Mixing
Locally Euclidean Surfaces
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
In Stillwell's Geometry of Surfaces, he defines a locally euclidean surface $S$ as a set equipped with a distance function $d_S(A,B)$ defined for every $A,B in S$ such that for every $A in S$, there exists an $epsilon > 0$ such that every $epsilon$ neighborhood of $A$ is isometric to a euclidean disc.
He then defines: a euclidean surface $S$ is connected if each $A, B in S$ are connected by a polygonal path $Sigma$ (never defines polygonal path); whose sides lie within euclidean discs of $S$.
Lastly he defines: On a euclidean surface $S$ we can define a line segment to be a polygonal path whose successive sides (each lying within a euclidean disc of $S$ where the notion of "line segment" is already meaningful) meet at angle $pi$. Then $S$ is called complete if any line segment can be continued indefinitely.
He says that the punctured plane is not complete and then asks if several surfaces are 1) locally euclidean 2) connected and 3) complete.
The first is the example of the union of the planes $x = 0$ and $y=0$. I believe this is not euclidean, because at the intersection of the two planes there can't be an isometry between points on the different planes, but I could be wrong.
The other examples include: the surface of an infinite triangular prism, the surface of a cube, the surface of a cube with the vertices removed, a closed disc, and an open disc.
The definitions are quite informal and I think that is tripping me up, along with the fact that I'm self studying. Any insight on how to better understand these definitions would be appreciated.
geometry manifolds surfaces
asked Aug 1 at 15:06
Emilio Minichiello
1917
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
In Stillwell's Geometry of Surfaces, he defines a locally euclidean surface $S$ as a set equipped with a distance function $d_S(A,B)$ defined for every $A,B in S$ such that for every $A in S$, there exists an $epsilon > 0$ such that every $epsilon$ neighborhood of $A$ is isometric to a euclidean disc.
He then defines: a euclidean surface $S$ is connected if each $A, B in S$ are connected by a polygonal path $Sigma$ (never defines polygonal path); whose sides lie within euclidean discs of $S$.
Lastly he defines: On a euclidean surface $S$ we can define a line segment to be a polygonal path whose successive sides (each lying within a euclidean disc of $S$ where the notion of "line segment" is already meaningful) meet at angle $pi$. Then $S$ is called complete if any line segment can be continued indefinitely.
He says that the punctured plane is not complete and then asks if several surfaces are 1) locally euclidean 2) connected and 3) complete.
The first is the example of the union of the planes $x = 0$ and $y=0$. I believe this is not euclidean, because at the intersection of the two planes there can't be an isometry between points on the different planes, but I could be wrong.
The other examples include: the surface of an infinite triangular prism, the surface of a cube, the surface of a cube with the vertices removed, a closed disc, and an open disc.
The definitions are quite informal and I think that is tripping me up, along with the fact that I'm self studying. Any insight on how to better understand these definitions would be appreciated.
geometry manifolds surfaces
asked Aug 1 at 15:06
Emilio Minichiello
1917
Are you sure you read the definition of locally Euclidean correctly? I would have expected the definition to say that for every $A in S$ there exists an $epsilon > 0$ such that the $epsilon$ neighborhood of $A$ is isometric to a Euclidean disc.
– Lee Mosher
Aug 1 at 16:08
Yes that's what I meant, I will edit it.
– Emilio Minichiello
Aug 1 at 16:19
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
In Stillwell's Geometry of Surfaces, he defines a locally euclidean surface $S$ as a set equipped with a distance function $d_S(A,B)$ defined for every $A,B in S$ such that for every $A in S$, there exists an $epsilon > 0$ such that every $epsilon$ neighborhood of $A$ is isometric to a euclidean disc.
He then defines: a euclidean surface $S$ is connected if each $A, B in S$ are connected by a polygonal path $Sigma$ (never defines polygonal path); whose sides lie within euclidean discs of $S$.
Lastly he defines: On a euclidean surface $S$ we can define a line segment to be a polygonal path whose successive sides (each lying within a euclidean disc of $S$ where the notion of "line segment" is already meaningful) meet at angle $pi$. Then $S$ is called complete if any line segment can be continued indefinitely.
He says that the punctured plane is not complete and then asks if several surfaces are 1) locally euclidean 2) connected and 3) complete.
