6 thoughts on “Integral Curves

  1. 1. The minus function (-) doesn’t necessarily exist in the manifold so you can’t even define f.

    2. Allowing for this, why should f(t) = X and this always be 2\epsilon?

  2. 1 you are right need to apply \xi to \alpha and \beta then define f as the difference of these two images now in \mathbb{R}^m. This f is still cts and we now have a metric.

    2 2 is my nonsense, now improved by pre-applying \xi; f(t) is now a non zero element of \mathbb{R}^m so has a non-zero length, if we call its length X then halve this length to be our \epsilon to be used in the \epsilon, \delta argument.

    intuitively any non zero f(t) has a cloud of non-zero f(t') around it and the t' pre-images belong to an open ball in I

  3. I see what you are saying. Wouldn’t it be better to argue that if x \in B then there is an open interval around x such that this interval is in B. Take the union of these open intervals and since the arbitrary unions of open sets is open then B must be open. Hence A must be closed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s