# The Unapologetic Mathematician

## The Derivative

It turns out that the tangent bundle construction is actually a functor. Given a smooth map $f:M\to N$ between smooth manifolds, we will get a smooth map $f_*:\mathcal{T}M\to\mathcal{T}N$. Yes, we’d usually write $\mathcal{T}f$ for a functor’s action on a map, but the $f_*$ notation is pretty classical.

So if we’re given a tangent vector $v\in\mathcal{T}_pM$ we want to get a tangent vector $f_*(v)\in\mathcal{T}_qN$. And since we already have $f$ sending points of $M$ to points of $N$, it only makes sense to ask that $q=f(p)$. That is, in terms of the tangent bundle projection functions, we can write $f(\pi(v))=\pi(f_*(v))$. In other words, the projection $\pi:\mathcal{T}M\to M$ will be a natural transformation from the tangent bundle functor to the identity functor.

Anyway, this means that for each $p\in M$ we’ll get a map $f_{*p}:\mathcal{T}_pM\to\mathcal{T}_{f(p)}N$. Since these are both vector spaces, it only stands to reason that we’d have a linear map. We haven’t yet established the connection between our “tangent vectors” and the geometric notion, but we do have a notion from multivariable calculus of a linear map that takes tangent vectors to tangent vectors: the Jacobian, which we saw as a certain extension of the notion of the derivative. We will find that our map $f_*$ is the analogue of the same concept on manifolds, and so we will call it the derivative of $f$.

So here’s our definition: if $f:U\to N$ is a differentiable map in some open set $U\subseteq M$ and if $p\in U$, then we define our map $f_{*p}:\mathcal{T}_pM\to\mathcal{T}_{f(p)}N$ by

$\displaystyle\left[f_{*p}(v)\right](\phi)=v(\phi\circ f)$

where $\phi\in\mathcal{O}(V)$ is any smooth function on a neighborhood of $f(p)\in N$. That is, $f_{*p}(v)$ is a linear functional on $\mathcal{O}_{f(p)}$; if $\phi$ represents a germ at $f(p)$ we can compose it with $f$ to represent a germ at $p$, and then we can apply $v$ itself to this germ. It should be immediately clear that this construction is linear in $v$.

April 6, 2011 - Posted by | Differential Topology, Topology

1. [...] take the derivative and see what it looks like in terms of coordinates. Say we have a smooth manifold and a smooth map [...]

Pingback by Derivatives in Coordinates « The Unapologetic Mathematician | April 6, 2011 | Reply

2. [...] of the Derivative We’ve said that the tangent bundle construction is a functor with the derivative as the action on morphisms. But we haven’t actually verified that it obeys the conditions of [...]

Pingback by Functoriality of the Derivative « The Unapologetic Mathematician | April 7, 2011 | Reply

3. [...] we have a canonical tangent vector in , we can hit it with the derivative and see what happens. We get a tangent [...]

Pingback by Curves « The Unapologetic Mathematician | April 8, 2011 | Reply

4. [...] Armstrong: Derivatives in Coordinates, The Derivative, Coordinate Vectors Span Tangent Spaces, Tangent Vectors at a [...]

5. [...] to more general manifolds. We know that the proper generalization of the Jacobian is the derivative of a smooth map , where is an open region of an -manifold and is another -manifold. If the [...]

Pingback by The Inverse Function Theorem « The Unapologetic Mathematician | April 14, 2011 | Reply

6. [...] map of manifolds is called an “immersion” if the derivative is injective at every point . Immediately we can tell that this can only happen if [...]

Pingback by Immersions and Embeddings « The Unapologetic Mathematician | April 18, 2011 | Reply

7. [...] be a smooth map between manifolds. We say that a point is a “regular point” if the derivative has rank ; otherwise, we say that is a “critical point”. A point is called a [...]

Pingback by Regular and Critical Points « The Unapologetic Mathematician | April 21, 2011 | Reply

8. [...] key observation is that the inclusion induces an inclusion of each tangent space by using the derivative . The directions in this subspace are those “tangent to” the submanifold , and so these [...]

Pingback by Tangent Spaces and Regular Values « The Unapologetic Mathematician | April 26, 2011 | Reply

9. [...] of increasing . That is, includes the interval into “at the point “, and thus its derivative carries along its tangent bundle. At each point of an (oriented) interval there’s a [...]

Pingback by Integral Curves and Local Flows « The Unapologetic Mathematician | May 28, 2011 | Reply

10. [...] be a smooth map between manifolds, with derivative , and let and be smooth vector fields. We can compose them as and , and it makes sense to ask if [...]

Pingback by Maps Intertwining Vector Fields « The Unapologetic Mathematician | June 3, 2011 | Reply

11. [...] from back to itself, and in particular it has the identity as a fixed point: . Thus the derivative sends the tangent space at back to itself: . But we know that this tangent space is canonically [...]

Pingback by The Adjoint Representation « The Unapologetic Mathematician | June 13, 2011 | Reply

12. [...] because smooth maps push points forward. It turns out that vectors push forward as well, by the derivative. And so we can define the pullback of a -form [...]

Pingback by Pulling Back Forms « The Unapologetic Mathematician | July 13, 2011 | Reply

13. [...] this pullback of we must work out how to push forward vectors from . That is, we must work out the derivative of [...]

Pingback by An Example (part 3) « The Unapologetic Mathematician | August 24, 2011 | Reply

14. [...] the derivative, we see [...]

Pingback by The Tangent Space at the Boundary « The Unapologetic Mathematician | September 15, 2011 | Reply

15. [...] forms are entirely made from contravariant vector fields, so we can pull back by using the derivative to push forward vectors and then [...]

Pingback by Isometries « The Unapologetic Mathematician | September 27, 2011 | Reply

16. [...] The orientation on a hypersurface consists of tangent vectors which are all in the image of the derivative of the local parameterization map, which is a singular [...]

Pingback by (Hyper-)Surface Integrals « The Unapologetic Mathematician | October 27, 2011 | Reply