the manifold of $ D=x,y,z,w mid xw-yz le 0$
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
What geometric object $(x,y,z,w)$ is defined by the equation $xw-yzle 0$ in $mathbb R^4$? Using the parameticals, can we describe this manifold? Prove some diffeomorphism between this geometrical object and others?
geometry differential-geometry manifolds parametric symplectic-geometry
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
What geometric object $(x,y,z,w)$ is defined by the equation $xw-yzle 0$ in $mathbb R^4$? Using the parameticals, can we describe this manifold? Prove some diffeomorphism between this geometrical object and others?
geometry differential-geometry manifolds parametric symplectic-geometry
Objects in $R^4$ cannot be visualized... And I do not think there is a name for this set if you infer something like sphere of dim 3
â dmtri
Aug 13 at 11:52
@dmtri I mean can I use some parametrics to describe this geometric object to prove some diffeomorphism?
â Mclalalala
Aug 13 at 12:49
1
One possible interpretation is as $D=(a,b)inmathbbC^2midRe(ab)le0$ by setting $a=x+iz$ and $b=y+iw$. I don't know if it's useful.
â Daniel Robert-Nicoud
Aug 13 at 12:49
@DanielRobert-Nicoud then use complex analytical tools?
â Mclalalala
Aug 13 at 12:51
No clue. You can certainly try.
â Daniel Robert-Nicoud
Aug 13 at 12:53
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
What geometric object $(x,y,z,w)$ is defined by the equation $xw-yzle 0$ in $mathbb R^4$? Using the parameticals, can we describe this manifold? Prove some diffeomorphism between this geometrical object and others?
geometry differential-geometry manifolds parametric symplectic-geometry
What geometric object $(x,y,z,w)$ is defined by the equation $xw-yzle 0$ in $mathbb R^4$? Using the parameticals, can we describe this manifold? Prove some diffeomorphism between this geometrical object and others?
geometry differential-geometry manifolds parametric symplectic-geometry
edited Aug 14 at 14:15
asked Aug 13 at 9:23
Mclalalala
1166
1166
Objects in $R^4$ cannot be visualized... And I do not think there is a name for this set if you infer something like sphere of dim 3
â dmtri
Aug 13 at 11:52
@dmtri I mean can I use some parametrics to describe this geometric object to prove some diffeomorphism?
â Mclalalala
Aug 13 at 12:49
1
One possible interpretation is as $D=(a,b)inmathbbC^2midRe(ab)le0$ by setting $a=x+iz$ and $b=y+iw$. I don't know if it's useful.
â Daniel Robert-Nicoud
Aug 13 at 12:49
@DanielRobert-Nicoud then use complex analytical tools?
â Mclalalala
Aug 13 at 12:51
No clue. You can certainly try.
â Daniel Robert-Nicoud
Aug 13 at 12:53
add a comment |Â
Objects in $R^4$ cannot be visualized... And I do not think there is a name for this set if you infer something like sphere of dim 3
â dmtri
Aug 13 at 11:52
@dmtri I mean can I use some parametrics to describe this geometric object to prove some diffeomorphism?
â Mclalalala
Aug 13 at 12:49
1
One possible interpretation is as $D=(a,b)inmathbbC^2midRe(ab)le0$ by setting $a=x+iz$ and $b=y+iw$. I don't know if it's useful.
â Daniel Robert-Nicoud
Aug 13 at 12:49
@DanielRobert-Nicoud then use complex analytical tools?
â Mclalalala
Aug 13 at 12:51
No clue. You can certainly try.
â Daniel Robert-Nicoud
Aug 13 at 12:53
Objects in $R^4$ cannot be visualized... And I do not think there is a name for this set if you infer something like sphere of dim 3
â dmtri
Aug 13 at 11:52
Objects in $R^4$ cannot be visualized... And I do not think there is a name for this set if you infer something like sphere of dim 3
â dmtri
Aug 13 at 11:52
@dmtri I mean can I use some parametrics to describe this geometric object to prove some diffeomorphism?
â Mclalalala
Aug 13 at 12:49
@dmtri I mean can I use some parametrics to describe this geometric object to prove some diffeomorphism?
â Mclalalala
Aug 13 at 12:49
1
1
One possible interpretation is as $D=(a,b)inmathbbC^2midRe(ab)le0$ by setting $a=x+iz$ and $b=y+iw$. I don't know if it's useful.
â Daniel Robert-Nicoud
Aug 13 at 12:49
One possible interpretation is as $D=(a,b)inmathbbC^2midRe(ab)le0$ by setting $a=x+iz$ and $b=y+iw$. I don't know if it's useful.
â Daniel Robert-Nicoud
Aug 13 at 12:49
@DanielRobert-Nicoud then use complex analytical tools?
â Mclalalala
Aug 13 at 12:51
@DanielRobert-Nicoud then use complex analytical tools?
â Mclalalala
Aug 13 at 12:51
No clue. You can certainly try.
â Daniel Robert-Nicoud
Aug 13 at 12:53
No clue. You can certainly try.
â Daniel Robert-Nicoud
Aug 13 at 12:53
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
The set $D$ is not a manifold; in fact, it's not even a manifold with boundary. It has nonempty interior (the set of all points where $xw-yz<0$), so if it were going to be a manifold with boundary it would have to be $4$-dimensional, and thus its boundary would have to be a $3$-manifold, which it's not. The interior, however, is a $4$-manifold, because it's an open subset of $mathbb R^4$.
Here's how to see that $partial D$ is not a $3$-manifold. It's the set where $xw = yz$, and I claim this set is actually a cone on a torus. By that I mean it is homeomorphic to the quotient of the space $mathbb S^1timesmathbb S^1 times [0,infty)$, with the entire set $mathbb S^1times mathbb S^1 times 0$ collapsed to a point. Consider the map $Fcolon mathbb S^1timesmathbb S^1 times [0,infty) to mathbb R^4$, given by
beginalign*
$$
(x,y,z,w) =
F(theta,phi,r) = (rcosphi + r costheta, r sintheta+ rsinphi,
rsintheta- rsinphi, rcosphi- rcostheta),
$$
where $theta$ and $phi$ are interpreted mod $2pi$, so they represent points on a circle. A straightforward computation shows that $F$ maps into $partial D$ and collapses the entire set $mathbb S^1times mathbb S^1 times 0$ to the origin. A little more work shows that its image is all of $partial D$ and it doesn't make any other identifications, so it descends to the quotient to show that $partial D$ is homeomorphic to the cone I mentioned above.
This cone is not a $3$-manifold. The proof that it's not is a little technical, but here goes. Every point in a $3$-manifold has a neighborhood $U$ homeomorphic to a $3$-ball, and therefore when the given point $p$ is removed from $U$, the punctured set $Usmallsetminus p$ is simply connected. But if $U$ is any neighborhood of the origin in $partial D$, when you remove the origin you get a set homeomorphic to an open subset of $mathbb S^1times mathbb S^1 times (0,infty)$, and containing a torus of the form $mathbb S^1times mathbb S^1 times varepsilon$ for some small $varepsilon$. The set $Usmallsetminus 0$ retracts onto this torus. Since a retract of a simply connected space is simply connected, while the torus is not, this shows that no punctured neighborhood of the origin in $partial D$ is simply connected. Thus $partial D$ is not a $3$-manifold, and $D$ is not a manifold with boundary.
$ D_delta=x,y,z,w mid xy-zw le delta$ when$delta<0$ or when $delta>0$, I proved it is actually a manifold but when delta=0 it is not?
â Mclalalala
Aug 14 at 1:52
I think this one is related to$ x^2+y^2-z^2-w^2le 0$ check this math.stackexchange.com/questions/160624/set-defined-by-xy-zw-1
â Mclalalala
Aug 14 at 1:53
sorry, may I ask what if it's $xy-ywle 0$, this time a manifold? I am extremely unfamiliar with those topologies
â Mclalalala
Aug 14 at 1:59
@Mclalalala: Yes, if you replace $0$ by $deltane 0$, then you get a manifold. If you want to ask about a completely different inequality like $xy-ywle 0$, you should probably post a separate question.
â Jack Lee
Aug 14 at 14:09
can you actually elaborate a little bit more in details why the above bijiection is indeed a homeomorphism. I've already understand the other parts of the answers! Thxu for you patience and help!
â Mclalalala
Aug 17 at 1:25
 |Â
show 7 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
The set $D$ is not a manifold; in fact, it's not even a manifold with boundary. It has nonempty interior (the set of all points where $xw-yz<0$), so if it were going to be a manifold with boundary it would have to be $4$-dimensional, and thus its boundary would have to be a $3$-manifold, which it's not. The interior, however, is a $4$-manifold, because it's an open subset of $mathbb R^4$.
Here's how to see that $partial D$ is not a $3$-manifold. It's the set where $xw = yz$, and I claim this set is actually a cone on a torus. By that I mean it is homeomorphic to the quotient of the space $mathbb S^1timesmathbb S^1 times [0,infty)$, with the entire set $mathbb S^1times mathbb S^1 times 0$ collapsed to a point. Consider the map $Fcolon mathbb S^1timesmathbb S^1 times [0,infty) to mathbb R^4$, given by
beginalign*
$$
(x,y,z,w) =
F(theta,phi,r) = (rcosphi + r costheta, r sintheta+ rsinphi,
rsintheta- rsinphi, rcosphi- rcostheta),
$$
where $theta$ and $phi$ are interpreted mod $2pi$, so they represent points on a circle. A straightforward computation shows that $F$ maps into $partial D$ and collapses the entire set $mathbb S^1times mathbb S^1 times 0$ to the origin. A little more work shows that its image is all of $partial D$ and it doesn't make any other identifications, so it descends to the quotient to show that $partial D$ is homeomorphic to the cone I mentioned above.
This cone is not a $3$-manifold. The proof that it's not is a little technical, but here goes. Every point in a $3$-manifold has a neighborhood $U$ homeomorphic to a $3$-ball, and therefore when the given point $p$ is removed from $U$, the punctured set $Usmallsetminus p$ is simply connected. But if $U$ is any neighborhood of the origin in $partial D$, when you remove the origin you get a set homeomorphic to an open subset of $mathbb S^1times mathbb S^1 times (0,infty)$, and containing a torus of the form $mathbb S^1times mathbb S^1 times varepsilon$ for some small $varepsilon$. The set $Usmallsetminus 0$ retracts onto this torus. Since a retract of a simply connected space is simply connected, while the torus is not, this shows that no punctured neighborhood of the origin in $partial D$ is simply connected. Thus $partial D$ is not a $3$-manifold, and $D$ is not a manifold with boundary.
$ D_delta=x,y,z,w mid xy-zw le delta$ when$delta<0$ or when $delta>0$, I proved it is actually a manifold but when delta=0 it is not?
â Mclalalala
Aug 14 at 1:52
I think this one is related to$ x^2+y^2-z^2-w^2le 0$ check this math.stackexchange.com/questions/160624/set-defined-by-xy-zw-1
â Mclalalala
Aug 14 at 1:53
sorry, may I ask what if it's $xy-ywle 0$, this time a manifold? I am extremely unfamiliar with those topologies
â Mclalalala
Aug 14 at 1:59
@Mclalalala: Yes, if you replace $0$ by $deltane 0$, then you get a manifold. If you want to ask about a completely different inequality like $xy-ywle 0$, you should probably post a separate question.
â Jack Lee
Aug 14 at 14:09
can you actually elaborate a little bit more in details why the above bijiection is indeed a homeomorphism. I've already understand the other parts of the answers! Thxu for you patience and help!
â Mclalalala
Aug 17 at 1:25
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
The set $D$ is not a manifold; in fact, it's not even a manifold with boundary. It has nonempty interior (the set of all points where $xw-yz<0$), so if it were going to be a manifold with boundary it would have to be $4$-dimensional, and thus its boundary would have to be a $3$-manifold, which it's not. The interior, however, is a $4$-manifold, because it's an open subset of $mathbb R^4$.
Here's how to see that $partial D$ is not a $3$-manifold. It's the set where $xw = yz$, and I claim this set is actually a cone on a torus. By that I mean it is homeomorphic to the quotient of the space $mathbb S^1timesmathbb S^1 times [0,infty)$, with the entire set $mathbb S^1times mathbb S^1 times 0$ collapsed to a point. Consider the map $Fcolon mathbb S^1timesmathbb S^1 times [0,infty) to mathbb R^4$, given by
beginalign*
$$
(x,y,z,w) =
F(theta,phi,r) = (rcosphi + r costheta, r sintheta+ rsinphi,
rsintheta- rsinphi, rcosphi- rcostheta),
$$
where $theta$ and $phi$ are interpreted mod $2pi$, so they represent points on a circle. A straightforward computation shows that $F$ maps into $partial D$ and collapses the entire set $mathbb S^1times mathbb S^1 times 0$ to the origin. A little more work shows that its image is all of $partial D$ and it doesn't make any other identifications, so it descends to the quotient to show that $partial D$ is homeomorphic to the cone I mentioned above.
This cone is not a $3$-manifold. The proof that it's not is a little technical, but here goes. Every point in a $3$-manifold has a neighborhood $U$ homeomorphic to a $3$-ball, and therefore when the given point $p$ is removed from $U$, the punctured set $Usmallsetminus p$ is simply connected. But if $U$ is any neighborhood of the origin in $partial D$, when you remove the origin you get a set homeomorphic to an open subset of $mathbb S^1times mathbb S^1 times (0,infty)$, and containing a torus of the form $mathbb S^1times mathbb S^1 times varepsilon$ for some small $varepsilon$. The set $Usmallsetminus 0$ retracts onto this torus. Since a retract of a simply connected space is simply connected, while the torus is not, this shows that no punctured neighborhood of the origin in $partial D$ is simply connected. Thus $partial D$ is not a $3$-manifold, and $D$ is not a manifold with boundary.
$ D_delta=x,y,z,w mid xy-zw le delta$ when$delta<0$ or when $delta>0$, I proved it is actually a manifold but when delta=0 it is not?
â Mclalalala
Aug 14 at 1:52
I think this one is related to$ x^2+y^2-z^2-w^2le 0$ check this math.stackexchange.com/questions/160624/set-defined-by-xy-zw-1
â Mclalalala
Aug 14 at 1:53
sorry, may I ask what if it's $xy-ywle 0$, this time a manifold? I am extremely unfamiliar with those topologies
â Mclalalala
Aug 14 at 1:59
@Mclalalala: Yes, if you replace $0$ by $deltane 0$, then you get a manifold. If you want to ask about a completely different inequality like $xy-ywle 0$, you should probably post a separate question.
â Jack Lee
Aug 14 at 14:09
can you actually elaborate a little bit more in details why the above bijiection is indeed a homeomorphism. I've already understand the other parts of the answers! Thxu for you patience and help!
â Mclalalala
Aug 17 at 1:25
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
The set $D$ is not a manifold; in fact, it's not even a manifold with boundary. It has nonempty interior (the set of all points where $xw-yz<0$), so if it were going to be a manifold with boundary it would have to be $4$-dimensional, and thus its boundary would have to be a $3$-manifold, which it's not. The interior, however, is a $4$-manifold, because it's an open subset of $mathbb R^4$.
Here's how to see that $partial D$ is not a $3$-manifold. It's the set where $xw = yz$, and I claim this set is actually a cone on a torus. By that I mean it is homeomorphic to the quotient of the space $mathbb S^1timesmathbb S^1 times [0,infty)$, with the entire set $mathbb S^1times mathbb S^1 times 0$ collapsed to a point. Consider the map $Fcolon mathbb S^1timesmathbb S^1 times [0,infty) to mathbb R^4$, given by
beginalign*
$$
(x,y,z,w) =
F(theta,phi,r) = (rcosphi + r costheta, r sintheta+ rsinphi,
rsintheta- rsinphi, rcosphi- rcostheta),
$$
where $theta$ and $phi$ are interpreted mod $2pi$, so they represent points on a circle. A straightforward computation shows that $F$ maps into $partial D$ and collapses the entire set $mathbb S^1times mathbb S^1 times 0$ to the origin. A little more work shows that its image is all of $partial D$ and it doesn't make any other identifications, so it descends to the quotient to show that $partial D$ is homeomorphic to the cone I mentioned above.
