To Prove that The Level Set Of A Constant Rank Map is a Manifold

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that the level set of a constant rank map, specifically a smooth function $f:\mathbf R^n\to\mathbf R^m$ of constant rank $r$, is a manifold of dimension $n-r$. The proof utilizes concepts from differential geometry, particularly the inverse function theorem, and involves defining a function $F:\mathbf R^n\times \mathbf R^{m-r}\to \mathbf R^m\times \mathbf R^{n-r}$. Key claims established include the invertibility of the differential $dF_{(\mathbf a,\mathbf 0)}$ and the existence of a neighborhood $U$ such that $F(U)$ is open in $\mathbf R^m\times \mathbf R^{n-r}$, confirming that $M:=F^{-1}(\mathbf 0\times\mathbf R^{n-r})\cap U$ is indeed an $(n-r)$-dimensional manifold.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of smooth functions and constant rank maps in differential geometry
  • Familiarity with the inverse function theorem
  • Knowledge of differential forms and their properties
  • Basic concepts of manifolds and their dimensions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the inverse function theorem in detail, focusing on its applications in differential geometry
  • Explore the properties of constant rank maps and their implications for manifold theory
  • Review differential forms and their role in defining smooth functions
  • Investigate the relationship between level sets and manifolds in the context of smooth mappings
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, particularly those specializing in differential geometry, students studying manifold theory, and researchers exploring the properties of smooth functions and their level sets.

caffeinemachine
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
799
Reaction score
15
Let $f:\mathbf R^n\to\mathbf R^m$ be a smooth function of constant rank $r$.
Let $\mathbf a\in \mathbf R^n$ be such that $f(\mathbf a)=\mathbf 0$.
Then $f^{-1}(\mathbf 0)$ is a manifold of dimension $n-r$ in $\mathbf R^n$.

We imitate the proof of Lemma 1 on pg 11 in Topology From A Differentiable Viewpoint by Milnor.

Let $S\in\mathcal L(\mathbf R^{m-r},\mathbf R^m)$ be such that $S(\mathbf R^{m-r})=(df_{\mathbf a}(\mathbf R^n))^\perp$, and $T\in \mathcal L(\mathbf R^n,\mathbf R^{n-r})$ be such that $\ker T\oplus \ker(df_{\mathbf a})=\{\mathbf 0\}$.
Such $S$ and $T$ can be chosen.

Define a function $F:\mathbf R^n\times \mathbf R^{m-r}\to \mathbf R^m\times \mathbf R^{n-r}$ as
$$
F(\mathbf x,\mathbf y)=(f(\mathbf x)+S\mathbf y,T\mathbf x)
$$
for all $(\mathbf x,\mathbf y)\in \mathbf R^n\times \mathbf R^{m-r}$.


Claim 1: $dF_{(\mathbf x,\mathbf y)}(\mathbf p,\mathbf q)=(df_{\mathbf x}(\mathbf p)+S(\mathbf q),T(\mathbf p))$.

Proof: Note that
$$
F(\mathbf x+\mathbf h,\mathbf y+\mathbf k)-F(\mathbf x,\mathbf y)-(df_{\mathbf x}(\mathbf h)+S\mathbf k,T\mathbf h)=(f(\mathbf x+\mathbf h)-f(\mathbf x)-df_{\mathbf x}(\mathbf h),\mathbf 0)
$$
From here it is clear that the claim holds.Claim 2: $dF_{(\mathbf a,\mathbf 0)}$ is invertible.

Proof: Suppose $dF_{(\mathbf a,\mathbf 0)}(\mathbf p,\mathbf q)=\mathbf 0$.
Then $(df_{\mathbf a}(\mathbf p)+S\mathbf q,T\mathbf p)=\mathbf 0$.
Therefore, $df_{\mathbf a9}\mathbf p+S\mathbf q=\mathbf 0$ and $T\mathbf p=\mathbf 0$.
Since $S(\mathbf R^{m-r})=(df_{\mathbf a}(\mathbf R^n))^\perp$, we have $df_{\mathbf a}(\mathbf p)=\mathbf 0$ and $S\mathbf q=\mathbf 0$.
Note that $S$ is injective.
Thus $\mathbf q=\mathbf 0$.
Also, since $\ker T\oplus\ker (df_{\mathbf a})=\mathbf R^n$, we also infer from $df_{\mathbf a}=\mathbf 0$ and $T\mathbf p=\mathbf 0$ that $\mathbf p=\mathbf 0$.
This proves that $dF_{(\mathbf a,\mathbf 0)}$ is injective and hence invertible.

Now by the inverse function theorem, we know that there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $(\mathbf a,\mathbf 0)$ such that $F(U)$ is open in $\mathbf R^m\times \mathbf R^{n-r}$ and $F|U:U\to F(U)$ is a diffeomorphism.

Therefore $M:=F^{-1}(\mathbf 0\times\mathbf R^{n-r})\cap U$ is an $n-r$ dimensional manifold in $\mathbf R^n\times\mathbf R^{m-r}$.
From here if I could conclude that $(\mathbf x,\mathbf y)\in M$ implies that $\mathbf y=0$, then I'd be done.
But I am unable to do so.
Can anybody help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,

I think you can simply take the open $U$ given by the IFT and intersect it with $\Bbb{R^{n}}$, $U\cap (\Bbb{R}^{n}\times \{0\})$ and still having a diffeomorphism and conclude from here.
 
Fallen Angel said:
Hi,

I think you can simply take the open $U$ given by the IFT and intersect it with $\Bbb{R^{n}}$, $U\cap (\Bbb{R}^{n}\times \{0\})$ and still having a diffeomorphism and conclude from here.
I cannot see how this can work. Can you please elaborate?
 
Oh sorry caffeinmachine, I was misunderstanding the post, ignore my previous post.

Regarding at this I noticed that I don't remember almost anything about differential geometry, I would look at my notes later, but I can't promise a result :/.

Sorry again
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
426
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K