Sign up ×
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.

I have a question about partitions of unity specifically in the book Calculus on Manifolds by Spivak. In case 1 for the proof of existence of partition of unity, why is there a need for the function $f$? The set $\Phi = \{\varphi_1, \dotsc, \varphi_n\}$ looks like is already the desired partition of unity. Following is the theorem and proof. Only Case 1 in the proof is relevant.

enter image description here enter image description here

share|cite|improve this question
Should I include pictures of the two pages with the theorem and proof? – Pratyush Sarkar Aug 24 '13 at 13:24
That would certainly help; or at least type in the relevant details (what are the $\phi_i, f$ and what is the proposed partition of unity). – Anthony Carapetis Aug 24 '13 at 14:00
I am reading calculus on manifolds too. And as I came across this proof today, I have exactly the same doubt. Glad that I find this post. – ᴊ ᴀ s ᴏ ɴ Jul 10 at 14:16

1 Answer 1

up vote 5 down vote accepted

I belive that your assertion is correct. The functions $\varphi_{i}$ satisfy all of the conditions of Theorem 3-11. I don't see why Spivak used such an $f$. Particularly since the support of $f$ contains $A$. If at least the support of $f$ lied in $A$ then $f=\sum_{i=1}^{n}f\cdot\varphi_{i}$, thus giving a representation of $f$ as a sum of functions with small supports.

Since $A$ is compact we may assume WLOG that the $U_{i}$ are bounded. Therefore, by construction, the supports of the $\psi_{i}$ are compact. Hence, the word "closed" in item ($4$) of Theorem 3-11 can be changed to "compact". The proof remains unchanged. This helps clarify the first statement of the proof of Theorem 3-12.

Also, note as well that the functions $\varphi_{i}$ are $C^{\infty}$. This basically follows from Problem 2-26.

Posts related to the section:

  1. An application of partitions of unity: integrating over open sets and here

  2. Do we need additional assumptions for problem 3-37 (b) in Spivak´s calculus on Manifolds?

  3. Problem 3-38 in Spivak´s Calculus on Manifolds

  4. Extended integral in Spivak’s Calculus on Manifolds

share|cite|improve this answer
Firstly, in property 4, isn't the closed set bounded? Which would mean it's compact? Secondly, in the proof it says "let $\psi_i$ be non-negative $C^\infty$ function positive on $D_i$ and $0$ outside some closed set contained in $U_i$". Denote the closed set as $S_i$. Then $\varphi_i$ has the same property, namely there is the set $U_i$ such that $\varphi_i = 0$ outside $S_i$ contained in $U_i$. So isn't property 4 already fulfilled? – Pratyush Sarkar Aug 24 '13 at 15:16
@Pratyush: I have looked at this more carefully and updated my answer. – John Aug 24 '13 at 21:10
Thanks for your help. I read the theorem and proof multiple times before and I couldn't figure out the purpose of the function $f$. I thought I was missing something really obvious. – Pratyush Sarkar Aug 24 '13 at 22:51

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.