    Commented Dec 26, 2015 at 11:37
  • $\begingroup$ I am careless, I do this on the manifold unconscious, there are some topological questions, it need has enough small open set locally. $\endgroup$
    – Strongart
    Commented Dec 27, 2015 at 4:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Sebastian Goette I go back to the basic topology, local compact Hausdorff space maybe be not normal, it is a Tychonoff space. If it also has second countable axiom, it will be normal. Here is a countexample:mathoverflow.net/questions/53300/… $\endgroup$
    – Strongart
    Commented Dec 29, 2015 at 5:19
  • $\begingroup$ @Strongart: I added some clarifying details to my answer. In particular, I think the separation axiom I need is regularity, which follows from locally compact Hausdorff. $\endgroup$
    – Mark Grant
    Commented Dec 29, 2015 at 13:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .