Not signed in (Sign In)

# Start a new discussion

## Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Sign in using OpenID

## Discussion Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

• CommentRowNumber1.
• CommentAuthorColin Tan
• CommentTimeJun 21st 2014

At complex manifold, a complex manifold is defined as a manifold modeled on C^n (the complex n -dimensional complex line).

In my understanding, the complex line refers to C^1. I am not sure what to replace this by. Should we call C^n “complex Cartesian space” or “complex affine space”? Is there a name by which C^n already goes by in the Lab?

• CommentRowNumber2.
• CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
• CommentTimeJun 21st 2014

Personally I’d call it complex $n$-space. Ultimately we want that the derivatives of transition functions for an atlas induce cocycle data $U_i \cap U_j \to GL(\mathbb{C}^n)$, so it’s the automorphisms on the complex vector space that enter here; therefore you could say “complex $n$-dimensional vector space” if complex $n$-space doesn’t seem precise enough.

• CommentRowNumber3.
• CommentAuthorTobyBartels
• CommentTimeJun 21st 2014

You could say ‘complexified cartesian space’.

• CommentRowNumber4.
• CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
• CommentTimeJun 21st 2014

The wikipedia entry makes a point of saying that

a complex manifold is a manifold with an atlas of charts to the open unit disk in $C^n$,

and then

One must use the open unit disk in $C^n$ as the model space instead of $C^n$ because these are not isomorphic, unlike for real manifolds.

• CommentRowNumber5.
• CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
• CommentTimeJun 21st 2014

That’s a good point, David.

• CommentRowNumber6.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeJun 21st 2014
• (edited Jun 21st 2014)

Yes, disks. We have been talking about that extensively in various other entries recently. I have fixed it in the entry here.

• CommentRowNumber7.
• CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
• CommentTimeJun 21st 2014

Hmm. Why does wikipedia say

The following spaces are different as complex manifolds

and list complex space; the unit disk or open ball; the polydisk?

It says the open ball is the right model.

• CommentRowNumber8.
• CommentAuthorZhen Lin
• CommentTimeJun 21st 2014

As Wikipedia says, Liouville’s theorem implies that every holomorphic map from complex space $\mathbb{C}^n$ to either the open ball or the polydisc must be constant. So complex space is not isomorphic to either the open ball or the polydisc. The open ball is not isomorphic to the polydisc either – see here.

• CommentRowNumber9.
• CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
• CommentTimeJun 21st 2014

So what should the definition be on the page complex manifold?

• CommentRowNumber10.
• CommentAuthorZhen Lin
• CommentTimeJun 21st 2014

I don’t know. My lecturer used the definition where general open subsets of $\mathbb{C}^n$ are used as local models. However, one notes that every open subset of $\mathbb{C}^n$ can be covered by either $n$-dimensional open balls (resp. polydiscs) of different sizes, and that $n$-dimensional open balls (resp. polydiscs) of different sizes are isomorphic, so it would seem that either one can be used as a local model.

• CommentRowNumber11.
• CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
• CommentTimeJun 21st 2014

Zhen Lin is right: either balls or polydisks can be used as local models, and one gets the same notion of manifold either way.

• CommentRowNumber12.
• CommentAuthorColin Tan
• CommentTimeJul 17th 2014

I took up Toby’s suggestion went ahead to call ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ “complex n-dimensional complexified carteisan space” instead of the original “complex n-dimensional complex line”.

• CommentRowNumber13.
• CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
• CommentTimeJul 17th 2014

I don’t much like the way it reads (too heavy), but it’s an improvement over what was there before.

• CommentRowNumber14.
• CommentAuthorColin Tan
• CommentTimeJul 17th 2014
Would complexified (n-dimensional Cartesian space) be more readable?
• CommentRowNumber15.
• CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
• CommentTimeJul 17th 2014

Of course this is mostly a matter of aesthetics. Personally I think one could omit the entire parenthetical without any loss of comprehension whatever, and I also think prose ought to sound close to what one might say aloud. I therefore thought “complex $n$-space” was quite enough, but if one really feels a strong urge to utter “cartesian space”, then I think one could say “complexified $n$-dimensional cartesian space” without that second pair of parentheses. Still sounds heavy to me, but I could learn to live with it.

• CommentRowNumber16.
• CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
• CommentTimeJul 18th 2014

I went ahead and made the change (along with some other tiny edits made earlier today).

• CommentRowNumber17.
• CommentAuthorTobyBartels
• CommentTimeJul 18th 2014

I agree with Todd #15. It can be helpful to have the term ‘cartesian space’ sitting there to help one link to cartesian space. In that case, ‘complexified $n$-dimensional cartesian space’ (‘complexified $n$-dimensional cartesian space’ with links) should be sufficient. (So might ‘$n$-dimensional complexified cartesian space’, but this could be ambiguous about how we are counting dimensions.) If we don't need to spell everything out, then ‘complex $n$-space’ or even ‘$\mathbb{C}^n$’ will usually be clear enough.

• CommentRowNumber18.
• CommentAuthorTobyBartels
• CommentTimeJul 18th 2014

Seeing this terminology in context at real space, I recall that another way to say this would be ‘complex $n$-dimensional affine space’ or ‘$n$-dimensional affine space over the complex numbers’. This is less specific, since complexified cartesian space is only one of the many complex affine spaces (fixing a dimension); this is because a cartesian space comes equipped with coordinates. If you're not worrying about (even iso‑) morphisms, however, then there's no difference, since every affine space may be so equipped.

• CommentRowNumber19.
• CommentAuthorColin Tan
• CommentTimeJul 19th 2014

How about ’complexified cartesian n-space’? If we choose this, then eventually we can lighten the reference to ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ from ’n-dimensional cartesian space’ to ’cartesian n-space’.

• CommentRowNumber20.
• CommentAuthorTobyBartels
• CommentTimeJul 20th 2014

You could do that, but it's harder to link. The first reference can be lengthy; every subsequent reference is simply ‘$\mathbb{C}^n$’.

Add your comments
• Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
• To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

• (Help)