The Rank Theorem: Given a map, $F: M \rightarrow N$ of constant rank, r, there exist smooth charts $(U,\phi)$ and $(V, \psi)$ such that

$\psi \circ F \circ \phi^{-1} (x^1,...,x^r,x^{r+1},...,x^m) = (x^1,...,x^r,0,...,0)$

In the book he defines, $\phi: U_0 \rightarrow \tilde{U}_0$, where $\tilde{U}_0$ is an open cube, with $\phi(x,y) = (Q(x,y), y)$ where $x$ is short hand for $x^1,...,x^r$ and $y$ is short hand for $x^{r+1},...,x^m$ which he relabels as $y^{r+1},...,y^m$, with $F(x,y) = (Q(x, y), R(x, y))$.

Then he arrives at $$ D(F \circ \phi^{-1}) = \begin{pmatrix} I & 0 \\ \frac{\partial \tilde{R^i}}{\partial x^j} & \frac{\partial \tilde{R^i}}{\partial y^j} \end{pmatrix} $$

He mentions that it is necessary for $\tilde{U}_0$ to be an open cube so that $\tilde{R}$ is independent of $(y^1,...,y^{m-r})$, based on $D(F \circ \phi^{-1})$ above, but I thought the same held based on rank arguments alone.

He also uses the fact that $\tilde{U}_0$ later on, where he says,

Because $\tilde{U}_0$ is a cube and $F \circ \phi^{-1}$ has the form (4.6), it follows that $F \circ \phi^{-1}(\tilde{U}_0) \subseteq V_0$

My question is, why is $\tilde{U}_0$ being a cube needed for the above statements?


I'm struggling with the same result too.

I agree one does not need $\tilde{U}_0$ to be a cube in order to the derivatives vanish.

For the second argument, I think the important fact about being a cube is to be connected, so you can be sure you stay in the domain of the chart $(V,\psi)$ despite the compositions.

Note that $\psi(V_0)$ is a connected subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$, which I think (haven't proof) is a cube.

  • $\begingroup$ I actually asked some people offline. I need to write up the answer. For the first part, the derivatives vanishing isn't sufficient to say that $\tilde{R}(x,y) = \tilde{R}(x,0)$. $\endgroup$
    – Jeff
    Dec 15 '18 at 2:46
  • $\begingroup$ For one, if you have something like a T-shaped region $\tilde{R}$ might not even be defined at $\tilde{R}(x,0)$. A second problem would be if $\tilde{U_0}$ is disconnected. In this case, even though the derivative with respect to $y$ could be 0 in each region $\tilde{R}(x,y)$ could be at different constant values with respect to $y$ in each region. The cube avoids these problems. $\endgroup$
    – Jeff
    Dec 15 '18 at 2:54
  • $\begingroup$ You’re right, I found this interested fact to figure it out the importance of connected sets in the proof, and it’s related with the corollary following this theorem math.stackexchange.com/questions/252130/… $\endgroup$ Dec 27 '18 at 2:04

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.