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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on proving that the level set of a constant rank map is a manifold. It involves theoretical aspects of differential geometry, specifically the application of the inverse function theorem and the properties of smooth functions with constant rank.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a proof structure based on a lemma from Milnor's work, asserting that the level set is an $n-r$ dimensional manifold.
  • The participant claims that the function defined can be shown to have an invertible derivative at a specific point, leading to the conclusion that a neighborhood exists where the mapping is a diffeomorphism.
  • Another participant suggests intersecting the open set provided by the inverse function theorem with $\mathbb{R}^n$ to maintain the diffeomorphism and conclude the proof.
  • A later reply questions the feasibility of the suggested approach, asking for further elaboration on how it would work.
  • Another participant expresses uncertainty about their understanding of differential geometry and indicates a lack of confidence in providing a result.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the method to conclude the proof. There are competing suggestions and some uncertainty regarding the application of the inverse function theorem.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the properties of the mappings and the specific conditions under which the inverse function theorem applies. The discussion reflects varying levels of familiarity with differential geometry concepts.

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
495
  • · 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