Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Given smooth maps $f: X \to Y, g: Y \to Z$, where $X, Y, Z$ are boundaryless, compact manifolds of dimension $n$, is the statement in the title true?

share|improve this question
2  
Do you know the chain rule? –  Ryan Budney Dec 2 '12 at 21:59
    
Yeah, so for any regular value $z$ of $g \circ f$, if $x \in (g \circ f)^{-1}(z)$, then $D(g \circ f)_x = Dg_y \circ Df_x$, where $y = f(x)$ So $Dg_y$ is an isomorphism, but that doesn't seem sufficient to show that $z$ is a regular value for $g$. –  JJJ Dec 2 '12 at 22:16
    
So how could it fail to be a regular value? In your argument you have $Dg$ at $f(x)$ is onto. What more do you need? –  Ryan Budney Dec 2 '12 at 22:55
    
So, an element $z \in Z$ is a regular value if for every $y \in g^{-1}(z)$, $Dg_y$ is onto. The chain rule only seems to show that $Dg_y$ is onto only when $y = f(x)$ for some $x \in X$ –  JJJ Dec 2 '12 at 23:00
    
Correct. So now that you have this insight, what are you going to do with it? It's everything you need to answer your question. –  Ryan Budney Dec 2 '12 at 23:03

1 Answer 1

For the definition of regular value that I know ("a point in the complement of the set of critical values"), the claim is clearly false. Consider maps $\mathbb R\to\mathbb R$ defined by $f(x)\equiv 1$ and $g(x)=x^2$. Then $0$ is a regular value of $g\circ f$ (vacuously, since it's not attained at all), but not of $g$. One can modify this example to satisfy the "boundaryless, compact" part, but I won't bother to: it's clear that the matter is local.

Even if we are to take the more restrictive definition of a regular value, requiring it to be attained, the claim is still false. Again on $\mathbb R$, take $f(x)=\tan^{-1} x$ and $g(x)=x(x-5)^2$. Now $0$ is a regular value of $g\circ f$, since $g(f(x))=0$ only when $x=0$, and the derivative of $g\circ f$ at $0$ does not vanish. But $0$ is not a regular value of $g$, because $g(5)=0$ and $g'(5)=0$.

The claim is true, and easy to prove, for surjective maps.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.