The first is the example of the union of the planes $x = 0$ and $y=0$. I believe this is not euclidean, because at the intersection of the two planes there can't be an isometry between points on the different planes, but I could be wrong.
The other examples include: the surface of an infinite triangular prism, the surface of a cube, the surface of a cube with the vertices removed, a closed disc, and an open disc.
The definitions are quite informal and I think that is tripping me up, along with the fact that I'm self studying. Any insight on how to better understand these definitions would be appreciated.
geometry manifolds surfaces
asked Aug 1 at 15:06
Emilio Minichiello
1917
In Stillwell's Geometry of Surfaces, he defines a locally euclidean surface $S$ as a set equipped with a distance function $d_S(A,B)$ defined for every $A,B in S$ such that for every $A in S$, there exists an $epsilon > 0$ such that every $epsilon$ neighborhood of $A$ is isometric to a euclidean disc.
He then defines: a euclidean surface $S$ is connected if each $A, B in S$ are connected by a polygonal path $Sigma$ (never defines polygonal path); whose sides lie within euclidean discs of $S$.
Lastly he defines: On a euclidean surface $S$ we can define a line segment to be a polygonal path whose successive sides (each lying within a euclidean disc of $S$ where the notion of "line segment" is already meaningful) meet at angle $pi$. Then $S$ is called complete if any line segment can be continued indefinitely.
He says that the punctured plane is not complete and then asks if several surfaces are 1) locally euclidean 2) connected and 3) complete.
The first is the example of the union of the planes $x = 0$ and $y=0$. I believe this is not euclidean, because at the intersection of the two planes there can't be an isometry between points on the different planes, but I could be wrong.
The other examples include: the surface of an infinite triangular prism, the surface of a cube, the surface of a cube with the vertices removed, a closed disc, and an open disc.
The definitions are quite informal and I think that is tripping me up, along with the fact that I'm self studying. Any insight on how to better understand these definitions would be appreciated.
geometry manifolds surfaces
asked Aug 1 at 15:06
Emilio Minichiello
1917
edited Aug 1 at 16:20
asked Aug 1 at 15:06
Emilio Minichiello
1917
asked Aug 1 at 15:06
Emilio Minichiello
1917
asked Aug 1 at 15:06
Emilio Minichiello
1917
1917
Are you sure you read the definition of locally Euclidean correctly? I would have expected the definition to say that for every $A in S$ there exists an $epsilon > 0$ such that the $epsilon$ neighborhood of $A$ is isometric to a Euclidean disc.
– Lee Mosher
Aug 1 at 16:08
Yes that's what I meant, I will edit it.
– Emilio Minichiello
Aug 1 at 16:19
add a comment |Â
Are you sure you read the definition of locally Euclidean correctly? I would have expected the definition to say that for every $A in S$ there exists an $epsilon > 0$ such that the $epsilon$ neighborhood of $A$ is isometric to a Euclidean disc.
– Lee Mosher
Aug 1 at 16:08
Yes that's what I meant, I will edit it.
– Emilio Minichiello
Aug 1 at 16:19
Are you sure you read the definition of locally Euclidean correctly? I would have expected the definition to say that for every $A in S$ there exists an $epsilon > 0$ such that the $epsilon$ neighborhood of $A$ is isometric to a Euclidean disc.
– Lee Mosher
Aug 1 at 16:08
Are you sure you read the definition of locally Euclidean correctly? I would have expected the definition to say that for every $A in S$ there exists an $epsilon > 0$ such that the $epsilon$ neighborhood of $A$ is isometric to a Euclidean disc.
– Lee Mosher
Aug 1 at 16:08
Yes that's what I meant, I will edit it.
– Emilio Minichiello
Aug 1 at 16:19
Yes that's what I meant, I will edit it.
– Emilio Minichiello
Aug 1 at 16:19
add a comment |Â
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2869176%2flocally-euclidean-surfaces%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Are you sure you read the definition of locally Euclidean correctly? I would have expected the definition to say that for every $A in S$ there exists an $epsilon > 0$ such that the $epsilon$ neighborhood of $A$ is isometric to a Euclidean disc.
– Lee Mosher
Aug 1 at 16:08
Yes that's what I meant, I will edit it.
– Emilio Minichiello
Aug 1 at 16:19