I On inverse function theorem in Spivak's CoM

psie
Messages
315
Reaction score
40
TL;DR Summary
I have two questions on Spivak's proof of the inverse function theorem in Calculus on Manifolds.
I know of a thread on this site with a similar question, but no definite answer. I will not state the whole proof, as it is quite long.

2-11 Theorem (Inverse Function Theorem). Suppose that ##f: \mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}^n## is continuously differentiable in an open set containing ##a##, and ##\det f'(a)\neq 0##. Then there is an open set ##V## containing ##a## and an open set ##W## containing ##f(a)## such that ##f:V\to W## has a continuous inverse ##f^{-1}:W\to V## which is differentiable and for all ##y\in W## satisfies $$(f^{-1})'(y) = [f'(f^{-1}(y))]^{-1}$$ Proof. Let ##\lambda## be the linear transformation ##Df(a)##. Then ##\lambda## is non-singular, since ##\det f'(a)\neq 0##. Now ##D(\lambda^{-1}\circ f)(a) = D(\lambda^{-1})(f(a))\circ Df(a) = \lambda^{-1}\circ Df(a)## is the identity linear transformation. If the theorem is true for ##\lambda^{-1}\circ f##, it is clearly true for ##f##. Therefor we may assume at the outset that ##\lambda## is the identity.

... ... ...

Note that (3) and Lemma 2-10 applied to ##g(x)=f(x)-x## imply for ##x_1,x_2\in U## that $$|f(x_1)-x_1-(f(x_2)-x_2)|\leq\frac12|x_1-x_2|.$$ Since \begin{align*}
|x_1-x_2|-|f(x_1)-f(x_2)|&\leq |f(x_1)-x_1-(f(x_2)-x_2)| \\ &\leq\frac12 |x_1-x_2|,
\end{align*}
... ... ...

1. Why can we assume ##f## to have the identity map as its derivative? I understand how if the theorem is true for ##g = \lambda^{-1} \circ f##, then its true for ##f## and I also understand that ##Dg(a)=\mathrm{id}##, where ##\mathrm{id}## is the identity map. If ##\lambda=\mathrm{id}##, then simply ##g=f## and this is how the proof proceeds. But what when ##\lambda\neq \mathrm{id}##?

2. Why is $$|x_1-x_2|-|f(x_1)-f(x_2)|\leq |f(x_1)-x_1-(f(x_2)-x_2)|,$$ true? I'm tempted to say it is the reverse triangle inequality, but shouldn't there be an extra pair of absolute value signs around the LHS of this inequality?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi @psie,

1. Suppose the assertion holds true for ##g##. Then there are open neighborhoods ##V \ni a## and ##U\ni g(a)## such that ##g : V \to W## is a ##C^1##-diffeomorphism. Since ##\lambda : \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}^n## is a ##C^1##-diffeomorphism, the image ##W := \lambda(U)## is an open neighborhood of ##f(a)## and the composition ##V \xrightarrow[\approx]{g} U \xrightarrow[\approx]{\lambda} W## is a ##C^1##-diffeomorphism. But this composition is ##f : V \to W##. The inverse ##f^{-1} : W \to V## is ##g^{-1} \circ \lambda^{-1}##, so the formula for ##(f^{-1})'(y)## is deduced from the formula for ##(g^{-1})'(z)## and the chain rule.

2. You are right that this is due to the reverse triangle inequality. Absolute value signs around the LHS are not needed since ##|x| \ge x## for all real numbers ##x##.
 
Thank you, @Euge. Regarding 1, I understand what you’re writing, but shouldn’t we then prove the theorem for ##g##? Spivak only seems to prove a very special case, namely when ##g=f##, i.e. when ##\lambda=\mathrm{id}##. How do we modify the proof when ##\lambda\neq\mathrm{id}##?
 
If you multiply your function by a linear transformation the derivate is also multiplied by that linear transformation. So if you multiply it by the inverse of its derivative, you get a new function g whose derivative is the identity map.
 
psie said:
Thank you, @Euge. Regarding 1, I understand what you’re writing, but shouldn’t we then prove the theorem for ##g##?
That is what he did. Specifically, he proves the result when ##\lambda = \text{id}##. The general result is then obtained by considering ##\lambda^{-1} \circ f##. Since ##D(\lambda^{-1}\circ f)(a)## is the identity, by what he has shown, ##\lambda^{-1}\circ f## is ##C^1## locally invertible. Thus ##f = \lambda \circ (\lambda^{-1}\circ f)## is also ##C^1## locally invertible.
 
  • Like
Likes Greg Bernhardt and psie
Hi,
I don't want to create a new thread because my question is related to this one. One of the steps in the proof of this theorem is the following relation:
2\cdot|f(x_{1})-f(x_{2})|\geq|x_{1}-x_{2}|
Let's assume the simplest case n=1, and the function:
f(x)=\frac{1}{3}x
It is 𝐶^{1} and invertible: f^{-1}(y)=3y
Using this relation, we get, for example when dx = 1 that \frac{2}{3} >= 1. How to understand it?
 
Last edited:
stan_s said:
Hi,
I don't want to create a new thread because my question is related to this one. One of the steps in the proof of this theorem is the following relation:
2\cdot|f(x_{1})-f(x_{2})|\geq|x_{1}-x_{2}|
Let's assume the simplest case n=1, and the function:
f(x)=\frac{1}{3}x
It is 𝐶^{1} and invertible: f^{-1}(y)=3y
Using this relation, we get, for example when dx = 1 that \frac{2}{3} >= 1. How to understand it?
It was assumed in the proof that ##Df(a)## is the identity, from which the inequality ##2|f(x_1) - f(x_2)| \ge |x_1 - x_2|## was obtained. Your function has derivative ##1/3##, not ##1##.
 
  • Like
Likes stan_s and psie
Back
Top