7
$\begingroup$

This problem may be an embarrassing one, but I could not prove it even for the $1$ dimensional case. Here is the problem:

Question 1. $M$ is a compact $n$-dimensional smooth manifold in $R^{n+1}$. Take a point $p\notin M$. Prove there is always a line $l_p$ pass $p$ and $l_p\cap M\neq \emptyset$, and $l_p$ intersect transversally with $M$.

You can naturally generalise it to:

Question 2. $M$ is a compact $n$-dimensional smooth manifold in $R^{n+m}$. Take a point $p\notin M$. Prove $\forall 1\leq k\leq m$, there is always a hyperplane $P_p, dim(P_p)=k$ pass $p$ and $P_p\cap M\neq \emptyset$, and $P_p$ intersect transversally with $M$.

Thanking for Piotr pointing out, assume "transverse" means "the tangent spaces intersect only at 0".

We focus on question 1 for simplicity.

Even in $1$ dimension it is not easy at least for me, warning: a line $l$ pass $p$ may be intersect $M$ at several points combine a set $A_l$, $A_l$ could be finite, countable or even it is not countable (consider $M$ is induced by a smooth function for which the zeros set is Cantor set.)... And if there is one point $a\in A_l$, $l$ is tangent with the tangent line of $M$ at $a$, then $l$ is not intersect transversally with $M$.

My attempt: I could use a dimensional argument and Sard's theorem to establish a similar result but instead of a fix point $p$, we prove for generic point in $R^{n+1}$ which is not in $M$ we can choose such a line.

So it seems reasonable to develop the dimensional technique to attach the question 1, in 1 dimensional, it will relate to investigate the ordinary differential equation: $$\frac{f(x)-b}{x-a}=f'(x)$$ Where $p=(a,b)$, $M$ have a parameterization $M=\{x,f(x)\}$. If there is a counterexample for the question 1, then there is another solution which satisfied the ODE in the sense:

At least for every line $l$ there is a intersection point $a_l\in l\cap M$, $f$ satisfied ODE at $a_l$.

This is just like the uniqueness of the solution of such a ODE is destroyed at some subspace of a line which has some special linear structure, I do not know if this point of view will be helpful.

I will appreciate for any useful answers and comments.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I assume "transitive" means "transversally". $\endgroup$ – Igor Rivin Nov 28 '17 at 18:06
  • $\begingroup$ It depends a bit on what exactly you mean by a "smooth manifold". Clearly a straight open interval on the plane and a point on the extension of that interval isn't something you are interested in. So, what exactly do you assume to exclude such stupid configurations? $\endgroup$ – fedja Nov 28 '17 at 18:16
  • $\begingroup$ @fedja, sorry I forget to assume $M$ is compact, thanks! This is not mean I am not interested in whether this kind of type is true for not compact case, but I could not describe very exactly what condition will make this type of result to be true (it seem it is necessary to assume $M$ is not a "cone" central at $p$ to make this result to be true), anyway. Thanks! $\endgroup$ – Hu xiyu Nov 28 '17 at 18:24
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ One obvious approach would be this: if a line $\ell$ through $p$ is not transversal to $M$, then the area of $M$ in the cone of some small aperture $\varepsilon>0$ vastly exceeds $\varepsilon^n$. So if the projection of $M$ to the sphere centered at $p$ has positive area, you run into a contradiction immediately (well, with some minimally intelligent use of either covering lemmas or uniform bounds on smoothness, whichever you like more). $\endgroup$ – fedja Nov 28 '17 at 18:28
  • $\begingroup$ @Huxiyu P.S. Nothing to be embarrased about, by the way. I can tell you much more shameful examples of my own mathematical blindness and I suspect the other people can do it too if you find a way to open them up :-) $\endgroup$ – fedja Nov 28 '17 at 18:49
5
$\begingroup$

For the codimension 1 case.

Using Thom transversality theorem.

Consider the maps $f_s:\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}^n$ parametrized by $s \in S^{n-1}$ and given by $f_s(t) = p + t \cdot s$. The map $F(s,t) = f_s(t)$, $F:S^{n-1} \times \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}^n$ is clearly transverse to $M$, thus Thom's transversality says that $f_s$ is transverse to $M$ for almost all $s$. Now it suffices to prove that for an open set in $S^{n-1}$, the line given by $f_s$ intersects $M$. Proven below.

Using Sard's theorem directly.

Thom's transversality is usually proven using Sard's theorem. Here is the idea.