This cone is not a $3$-manifold. The proof that it's not is a little technical, but here goes. Every point in a $3$-manifold has a neighborhood $U$ homeomorphic to a $3$-ball, and therefore when the given point $p$ is removed from $U$, the punctured set $Usmallsetminus p$ is simply connected. But if $U$ is any neighborhood of the origin in $partial D$, when you remove the origin you get a set homeomorphic to an open subset of $mathbb S^1times mathbb S^1 times (0,infty)$, and containing a torus of the form $mathbb S^1times mathbb S^1 times varepsilon$ for some small $varepsilon$. The set $Usmallsetminus 0$ retracts onto this torus. Since a retract of a simply connected space is simply connected, while the torus is not, this shows that no punctured neighborhood of the origin in $partial D$ is simply connected. Thus $partial D$ is not a $3$-manifold, and $D$ is not a manifold with boundary.
The set $D$ is not a manifold; in fact, it's not even a manifold with boundary. It has nonempty interior (the set of all points where $xw-yz<0$), so if it were going to be a manifold with boundary it would have to be $4$-dimensional, and thus its boundary would have to be a $3$-manifold, which it's not. The interior, however, is a $4$-manifold, because it's an open subset of $mathbb R^4$.
Here's how to see that $partial D$ is not a $3$-manifold. It's the set where $xw = yz$, and I claim this set is actually a cone on a torus. By that I mean it is homeomorphic to the quotient of the space $mathbb S^1timesmathbb S^1 times [0,infty)$, with the entire set $mathbb S^1times mathbb S^1 times 0$ collapsed to a point. Consider the map $Fcolon mathbb S^1timesmathbb S^1 times [0,infty) to mathbb R^4$, given by
beginalign*
$$
(x,y,z,w) =
F(theta,phi,r) = (rcosphi + r costheta, r sintheta+ rsinphi,
rsintheta- rsinphi, rcosphi- rcostheta),
$$
where $theta$ and $phi$ are interpreted mod $2pi$, so they represent points on a circle. A straightforward computation shows that $F$ maps into $partial D$ and collapses the entire set $mathbb S^1times mathbb S^1 times 0$ to the origin. A little more work shows that its image is all of $partial D$ and it doesn't make any other identifications, so it descends to the quotient to show that $partial D$ is homeomorphic to the cone I mentioned above.
This cone is not a $3$-manifold. The proof that it's not is a little technical, but here goes. Every point in a $3$-manifold has a neighborhood $U$ homeomorphic to a $3$-ball, and therefore when the given point $p$ is removed from $U$, the punctured set $Usmallsetminus p$ is simply connected. But if $U$ is any neighborhood of the origin in $partial D$, when you remove the origin you get a set homeomorphic to an open subset of $mathbb S^1times mathbb S^1 times (0,infty)$, and containing a torus of the form $mathbb S^1times mathbb S^1 times varepsilon$ for some small $varepsilon$. The set $Usmallsetminus 0$ retracts onto this torus. Since a retract of a simply connected space is simply connected, while the torus is not, this shows that no punctured neighborhood of the origin in $partial D$ is simply connected. Thus $partial D$ is not a $3$-manifold, and $D$ is not a manifold with boundary.
edited Aug 18 at 23:54
answered Aug 14 at 0:58
Jack Lee
25.4k44362
25.4k44362
$ D_delta=x,y,z,w mid xy-zw le delta$ when$delta<0$ or when $delta>0$, I proved it is actually a manifold but when delta=0 it is not?
â Mclalalala
Aug 14 at 1:52
I think this one is related to$ x^2+y^2-z^2-w^2le 0$ check this math.stackexchange.com/questions/160624/set-defined-by-xy-zw-1
â Mclalalala
Aug 14 at 1:53
sorry, may I ask what if it's $xy-ywle 0$, this time a manifold? I am extremely unfamiliar with those topologies
â Mclalalala
Aug 14 at 1:59
@Mclalalala: Yes, if you replace $0$ by $deltane 0$, then you get a manifold. If you want to ask about a completely different inequality like $xy-ywle 0$, you should probably post a separate question.
â Jack Lee
Aug 14 at 14:09
can you actually elaborate a little bit more in details why the above bijiection is indeed a homeomorphism. I've already understand the other parts of the answers! Thxu for you patience and help!
