I asked this question a couple of days ago. And I thought that I totally understood the question. However it turned out that I didn't, since the argument I constructed was proved to be wrong just now: Diffeomorphism preserves dimension

The original text from Guillemin and Pollack's book was:

"The dimension of the vector space $T_x(X)$ is, as you expect, the dimension $k$ of $X$. To prove this, we use the smoothness of he inverse $\phi^{-1}$. Choose an open set $W$ in $\mathbf{R}^N$ and a smooth map $\Phi': \mathbf{R}^N \rightarrow \mathbf{R}^k$ that extends $\phi^{-1}$. Then $\Phi'\circ\phi$ is the identity map of U, so the chain rule implies that the sequence of linear transformations


is the identity map of $\mathbf{R}^k$. It follows that $d\phi_0 :\mathbf{R}^k \rightarrow T_x(X)$ is an isomorphism, so $\dim T_x(X)=k$."

Just for everyone's information, in GP's book, the convention is that $\phi$ is a diffeomorphism from $\mathbf{R}^k$ to a k-dimensional manifold $X\subset \mathbf{R}^N$ ($\phi :\mathbf{R}^k\rightarrow X$).

My question is here:

How does $d\phi_0 :\mathbf{R}^k \rightarrow T_x(X)$ is an isomorphism follow from previous argument? From the link given, it was shown that the existence of one-sided inverse does not guarantee that a linear map is an isomorphism. Thus I think there is a loophole in arguing "it follows that $d\phi_0 :\mathbf{R}^k \rightarrow T_x(X)$ is an isomorphism"...

Thanks a lot for your help!


That $d\phi_0$ has a left inverse implies that it is an injective linear map. The tangent space $T_x(X)$ is defined by Guillemin and Pollack to precisely be the image of $\mathbb{R}^k$ under the map $d\phi_0$, so it is also a surjection. Thus $d\phi_0$ is a linear isomorphism.

  • $\begingroup$ Cool! Thanks a lot for the help again Chris! Can I ask when you worked through Guillemin and Pollack(it seems to me that you know GP's book like the back of your hand!)? $\endgroup$ – Evariste May 23 '13 at 8:08
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I read through it a few years ago. But no, I do not know it like the back of my hand. Rather, I had it in the palm of my hand. $\endgroup$ – Christopher A. Wong May 23 '13 at 18:18

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.