I have heard the claim: "Any closed manifold admits a Morse function which has one local minimum and one local maximum" often used in talks without a reference.

This does not seem to be very easy to prove "hands on". Trying to perturb the minima/maxima away locally will create new local minima/maxima, so I don't believe this will work.

One idea I had is to embed the manifold in $\mathbb{R}^n$, using Whitney, taking the height function, and turning on some flow in one fixed direction (I see this as stretching a balloon). I could not get the details right at all though...

Thus my question is: Is there an elementary proof of this fact? What are the standard references?


1 Answer 1


Here's a direct proof. Let $M$ be a smooth $n$-manifold and $f$ a Morse function on $M$. Let $p_i$ be the local minima, $q_j$ be the index-$1$ critical points, $f(p_i)<f(q_j)$ for all $i,j$, and $\gamma_{ij}$ the gradient flow line from $p_i$ to $q_j$. Connect each $p_i$ to $p_0$ by a direct path of $\gamma_{ij}$s. Note in particular the graph we have defined is contractible. Homotope $f$ so the $q_j$ which are not on any paths have a greater value than the $q_j$ which are on the path, say (by scaling and translating) $f^{-1}(1)$ separates the greater $q_j$ and the $q_j$ on the path. Now consider $B = f^{-1}(\infty,1]$. By construction, this is diffeomorphic to an $n$-ball. In $B$, replace $f$ by the radial distance function (possibly homotoped to match smoothly with $f$ on $\partial B$). This new $f$, call it $\widetilde{f}$, has exactly one index $0$ critical point.

Repeat the procedure for $-\widetilde{f}$ to get exactly one index $n$ critical point.

Intuitively, think of a level surface flow. It starts with a bunch of dots, the index $0$ critical points, expanding. Then they send out tendrils which join together at the index $1$ critical points. Controlling the Morse function is tantamount to controlling the level surface flow. We slow down the level surfaces near some of the index $1$ points so that the level surfaces all join into a giant sphere. This is our motivation; inside the sphere, we modify the function so that the sphere has expanded from a single dot, instead of many dots.

Here's another proof using handlebody decompositions.

By duality between Morse theory and handlebody theory, "Every manifold admits a Morse function with exactly one local maximum and exactly one local minimum" is equivalent to saying that every closed manifold admits a handlebody decomposition with exactly one $0$-handle and exactly one $n$-handle. To see this, take a smooth handlebody decomposition of $M$ ("smooth" so that the attaching maps are all smooth maps). Since this is done by gluing successive handles, we may focus our attention on the $0$-handles $M^0$ and the manifold obtained by gluing $1$-handles, $M^1$.

Since $M$ is connected and the only handle with disconnected attaching spheres are $1$-handles, $M^1$ is connected (that is, the gluing of $1$-handles kills all elements of $\pi_0$). Therefore, we may pick a single $0$-handle and connect it to each other $0$-handle by a path of $1$-handles (possibly through other $0$-handles). This union of $0$- and $1$-handles is homeomorphic to a ball, so we may replace it with a single $0$-handle and regard the remaining $1$-handles as attaching to the single $0$-handle.

Turn the handlebody decomposition upside down and repeat to obtain a single $n$-handle.

References to look into: Milnor's Morse Theory, Milnor's "Killing paper", Ranicki's book on surgery.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. I had the "c" right, though! $\endgroup$
    – Neal
    Jun 27, 2012 at 17:43
  • $\begingroup$ This is great, thank you very much, I think the image is clear now. Just to be sure: the graph of index 0 and 1 points and its gradient flowlines is connected because the CW-complex generated by the critical points must be connected, and this cannot happen by attaching 2-cells or higher right? $\endgroup$
    – Thomas Rot
    Jun 29, 2012 at 7:40
  • $\begingroup$ Two more minor points: The sentence $f(p_i)<f(q_i)$ for all $i,j$ is not correct right (because these are local minima, not global ones, so the index 1 points can be lower than some of the index 0 points)? And there can be more than one flow lines from $q_i$ than $p_i$ as well? $\endgroup$
    – Thomas Rot
    Jun 29, 2012 at 7:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Let me think about why the graph is connected (although I'm sure it is). For $f(p_i)<f(q_j)\forall i,j$, you can always homotope $f$ in a neighborhood of an index $0$ point to be arbitrarily low by adding a negative bump function supported on the neighborhood. $\endgroup$
    – Neal
    Jun 29, 2012 at 10:44
  • $\begingroup$ Revisiting this: I believe your reason for the graph being connected is correct. $\endgroup$
    – Neal
    Aug 3, 2012 at 13:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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