It's a well-known theorem (Corollary 8.10 in Lee Smooth) that given a smooth map of manifolds $\phi:M\rightarrow N$ and a regular value $p\in N$ of $\phi$, the level set $\phi^{-1}(p)\subset M$ is a closed embedded submanifold. Is the converse true? That is, given an embedded submanifold $S\subset M$, is there necessarily a manifold $N$, smooth map $\phi:M\rightarrow N$, and regular value $p\in N$ of $\phi$ such that $S=\phi^{-1}(p)$?

Prop. 8.12 in Lee Smooth shows that this is true locally; specifically,

Let $S$ be a subset of a smooth $n$-manifold $M$. Then $S$ is an embedded $k$-submanifold of $M$ if and only if every point $p\in S$ has a neighborhood $U\subset M$ such that $U\cap S$ is a level set of a submersion $\phi:U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n-k}$.

(and any level set of a submersion is of course the level set of a regular value). I feel like this is the kind of question where, if there is a counterexample, it probably is very simple, but I wasn't able to come up with one.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If you remove the regular-value condition then the answer is yes, by the smooth Urysohn lemma. You can even make the manifold a component of a real affine algebraic variety but that's quite a bit more work. $\endgroup$ – Ryan Budney Apr 25 '11 at 23:10

If $M$ is compact, you can find a tubular neighborhood $U$ of $M$, which is diffeomorphic to the normal bundle $\mathcal N$ of $M$ in $N$, by some diffeo $h:\mathcal N\to U$. Now pick a metric on $\mathcal N$, and let $q:\mathcal N\to\mathbb R$ be the square of the corresponding norm. If $\phi:\mathcal N\to\mathbb R$ is a smooth function such that $\phi(v)\sim\tfrac1{q(v)}$ outside of the unit balls in each fiber, with the approximation better and better as $q(v)$ grows, and constantly equal to $1$ inside the balls of radius $\tfrac12$ in each fiber, then the product $\phi\cdot q$ composed with $h$ gives you a map $U\to\mathbb R$, which extends to a smooth map $N\to\mathbb R$ (with value $1$ outside of $U$), whose zero-set is precisely $N$.

If $M$ is not compact, you can have problems: for example, consider the map $t\in\mathbb R\mapsto ((1+e^t)\cos t,(1+e^t)\sin t)\in\mathbb R^2$. Any function vanishing in its image also vanishes on the unit circle.

  • 7
    $\begingroup$ I don't think this is correct, since $M$ can have nontrivial normal bundle (e.g. $\mathbb{R}P^n\subset\mathbb{R}P^{n+1}$) and in this case it can't be the inverse image of a regular value, despite being compact. I apologize if I am making some mistake. $\endgroup$ – Manuel Araújo Jan 10 '12 at 10:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ May be I'm missing something, but how can, in your example, be $0$ a regular value of the scalar valued map? It doesn't look like transversal to $0$. $\endgroup$ – Peter Franek May 17 '14 at 10:37
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Just for the record: Mariano's answer is wrong as it is missing the assumption of triviality of the normal bundle. The correct answer is the one below (by Manuel). $\endgroup$ – Moishe Kohan Mar 11 '17 at 19:49

A closed submanifold $S\subset M$ of codimension $k$ is the inverse image of a regular value of a smooth map $f:M\rightarrow S^k$ if and only if it has trivial normal bundle.

One implication is explained in evgeniamerkulova's answer (and still holds with $S^k$ replaced by any other manifold of dimension $k$).

For the other one, pick a tubular neighbourhood $U$ of $S$ in $M$. Then $U$ is diffeomorphic to $S\times\mathbb{R}^k$, because $S$ has trivial normal bundle. You can now define a map $U\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^k$ by $(x,v)\mapsto v$ and extend it to $M$ by mapping the complement of $U$ to infinity. You can then approximate the resulting map by a smooth map that has $0$ as a regular value and whose zero set is $S$. (This is exercise 4.6.5 in Hirsch's Differential Topology).


Obvious necessary condition is $S$ closed. But it is not sufficient even if $S$ is compact because you have obstruction: fiber of submersion $\phi:M\to N$ at $n \in N$ has trivial normal bundle with fiber equal to $T_n (N)$. So for example if you take nontrivial line bindle on circle (=Möbius bundle) then circle can not be fiber of any submersion defined on bundle. Of course if $S$ is closed it is zero set of smooth function on $M$ by Whitney theorem; but function is not submersion.

Variation on same theme: if you take orientable manifold and submersion to orientable manifold, all fibers are orientable. So if you embed any not orientable manifold in open subset of $\mathbb R^n$ (always possible by other Whitney theorem) it cannot be fiber of submersion.

Edit for to take account Mariano S-A remark: Same proof show that $S$ is not fiber of regular value either: Because points on $M$ where $\phi$ has maximal rank is open subset $M_1 \subset M$ containing $S$. And image of $M_1$ is open subset $N_1 \subset N$ because submersion is always open. Now restrict to $\phi_1:M_1\to N_1$. Normal bundle does not change and apply preceded result for submersions.

  • $\begingroup$ Being the fiber of a submersion is stronger that being the preimage of a regular value of a function, no? $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Feb 26 '11 at 4:14
  • $\begingroup$ I would really be interested in a deeper understanding of this question: if $N$ is the sphere, than any framed submanifold is a "level set" $f^{-1}(y)$, but what can be said for other target spaces? Please note my other question here.. $\endgroup$ – Peter Franek May 18 '14 at 13:41

I think the answer is no if the codimension of the embedding is 1. Consider M being the $\mathbb R^3$ and $S$ the Open Mobius strip embedded in $\mathbb R^3$, if S is a regular level set of some map $\phi$:$\mathbb R^3$→N, then N is 1-dimensinal, so N=$S^1$ or $\mathbb R$. Case1 N=$\mathbb R$, namely $\phi$ is real-valued, then grad$\phi$ is nowhere vanishing along $S$ and normal to $S$, a contradiction. Case2 N=$S^1$, consider the global non-vanishing form $d\theta$ on $S^1$, consider its pullback $\phi^*d\theta$, which should be non-vanishing along $S$ (Because $\phi_*$ is full-rank along $S$), then the metrically equivalent vector field of $\phi^*d\theta$ is nowhere vanishing on $S$ and is normal to $S$, contradiction. I think the same argument should work for any non-orientable hypersurface embedded in orientable manifolds.


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.