â Mclalalala
Aug 17 at 1:25
 |Â
show 7 more comments
$ D_delta=x,y,z,w mid xy-zw le delta$ when$delta<0$ or when $delta>0$, I proved it is actually a manifold but when delta=0 it is not?
â Mclalalala
Aug 14 at 1:52
I think this one is related to$ x^2+y^2-z^2-w^2le 0$ check this math.stackexchange.com/questions/160624/set-defined-by-xy-zw-1
â Mclalalala
Aug 14 at 1:53
sorry, may I ask what if it's $xy-ywle 0$, this time a manifold? I am extremely unfamiliar with those topologies
â Mclalalala
Aug 14 at 1:59
@Mclalalala: Yes, if you replace $0$ by $deltane 0$, then you get a manifold. If you want to ask about a completely different inequality like $xy-ywle 0$, you should probably post a separate question.
â Jack Lee
Aug 14 at 14:09
can you actually elaborate a little bit more in details why the above bijiection is indeed a homeomorphism. I've already understand the other parts of the answers! Thxu for you patience and help!
â Mclalalala
Aug 17 at 1:25
$ D_delta=x,y,z,w mid xy-zw le delta$ when$delta<0$ or when $delta>0$, I proved it is actually a manifold but when delta=0 it is not?
â Mclalalala
Aug 14 at 1:52
$ D_delta=x,y,z,w mid xy-zw le delta$ when$delta<0$ or when $delta>0$, I proved it is actually a manifold but when delta=0 it is not?
â Mclalalala
Aug 14 at 1:52
I think this one is related to$ x^2+y^2-z^2-w^2le 0$ check this math.stackexchange.com/questions/160624/set-defined-by-xy-zw-1
â Mclalalala
Aug 14 at 1:53
I think this one is related to$ x^2+y^2-z^2-w^2le 0$ check this math.stackexchange.com/questions/160624/set-defined-by-xy-zw-1
â Mclalalala
Aug 14 at 1:53
sorry, may I ask what if it's $xy-ywle 0$, this time a manifold? I am extremely unfamiliar with those topologies
â Mclalalala
Aug 14 at 1:59
sorry, may I ask what if it's $xy-ywle 0$, this time a manifold? I am extremely unfamiliar with those topologies
â Mclalalala
Aug 14 at 1:59
@Mclalalala: Yes, if you replace $0$ by $deltane 0$, then you get a manifold. If you want to ask about a completely different inequality like $xy-ywle 0$, you should probably post a separate question.
â Jack Lee
Aug 14 at 14:09
@Mclalalala: Yes, if you replace $0$ by $deltane 0$, then you get a manifold. If you want to ask about a completely different inequality like $xy-ywle 0$, you should probably post a separate question.
â Jack Lee
Aug 14 at 14:09
can you actually elaborate a little bit more in details why the above bijiection is indeed a homeomorphism. I've already understand the other parts of the answers! Thxu for you patience and help!
â Mclalalala
Aug 17 at 1:25
can you actually elaborate a little bit more in details why the above bijiection is indeed a homeomorphism. I've already understand the other parts of the answers! Thxu for you patience and help!
â Mclalalala
Aug 17 at 1:25
 |Â
show 7 more comments
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%2f2881176%2fthe-manifold-of-d-x-y-z-w-mid-xw-yz-le-0%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
Objects in $R^4$ cannot be visualized... And I do not think there is a name for this set if you infer something like sphere of dim 3
â dmtri
Aug 13 at 11:52
@dmtri I mean can I use some parametrics to describe this geometric object to prove some diffeomorphism?
â Mclalalala
Aug 13 at 12:49
1
One possible interpretation is as $D=(a,b)inmathbbC^2midRe(ab)le0$ by setting $a=x+iz$ and $b=y+iw$. I don't know if it's useful.
â Daniel Robert-Nicoud
Aug 13 at 12:49
@DanielRobert-Nicoud then use complex analytical tools?
â Mclalalala
Aug 13 at 12:51
No clue. You can certainly try.
â Daniel Robert-Nicoud
Aug 13 at 12:53