Consider the projection $\Pi:\mathbb{R}^n \setminus \{p\}\to S^{n-1}_p$ onto a sphere centered at $p$. A line $l_p$ through $p$ intersects $M$ transversally if the two points $l_p \cap S^{n-1}_p$ are regular values of $\Pi$ (indeed, the critical points of $\Pi$ are exactly the points $x \in M$ at which the normal $\vec n_x$ is perpendicular to the radial direction (with respect to $p$)). By Sard's theorem, the set of regular values is dense in $S^{n-1}_p$.

We need to choose any point $s$ on the sphere for which both $s$ and $-s$ are regular values, and the line $f_s$ through $p$ and $s$ actually intersects $M$. It suffices to prove that the set of points $s$ for which this line intersects $M$ contains an open set. We could now use the Jordan-Brouwer Separation Theorem and we would be done, but we can do it more directly (and in a way that seems to generalize).

The set of points $s \in S$ for which $f_s$ intersects $s$ has nonempty interior.

For each point $q \notin M$ the projection $\Pi:M \to S_{q,\varepsilon_q}^{n-1}$ onto the sphere centered at $q$, of radius $\varepsilon_q$ small enough so that the sphere does not intersect $M$, has some (topological) degree $d_q$. It is easy to check that if one takes any point $x \in M$ and considers the points $x \pm \delta \vec n_x$ for small $\delta$, the degrees of the corresponding maps differ by $1$. It follows that we can find a point $q$ for which $d_q \neq d_p$, which guarantees that for every point $q'$ in a small open ball $B$ around $q$ (all these points have same degree $d_q$), the line joining $p$ and $q'$ intersects $M$. Projection of $B$ on $S_p^{n-1}$ is an open set which we sought.

For the general case (partial solution).

I think a similar reasoning should work, however, notice that for $k < m$ we cannot make $P_p$ intersect transversally with $M$ because of dimensional reasons: the dimensions of $M$ and $P_p$ don't add up to at least $n+m$. Recall that transversality implies Thus, either (1) you want to consider $k \geq m$, or (2) define "transversal intersection" for such manifolds saying that the tangent spaces have to intersect at an empty set.

Also, for $k>n$ we can just take any plane $P_p$ which works for $k=m$ and just extend it to a $k$-dimensional plane.

Assuming $k = m$.

A similar reasoning should work for $f_s:\mathbb{R}^m \to \mathbb{R}^{n+m}$ with $s = (s_1, \ldots, s_m)$ going over all families of pairwise perpendicular unit vectors, and $f_s(t_1,\ldots,t_m) = p+\sum_{j=1}^m t_i \cdot s_i$. Thom's transversality says that for almost all choices of $s$, the plane $f_s$ is transverse to $M$.

The nonempty interior issue.

The only thing left is to prove that the set of $s$ for which the intersection is nonempty has nonempty interior. Last time we proved that there is a zero-dimensional sphere containing $p$, namely $\{p,q\}$, which has nonzero linking number with $M$, and by deforming if to spheres $\{p,q'\}$ and taking lines through pairs $p,q'$, we got an open set of parameters for which the line intersects $M$.

Here should be able to do a similar trick by finding a $m-1$-dimensional sphere with nonzero linking number with $M$. The ball that bounds that sphere has to intersect $M$, thus the plane $P$ containing the sphere has to intersect $M$. By perturbing the sphere we get spheres with the same linking numbers, and get all the planes that lie in a neighbourhood of $P$; in particular, we get an open set of parameters $s$ for which $f_s$ intersects $M$.

Well, we don't actually need a round sphere, but we do need a smooth sphere that lies in a $m$-dimensional plane. There's some trickery needed to do this, but I am sure something like this can be done.

Maybe somebody else can do it better?

For $k<m$

I don't really know how to attack this case, assuming "transverse" means "the tangent spaces intersect only at $0$".

Update (thanks to Fan Zheng): This follows from the $k=m$ case. Take any $m$-plane $P$ that intersects $M$ and does it transversally. Then, any $k$-plane inside $P$ intersects $M$ "transversally" in the above sense. We choose any $k$-plane $\tilde P \subset P$ which contains both $p$ and any point $x \in P \cap M$, and we're done.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Appreciate! this is a excellent answer! Sorry, for $k<m$ case the transverse us just mean "the tangent spaces intersect only at 0", I have corrected it. Would it be true that $k<m$ case is the directly result of $k=m$ case? By the way, I thought the area trick which is mentioned by fedja still effective, we can use the area trick to proof question 2 which lead to another proof. Thanks a lot! $\endgroup$ – Hu xiyu Nov 29 '17 at 3:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Huxiyu If you define transversality this way, then the $k<m$ case is indeed a consequence of the $k=m$ case. $\endgroup$ – Fan Zheng Nov 29 '17 at 4:57
  • $\begingroup$ @FanZheng Indeed, I'm updating the answer. $\endgroup$ – Piotr Nov 30 '17 at 5:26

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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