Immersion and submersion
A
An immersion may be thought of as a map which locally resembles the canonical immersion defined for
whereas submersion may be thought of as a map which locally resembles the canonical submersion defined for
This point of view is justified by the Local (im/sub)mersion theorem.
Local (im/sub)mersion theorem
Let
and in the submersion case
Proof
Without loss of generality, we can consider
and to be open subsets of and respectively, since we are only interested in local properties and locally these are diffeomorphic. We also assume , since otherwise this is a special case of the Inverse function theorem. Assume
is an immersion at . Let where . Choose some complement subspace where . We can then define which has the total derivative
which is a Linear isomorphism, so by the Inverse function theorem
is locally a diffeomorphism. Thus taking the canonical immersion , we have , as required. Now assume
is a submersion at . Let where by the Rank-nullity theorem and let be a projection operator onto (where we make the natural identification of with ). We can then define which has the total derivative
which is a Linear isomorphism, so by the Inverse function theorem
is locally a diffeomorphism. Thus taking the canonical submersion , we have , as required. For the converses note, that the composition of (im/sub)mersions is an (im/sub)mersion, and coördinate charts are diffeomorphisms and hence both immersions and submersions.
Properties
- Iff
is immersive at , then - Iff
is submersive at , then