-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 397
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat: Naturality of integral curves #9341
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
- use lowerCamelCase for our definitions, per the naming convention. - sketch how to prove a few more sorries.
all results in this file hold for topological manifolds.
…ion. The current lemma (frontier of (e.extend I).target) has contributions from boundary(I.range) (good), but also from another factor (bad).
we should ask for x not being an interior of its chart's target. (Asking for "lies in the frontier", as we did before, would also include boundary points of (extChartAt I x).source in interior (range I), which we're not interested in.) In other words, the previous definition was actually *wrong*.
- make some variables explicit; fix namespacing of one result. - move all topology helper results into their own section.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Took a preliminary look: looks pretty good to me. I would define f-relatedness, a new minor comments and then, once the dependent PR has been merged, it's good to go from my side.
If you want: add the Lie bracket under f-relatedness as a future TODO.
|
||
/-- Let `v` and `v'` be vector fields on `M` and `M'`, respectively, and let `f : M → M'` be a | ||
differentiable map. If `v` and `v'` are `f`-related, then `f` maps integral curves of `v` to | ||
integral curves of `v'`. The converse is stated below. -/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is scope creep, but... how about introducing a definition of f-related vector fields? (I don't mind any somewhat interesting API being out of scope, but the definition would be useful, I think.)
∃ (γ : ℝ → M), γ t₀ = x₀ ∧ IsIntegralCurveAt γ v t₀ := | ||
exists_isIntegralCurveAt_of_contMDiffAt t₀ hv (BoundarylessManifold.isInteriorPoint I) | ||
|
||
section Naturality |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you add a doc-string to this section, and - more importantly, mention this result in the high-level docstring?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes of course! If we're going to introduce f
-relatedness and so on, which will be in a different file, this section should probably also go in a different file.
I just realised: defining f-relatedness might entail defining vector fields as well. Sorry. I think this would be a great addition as well. |
This PR/issue depends on: |
I agree with the need for new definitions. There's already |
PR summary 1355af371aImport changes for modified filesNo significant changes to the import graph Import changes for all files
|
Let
v
andv'
be sections of the tangent bundle of manifoldsM
andM'
, respectively, and letf : M → M'
be a differentiable map. Thenf
maps integral curves ofv
to integral curves ofv'
if and only ifv
andv'
aref
-related.