Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Thom's second isotopy lemma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Thom mapping)

In mathematics, especially in differential topology, Thom's second isotopy lemma is a family version of Thom's first isotopy lemma; i.e., it states a family of maps between Whitney stratified spaces is locally trivial when it is a Thom mapping.[1] Like the first isotopy lemma, the lemma was introduced by René Thom.

(Mather 2012, § 11) gives a sketch of the proof. (Verona 1984) gives a simplified proof. Like the first isotopy lemma, the lemma also holds for the stratification with Bekka's condition (C), which is weaker than Whitney's condition (B).[2]

Thom mapping

[edit]

Let be a smooth map between smooth manifolds and submanifolds such that both have differential of constant rank. Then Thom's condition is said to hold if for each sequence in X converging to a point y in Y and such that converging to a plane in the Grassmannian, we have [3]

Let be Whitney stratified closed subsets and maps to some smooth manifold Z such that is a map over Z; i.e., and . Then is called a Thom mapping if the following conditions hold:[3]

  • are proper.
  • is a submersion on each stratum of .
  • For each stratum X of S, lies in a stratum Y of and is a submersion.
  • Thom's condition holds for each pair of strata of .

Then Thom's second isotopy lemma says that a Thom mapping is locally trivial over Z; i.e., each point z of Z has a neighborhood U with homeomorphisms over U such that .[3]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. Mather 2012, Proposition 11.2.
  2. § 3 of Bekka, K. (1991). "C-Régularité et trivialité topologique". Singularity Theory and its Applications. Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Vol. 1462. Springer. pp. 42–62. doi:10.1007/BFb0086373. ISBN 978-3-540-53737-3.
  3. 1 2 3 Mather 2012, § 11.