On p. 36 of "Calculus on Manifolds" Spivak writes:(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

"If the theorem is true for ([tex]\lambda[/tex][tex]^{-1}[/tex])[tex]\circ[/tex]f , it is clearly true for f."

This far I understand. However, he next says:

"Therefore we may assume at the outset that [tex]\lambda[/tex] is the identity."

I don't understand how this follows, since he previously defined [tex]\lambda[/tex] = Df(x).

I would appreciate someone adding a bit more explanation here.

Thank you.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Spivak Inverse Function Theorem Proof

Loading...

Similar Threads - Spivak Inverse Function | Date |
---|---|

I Spivak's Definition of Integrals vs Stewart's | Nov 27, 2016 |

I Spivak - Proof of f(x) = c on [a, b] | Sep 14, 2016 |

I Spivak Limit Theorem 1 | Sep 13, 2016 |

I Spivak calculus, page 123 - if n is odd, then the 'n'th degree polynomial equation f(x) has a root | Apr 3, 2016 |

Inverse Function Theorem in Spivak | Jun 14, 2009 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**