the manifold of $ D=x,y,z,w mid xw-yz le 0$

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash 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?







share|cite|improve this question






















  • 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
    – dmtri
    Aug 13 at 11:52










  • @dmtri I mean can I use some parametrics to describe this geometric object to prove some diffeomorphism?
    – 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.
    – Daniel Robert-Nicoud
    Aug 13 at 12:49










  • @DanielRobert-Nicoud then use complex analytical tools?
    – Mclalalala
    Aug 13 at 12:51










  • No clue. You can certainly try.
    – Daniel Robert-Nicoud
    Aug 13 at 12:53














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?







share|cite|improve this question






















  • 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
    – dmtri
    Aug 13 at 11:52










  • @dmtri I mean can I use some parametrics to describe this geometric object to prove some diffeomorphism?
    – 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.
    – Daniel Robert-Nicoud
    Aug 13 at 12:49










  • @DanielRobert-Nicoud then use complex analytical tools?
    – Mclalalala
    Aug 13 at 12:51










  • No clue. You can certainly try.
    – Daniel Robert-Nicoud
    Aug 13 at 12:53












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?







share|cite|improve this question














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?









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








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
    – dmtri
    Aug 13 at 11:52










  • @dmtri I mean can I use some parametrics to describe this geometric object to prove some diffeomorphism?
    – 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.
    – Daniel Robert-Nicoud
    Aug 13 at 12:49










  • @DanielRobert-Nicoud then use complex analytical tools?
    – Mclalalala
    Aug 13 at 12:51










  • No clue. You can certainly try.
    – 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
    – dmtri
    Aug 13 at 11:52










  • @dmtri I mean can I use some parametrics to describe this geometric object to prove some diffeomorphism?
    – 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.
    – Daniel Robert-Nicoud
    Aug 13 at 12:49










  • @DanielRobert-Nicoud then use complex analytical tools?
    – Mclalalala
    Aug 13 at 12:51










  • No clue. You can certainly try.
    – 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
– 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
– dmtri
Aug 13 at 11:52












@dmtri I mean can I use some parametrics to describe this geometric object to prove some diffeomorphism?
– Mclalalala
Aug 13 at 12:49




@dmtri I mean can I use some parametrics to describe this geometric object to prove some diffeomorphism?
– 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.
– 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.
– Daniel Robert-Nicoud
Aug 13 at 12:49












@DanielRobert-Nicoud then use complex analytical tools?
– Mclalalala
Aug 13 at 12:51




@DanielRobert-Nicoud then use complex analytical tools?
– Mclalalala
Aug 13 at 12:51












No clue. You can certainly try.
– Daniel Robert-Nicoud
Aug 13 at 12:53




No clue. You can certainly try.
– Daniel Robert-Nicoud
Aug 13 at 12:53










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.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • $ 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?
    – 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
    – 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
    – 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.
    – 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!
    – Mclalalala
    Aug 17 at 1:25










Your Answer




StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);








 

draft saved


draft discarded


















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






























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.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • $ 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?
    – 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
    – 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
    – 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.
    – 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!
    – Mclalalala
    Aug 17 at 1:25














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.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • $ 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?
    – 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
    – 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
    – 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.
    – 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!
    – Mclalalala
    Aug 17 at 1:25












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.






share|cite|improve this answer














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.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








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?
    – 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
    – 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
    – 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.
    – 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!
    – 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?
    – 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
    – 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
    – 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.
    – 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!
    – 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?
– 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?
– 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
– 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
– 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
– 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
– 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.
– 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.
– 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!
– 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!
– Mclalalala
Aug 17 at 1:25












 

draft saved


draft discarded


























 


draft saved


draft discarded














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













































































這個網誌中的熱門文章

How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

Mutual Information Always Non-negative

Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?