Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Consider this definition of the parametrization of a manifold, found in Hubbard & Hubbard:

A parametrization of a $k$-dimensional manifold $M\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ is a mapping $\gamma:U\subset \mathbb{R}^k\to M$ satisfying:

1) $U$ is open.

2) $\gamma$ is $C^1$, and bijective with $M$.

3) $[D\gamma(u)]$ is 1-1 for all $u\in U$.

My question is this: if instead we start with a parametrization and replace $M$ with the image of $\gamma$, will the image in fact be a manifold? In Hubbard this seems to be suggested, but never stated explicitly (as far as I can see).

Maybe the point is that we can locally transform a parametrization into the graph of a $C^1$ function...

share|cite|improve this question
Are manifolds specifically considered to be $C^1$ manifolds in this book? – Zev Chonoles Feb 7 '13 at 13:46
I think so. They must locally be graphs of $C^1$ functions. – Wouter Zeldenthuis Feb 7 '13 at 13:49
When you talk about Hubbard, are you referring to John Hubbard who co-authored this book with his wife? – mez Feb 7 '13 at 18:08
I think you have to clarify what you mean by a manifold $M \subset \Bbb{R}^n$. $M$ is clearly a $C^1$ manifold with the topology induced by $U$, but is not necessarily a $C^1$ submanifold of $\Bbb{R}^n$, as manu-fatto's example below shows. – Nils Matthes Feb 7 '13 at 22:44
As noted below, if you're looking at a $\mathcal{C}^1$ submanifold of $\mathbb{R}^n,$ you also need the inverse function to be $\mathcal{C}^1.$ – cats Feb 8 '13 at 4:58

No, it is not. Consider for example a figure 8 curve $$ (x(t),y(t)) = (\sin(t),\sin(2t)),\qquad t\in (0,2\pi). $$ You should require also the inverse function to be continuous, if you want it to be a manifold.

share|cite|improve this answer

My own attempted answer is that this is not true. Consider $$\gamma(s,t)=\left(\frac{t}{1-u},\frac{t^2}{1-u},\frac{t^3}{1-u}\right).$$ Its image is the solution set to $xz=y^2$, minus the x-axis and z-axis (but the origin we will keep).

This set is locally the graph of a function except at the origin, where it is plainly not!

How is this?

EDIT: I changed the parametrization.

share|cite|improve this answer
$D\gamma(s,t)$ does not have full rank when $s=t.$ What conditions are you assuming hold for your parametrization? – cats Feb 7 '13 at 15:46
The conditions in the question statement, which define a parametrization. – Wouter Zeldenthuis Feb 7 '13 at 15:49
Then your example is not a counter-example? – cats Feb 7 '13 at 15:54
I modified the parametrization. – Wouter Zeldenthuis Feb 7 '13 at 15:59
what is $u$ in the above parametrization? and more importantly, what is the domain of the parametrization? – Nils Matthes Feb 7 '13 at 21:50

Your Answer


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.