RP^3 should admit such a self-diffeom. reflect along a hypersphere to get S^3 --> S^3. This is Z/2 equivariant so quotient down to get RP^3 --> RP^3. Isn't this degree -1?
I don't know if there's an easy proof off the top of my head. You could prove that the mapping class group is the same as the path components of the isometry group and work that out. (I think all elliptic manifolds have the same property by the same proof?) Alternatively Froyshov's h-invariant is 1 on P and is negated under orientation reversal.
The last argument is basically the same as using Donaldson's theorem to see that $P \# P$ can't bound a homology ball, but of course $P \# \bar P$ can.
Ah, I was thinking along those lines but didn't stop to look at homology cobordism instead of cobordism (P # P of course bounds a 4-manifold, as do all oriented closed 3-manifolds of the world, so that's boring).
Actually, if you choose any "lattice", that is, linear combinations of some set of linearly independent vectors, but only with integer coefficients, it still holds true
@MeowMix It should for any countable subset of the plane, I think. It's really counter-intuitive when you wonder about $\Bbb Q^2$ in $\Bbb R^2$ but it should be true.
given any two $\lambda_1,\lambda_2\in\Lambda$, the centers of spheres that contain both form the hyperplane halfway between them, which has codimension $1$. If we take the union of this for all such pairs in $\Lambda$, we get a subset of measure $0$, so we can pick a center not in that subset. Then the number of points in a ball around that center will only jump by $1$ at a time.
@MikeMiller Just to verify, would the Donaldson argument go by saying the double of the homology ball P#P bounds would have nondiagonalizable intersection form? That would only prove it's not smooth, though - is there anything forcing the homology ball to be smooth?
@MeowMix Not particularly. I think you need to vary the center there. If you fix a center the number of lattice points lying on a circle of radius $r$ are number solutions to $x^2 + y^2 = r^2$ which seem to grow too fast relative to $r$.
Honestly, though, I really don't grok the algebraist's perspective on a lot of things - say commutative algebra. Us mortals prove the Hilbert's Nullstellensatz (an essentially too, especially if one wants to understand the sheaf theory of varieties) in the very beginning and slowly ventures through varieties and eventually proves Noether normalization through a geometric argument (it essentially says any variety admits a finite surjective map to some affine space)
But the algebraists do it right up backwards: prove Noether normalization using some algebraic tools first in a completely incomprehensible language after some fiddling with commutative rings, and then prove Nullstellensatz as a consequence
Writing a few disjoint sequence of messages in some internet chatspaces was never meant to be communication, was it? It's changing the very understanding of human communication everyday
Escape from New York is a 1981 American dystopian action film co-written, co-scored, and directed by John Carpenter. The film is set in the then near-future 1997 in a crime-ridden United States that has converted Manhattan Island in New York City into a maximum security prison. Ex-soldier Snake Plissken (Kurt Russell) is given 24 hours to find the President of the United States (Donald Pleasence), who has been captured by prisoners after the crash of Air Force One.
Carpenter wrote the film in the mid-1970s as a reaction to the Watergate scandal. After the success of Halloween, he had enough influence...
@AliCaglayan We are not just giving a cry "I'm here!" from moment-to-moment to our best buddies on the internet. We are also trying to convey our ideas and emotions, but it's completely unclear how much distortion it goes through upon reaching the receptor.
I'm trying to prove that the product of two principal ideals (x) and (y) of R is the principal ideal (xy) but all I'm assuming is that R is a commutative ring. Not that it has 1.
O I almost forgot, some authors only need 0 or 1 in their semiring axioms, thus yes if you structure is only missing one type of identity, then it is still a semiring. "rg" takes this further by throwing away both identities
Another way to think about these things is take two types of algebraic structure (often semigroups) with one operator each, and then add a distributive law to relate them
In most cases you will end up with boolean algebra and lattices, but there are cases where you don't get a lattice
@Balarka: No, the double is probably just $S^4$. $P$ bounds a manifold with intersection form $E8$, so if it also bounded a homology ball, you'd get a closed manifold violating Donaldson.
But homology cobordism is trivial if you want to work topologically instead of smoothly.
On the other hand every homeomorphism is isotopic to a diffeo in dim 3.
Suppose $A > B$. Then, for $n > n_1$ then $|a_n - A| < \epsilon$, for $n > n_2$ then $a_n - B < \epsilon$, let $n_3 = \max\{n_1,n_2\}$, then, since $a_n < b_n$ we have $A+ \epsilon < B + \epsilon$
If there are 6 players and each pair has to play with each other pair then for calculating the total number of games possible why is $$\dfrac{ \binom{6}{2} \binom {4}{2} } {2}$$ the wrong method?
All users, I have found in YouTube an interesting talk (in spanish) with slides about Cusanus and $\pi$, from professor Jesús Guillera. You can find it typing in YouTube Cusanus y el Número Pi, and see it from the official channel Jesús Guillera. Thus if you know spanish o have a spanish friend you can see it this morning or afternoon. Good weekend.
@AayushAgrawal I don't know what you mean by "highschool level". If you are preparing for competitive mathematics (for example the olympiads) then the books you have to read will be of a considerably higher level than normal school textbooks.
Hi chat , any idea where there is a nice introduction to Manifolds,I am finding this name used in several contexts , papers, directly and I always overead it!
@Secret @AlessandroCodenotti You only need at most $n+1$ charts for a closed $n$-manifold. They'll have complicated intersections with each other. I don't know what you can say about non-closed things off the top of my head.
I think it should probably also be true for arbitrary n-manifolds...
@AlessandroCodenotti Like Mike said, you can cover every surface by at most 3 charts. It's interesting to construct it, even for the torus. Maybe take that as an exercise.
(For the torus you can't do it less than 3)
Once you do it for the torus the other surfaces shouldn't actually be hard. It's the same idea.
Ah fair point. You can fix that; use Mayer Vietoris instead.
Give me a moment. M-V seems to say that there has to be two connected components in the intersection and the boundary map is an isomorphism. Trying to see if I can use that to contradict anything.
@Alessandro Actually it's easier than all that. Your open subsets of torus are both manifolds. Simply connected open 2-manifolds are exactly disks, so that's the same as asking them to be charts.
Six cards and six envelopes are numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and cards are to be placed in envelopes so that each envelope contains exactly one card and no card is placed in the envelope bearing the same number and moreover the card numbered 1 is always placed in envelope numbered 2. Then the number of ways it can be done is? My Attempt: I initially assumed card 1 is already placed in envelope 2. So the answer should come out to be derangement of 5 objects. D(5)=44. But ans is 53.
I mean I think for all noncompact 2-manifold you need 2 charts to cover it. I am a little skeptic about that now though; what about like infinitely torus connected summed up?
Torus with a puncture (enlarge that to a hole, say) is $S^1 \times I$ with $S^1 \times 1$ glued to $S^1 \vee S^1$ by $aba^{-1}b^{-1}$. Cut along a path $\{p\} \times I$; that's a chart, no?
When thinking about the countably infinite connect sum of torii suggested by Alessendro, this is the picture that first came to mind on what the manifold look like: