How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Smooth Partitions of Unity and Exhaustions
1 · Prerequisites
- Absolute and Conditional Convergence; Rearrangement; Products
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Compactness
- Compactness in Metric Spaces
- Completeness, Completion, and Uniform Continuity
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Continuity, IVT, EVT, and Uniform Continuity
- Countability and Uncountability
- Countability Axioms and Cardinal Functions
- Filters and Ultrafilters
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Hereditary and Productive Behaviour of the Separation Axioms
- Limits of Real Functions
- limsup, liminf, and Subsequential Limits
- Linear Independence, Bases and Dimension
- Linear Transformations, Rank-Nullity and Quotient Spaces
- Metric Spaces
- Mixed Partials, Taylor Formulae, and Extrema
- Monotone Functions, Discontinuities, and Continuity Sets
- Monotone Sequences, Bolzano-Weierstrass, and Cauchy Completeness
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Partitions of Unity and Paracompactness
- Power Series and Real-Analytic Functions
- Properties of the Integral and the Working FTC
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Rⁿ as a Normed Space; Vector-Valued Functions
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Separation Axioms: the Hierarchy
- Sequences and Limits
- Sequences and Series of Functions; Uniform Convergence
- Series: Convergence and the Nonnegative Tests
- Smooth Manifolds and Smooth Maps
- Subspaces, Products, and Quotients
- Suprema and Infima
- The Cantor Set, Baire Category, and Measure Zero in ℝ
- The Derivative and the Mean Value Theorems
- The Exponential Function
- The Riemann Integral: Definition and Integrability
- The Topology of Euclidean Space
- The Total Derivative in ℝᵐ → ℝⁿ
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Topological Spaces and Continuity
- Topology of ℝ
- Urysohn's Lemma and the Tietze Extension Theorem
- Vector Spaces, Linear Subspaces, Span and Direct Sums
2 · Summary
This page builds smooth partitions of unity from explicit flat and step functions, Euclidean and manifold bumps, and locally finite normalization. It then uses that machinery for smooth Urysohn separation, extension by zero, gluing of real-valued local data, compact exhaustions, and proper exhaustion functions.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
The standard flat function
Definition
Define by This is the standard flat function.
Remarks
- for every .
- The only nontrivial point in later arguments is the junction at .
Exponential decay dominates every inverse power near zero
Statement
For every , one has as , where is the standard flat function.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: .
For , the standard flat function satisfies (The standard flat function).
For every and every , as (The exponential dominates every fixed nonnegative integer power at ).
Proof
For , put ; then as and by [F1].
The expression tends to by [L1] with .
Therefore as .
The standard flat function is smooth and flat at zero
Statement
The standard flat function is smooth on , and for every .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The standard flat function .
The standard flat function is on and is on (The standard flat function).
For every , one has as (Exponential decay dominates every inverse power near zero).
The derivative of is , and one-variable derivatives satisfy the chain rule and algebra rules (The exponential function is smooth and , The chain rule, in one line from Carathéodory: if is differentiable at and is differentiable at , then is differentiable at with , Sums, scalar multiples, products and quotients: , , , and when ).
For each there is a polynomial such that for every .
Proof
Repeatedly applying [L2] on proves [A1] by a routine induction on .
For each , both and are finite linear combinations of terms , so both tend to as by [L1] and step 1.1.
We prove recursively that is , that vanishes on , and that . The case is [F1]. If the claim holds for , then the left derivative of at is because is zero on , and the right derivative is by step 2.1. Thus exists and equals , and step 2.1 also gives continuity at .
Hence is smooth on and all of its derivatives vanish at .
The standard smooth step function
Definition
Let be the standard flat function. The standard smooth step function is Because is smooth and positive on , the denominator is positive on , while for and for .
Remarks
The function is smooth on all of and takes values in .
A smooth bump between concentric Euclidean balls
Statement
Let and . Then there exists a smooth function such that on and .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Real numbers .
The standard smooth step function is smooth, vanishes on , and equals on (The standard smooth step function).
Total derivatives satisfy the Euclidean chain rule and are stable under sums and scalar multiples (The chain rule for total derivatives: , Sums and scalar multiples of totally differentiable maps are totally differentiable with the expected derivatives).
The function is smooth on .
Proof
Define and ; then is smooth by [A1] and [L1], so is smooth by [F1] and [L1].
If , then , so by [F1]; if , then , so by [F1].
Thus maps into , equals on , and vanishes on , so .
A Euclidean bump for a compact set inside an open set
Statement
If with compact and open, then there exists a smooth function such that on and .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A compact set and an open set .
For every there are radii with .
Each such concentric pair admits a smooth bump equal to on the inner closed ball and supported in the outer ball (A smooth bump between concentric Euclidean balls).
The standard smooth step function is on and on (The standard smooth step function).
Finite sums of smooth real-valued functions on are smooth.
Proof
For each , choose radii as in [L1] and a bump as in [L2]; compactness gives finitely many points such that .
Put ; then is smooth by [A1], one has on , and .
Define ; then is smooth, equals on , and vanishes off , so .
A chart bump at a point with prescribed support
Statement
Let be a smooth manifold, let , and let be open with . Then there exists a smooth function such that and .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A smooth manifold , a point , and an open neighbourhood of .
Smooth charts are diffeomorphisms onto open subsets of Euclidean space (Chart maps are diffeomorphisms onto Euclidean open sets).
Compact sets inside Euclidean open sets admit smooth bumps with prescribed support (A Euclidean bump for a compact set inside an open set).
Smooth maps that agree on overlaps paste to a smooth global map, and composites of smooth maps are smooth (Smooth maps paste over an open cover, Identity maps and composites of smooth maps are smooth).
Closed bounded subsets of Euclidean space are compact, and compact subsets of the Hausdorff manifold are closed.
Proof
Choose a smooth chart with and put . Choose such that Applying [L1] to gives a smooth equal to on and supported in . Its support is compact by [A1].
Let . By step 1.1, is a compact, hence closed, subset of . On the open cover , define on and on . The formulas agree on , so [L2] gives a smooth global function.
One has , and vanishes outside , so .
A manifold bump for a compact set inside an open set
Statement
Let be a smooth manifold, let be compact, and let be open with . Then there exists a smooth function that equals on an open neighbourhood of and satisfies .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A compact set and an open set with .
Every point of admits a smooth bump supported in and equal to at that point (A chart bump at a point with prescribed support).
The standard smooth step function is on and on (The standard smooth step function).
Finite sums of smooth real-valued functions on a smooth manifold are smooth.
Proof
For each , choose a smooth bump from [L1] with support in and ; compactness gives finitely many points such that the open sets cover .
Put ; then is smooth by [A1], one has on the open neighbourhood of , and .
Define ; then is smooth, equals on an open neighbourhood of , and vanishes off , so .
Locally finite supports have locally finite cozero sets
Statement
Let be a family of real-valued functions on a topological space . If the family of supports is locally finite, then the family of cozero sets is locally finite.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A family of real-valued functions on .
A family of subsets is locally finite when every point has a neighbourhood meeting only finitely many members (Refinements, locally finite families, point-finite families, and star refinements).
For each , the cozero set of is contained in .
Proof
Fix ; by [F1], there is a neighbourhood of meeting only finitely many supports .
If meets the cozero set of , then it meets by [A1], so only finitely many cozero sets can meet .
Since was arbitrary, the cozero family is locally finite by [F1].
A locally finite sum of smooth functions is smooth
Statement
Let be a smooth manifold and let be smooth functions whose supports form a locally finite family. Then the pointwise sum is well defined and smooth.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A family of smooth real-valued functions on whose supports are locally finite.
If the supports are locally finite, then the cozero sets are locally finite (Locally finite supports have locally finite cozero sets).
Smoothness is local on the source (Smoothness is local on the source).
A finite sum of smooth real-valued functions on a smooth manifold is smooth.
Proof
Fix ; by [L1], there is an open neighbourhood of meeting only finitely many cozero sets, say those with indices .
On , the pointwise sum equals the finite sum , so it is well defined and smooth by [A1].
Because every point has such a neighbourhood, [L2] implies that is smooth on all of .
A locally finite positive smooth family normalizes to a partition of unity
Statement
Let be a locally finite family of smooth functions on a smooth manifold , and suppose that for every at least one is strictly positive. Put . Then is a positive smooth function, each is smooth, and is a partition of unity subordinate to .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A locally finite family of nonnegative smooth functions on that is pointwise positive.
A locally finite sum of smooth functions is smooth (A locally finite sum of smooth functions is smooth).
If the supports are locally finite, then the cozero sets are locally finite (Locally finite supports have locally finite cozero sets).
A positive smooth real-valued function has a smooth reciprocal.
Proof
By [L1], the sum is smooth; because the are nonnegative and some is positive at each point, one has for all .
By [A1], the reciprocal is smooth, so each is smooth and nonnegative; also .
The family is locally finite by [L2], and pointwise. Therefore is a partition of unity subordinate to .
Smooth partitions of unity subordinate to an open cover
Definition
Let be a smooth manifold and let be an open cover of . A family of smooth functions with is a smooth partition of unity subordinate to when:
- the family is locally finite;
- for every ; and
- for every .
Remarks
Because the support family is locally finite, the pointwise sum in (3) is locally a finite sum.
Every open cover of a manifold has a countable relatively compact coordinate-ball subcover
Statement
Every open cover of a smooth manifold has a countable cover by coordinate balls with compact closures, each closure contained in one member of the original cover.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A smooth manifold and an open cover of .
Coordinate balls form a basis of the underlying topological manifold (Coordinate balls form a basis of a topological manifold).
Second-countable spaces are Lindelof (Assuming countable choice, every second countable space is Lindelöf).
By the library convention in Smooth manifolds and their smooth charts, every smooth manifold is second countable.
Proof
For each , choose containing , then choose a coordinate ball with by [L1].
The family is an open cover of , so [A1] and [L2] give a countable subcover . Each is compact and lies in some member of by step 1.1.
Thus the original cover has a countable subordinate cover by relatively compact coordinate balls.
A countable coordinate-ball cover has a countable locally finite shrinking
Statement
Let be a countable cover of a smooth manifold by coordinate balls with compact closures. Then there are countable families of open sets and coordinate balls such that , each for some index , and the family is locally finite.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A countable cover of by coordinate balls with compact closures.
Coordinate balls form a basis of the underlying topological manifold, and the basis balls supplied there have compact closures (Coordinate balls form a basis of a topological manifold).
In a regular space, if with open, then there is an open set with (A space is regular if and only if every point has a neighbourhood base of closed neighbourhoods, if and only if open gives an open with ).
Compact subsets of Hausdorff spaces are closed, and closed subspaces of compact spaces are compact (In a Hausdorff space a point and a disjoint compact set, and two disjoint compact sets, have disjoint open neighbourhoods; hence every compact subset is closed, and in a compact Hausdorff space the compact subsets are exactly the closed ones, A closed subspace of a compact space is compact, and a finite union of compact subspaces is compact).
Smooth manifolds are Hausdorff and regular.
Proof
Put for . Each is compact, and the interiors of the cover because .
Set . Recursively, compactness of and the open cover give an integer such that . Put and . Then and the interiors of the cover .
Put and for ; each is compact by [L3]. Fix , choose some containing , and set By step 2.1, this is an open neighbourhood of . Apply [L2] to choose an open with , and then [L1] to choose a coordinate ball with and compact closure. Thus . Applying [L2] inside , choose an open set with Compactness of gives finitely many such pairs covering .
Collect the finitely many pairs from each into sequences and . They are countable, and they cover because the annuli cover . Given , choose with . If is attached to with , then step 3.1 gives because . Hence the neighbourhood meets only the finitely many families attached to . Thus is locally finite.
Hence and give the required countable locally finite shrinking.
Smooth partitions of unity exist on manifolds
Statement
Every open cover of a smooth manifold admits a smooth partition of unity subordinate to it.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A smooth manifold and an open cover of .
The cover has a countable subordinate cover by relatively compact coordinate balls (Every open cover of a manifold has a countable relatively compact coordinate-ball subcover).
Such a countable cover has a countable locally finite shrinking (A countable coordinate-ball cover has a countable locally finite shrinking).
For every compact set inside an open set there is a smooth manifold bump equal to on a neighbourhood of that compact set and supported in the open set (A manifold bump for a compact set inside an open set).
A locally finite nonnegative smooth family that is pointwise positive normalizes to a partition of unity (A locally finite positive smooth family normalizes to a partition of unity).
Proof
Apply [L1] and then [L2] to obtain countably many open sets and coordinate balls such that , the family is locally finite, and each lies in some member of .
For each , apply [L3] to the compact set to obtain a smooth function that equals on a neighbourhood of and is supported in . The family is locally finite and pointwise positive because every point lies in some .
Normalize by [L4]; the resulting family is a smooth partition of unity, and for every .
Hence is subordinate to in the sense of Smooth partitions of unity subordinate to an open cover.
Smooth partitions subordinate to a countable coordinate cover
Statement
Every countable cover of a smooth manifold by coordinate balls admits a smooth partition of unity subordinate to that cover.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A countable coordinate-ball cover of a smooth manifold.
Every open cover of a smooth manifold admits a subordinate smooth partition of unity (Smooth partitions of unity exist on manifolds).
Proof
A countable coordinate-ball cover is an open cover.
Apply [L1] to that open cover.
The resulting partition is subordinate to the given countable coordinate-ball cover.
Smooth and topological partition theorems have different proof costs
The smooth theorem Smooth partitions of unity exist on manifolds is proved here through chart-level bumps, a countable locally finite shrinking, and normalization of a positive smooth family. The published topological theorem Under choice and dependent choice, every open cover of a paracompact Hausdorff space admits a locally finite subordinate partition of unity proves a broader continuous statement with a different proof cost and a different choice budget, so this page records it only for comparison and not as a black-box substitute.
A smooth Urysohn lemma for a closed set in an open set
Statement
Let be a closed subset of a smooth manifold , and let be open with . Then there exists a smooth function such that on an open neighbourhood of and .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A closed set and an open set with .
Every open cover of a smooth manifold admits a subordinate smooth partition of unity (Smooth partitions of unity exist on manifolds).
In a partition of unity subordinate to an open cover, each support lies in its assigned open set and the functions sum to pointwise (Smooth partitions of unity subordinate to an open cover).
Proof
The two open sets and cover , so [L1] gives smooth functions subordinate to this cover with .
Because , the function vanishes on an open neighbourhood of ; hence there, and by [F1].
Taking yields the required smooth function.
Smooth functions separate points from closed sets
Statement
Let be a closed subset of a smooth manifold and let . Then there exists a smooth function such that and .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A closed set and a point .
A closed set inside an open set admits a smooth cutoff equal to near the closed set and supported in the open set (A smooth Urysohn lemma for a closed set in an open set).
Proof
The singleton is closed and lies in the open set .
Apply [L1] to the closed set ; the resulting function is at and vanishes on because its support lies in .
This is the required separating smooth function.
Smooth extension from a closed neighbourhood
Statement
Let be a closed subset of a smooth manifold , let be open with , and let be smooth. Then there exists a smooth function such that on an open neighbourhood of and .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A closed set , an open set containing , and a smooth function .
There is a smooth cutoff equal to on a neighbourhood of and supported in (A smooth Urysohn lemma for a closed set in an open set).
Smooth maps paste over an open cover (Smooth maps paste over an open cover).
Products of smooth real-valued functions on the same open set are smooth.
Proof
Let be as in [L1]; then is smooth on by [A1] and equals on an open neighbourhood of because there.
Since , the function vanishes on an open neighbourhood of , so the local formula on agrees with the constant zero map on an open neighbourhood of every boundary point of .
Pasting these two local formulas by [L2] yields a smooth function with near and .
Smooth locally defined functions can be glued by a partition of unity
Statement
Let be an open cover of a smooth manifold , let be smooth for each , and let be a smooth partition of unity subordinate to . Then the pointwise formula defines a smooth function .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An open cover of , smooth functions , and a smooth partition of unity subordinate to .
In a smooth partition of unity subordinate to , the support family is locally finite and each support lies in (Smooth partitions of unity subordinate to an open cover).
Smooth maps paste over an open cover (Smooth maps paste over an open cover).
A locally finite sum of smooth functions is smooth (A locally finite sum of smooth functions is smooth).
For each , the product is smooth on .
Proof
Fix . On the open set let , and on the open set let . By [A1], the map is smooth on ; by [F1], the two open sets cover and on the overlap one has , so . Therefore [L1] pastes them to a smooth global function with on and .
By [F1] and step 1.1, the family is locally finite. Hence the sum is well defined and smooth by [L2].
Let . If , then and step 1.1 gives . If , then , so step 1.1 gives . Thus , and this pointwise formula is smooth by step 2.1.
Compact exhaustions of a manifold
Definition
A compact exhaustion of a manifold is a sequence of compact subsets such that for every and .
Remarks
The interior condition is what makes the exhaustion useful for local constructions.
Every manifold has a compact exhaustion
Statement
Every smooth manifold admits a compact exhaustion.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A smooth manifold .
The manifold has a countable cover by relatively compact coordinate balls (Every open cover of a manifold has a countable relatively compact coordinate-ball subcover).
A compact subset of a space covered by open sets has a finite subcover.
Proof
Start from the countable cover of [L1]. Recursively choose integers such that and, for each , the compact set is contained in ; this is possible by [A1].
Put . Each is compact, step 1.1 gives , and every point of lies in some because the cover .
Every smooth manifold admits a smooth proper exhaustion function
Statement
Every smooth manifold admits a smooth proper function .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A smooth manifold .
The manifold admits a compact exhaustion (Every manifold has a compact exhaustion).
Closed sets inside open sets admit smooth cutoffs equal to near the closed set and supported in the open set (A smooth Urysohn lemma for a closed set in an open set).
Locally finite sums of smooth functions are smooth (A locally finite sum of smooth functions is smooth).
Closed subsets of compact spaces are compact.
Proof
Let be the exhaustion from [L1], and set . For each , apply [L2] to inside the open set to obtain a smooth function equal to on a neighbourhood of and supported in .
The supports of are locally finite. Indeed, if , then from step 1.1. If , then , so . If , then , so again . Thus only can be nonzero at . Therefore is a smooth nonnegative function by [L3].
If and , then any point lies in some annulus with , so and hence . Thus , and this sublevel set is compact by [A1].
Every closed sublevel set of is compact, so is proper.
Every closed subset of a manifold is the zero set of a smooth nonnegative function
Statement
Every closed subset of a smooth manifold is the zero set of some smooth nonnegative function .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A closed subset of a smooth manifold .
Every open cover of a manifold has a countable cover by relatively compact coordinate balls subordinate to it (Every open cover of a manifold has a countable relatively compact coordinate-ball subcover).
A countable cover by coordinate balls with compact closures has a countable locally finite shrinking (A countable coordinate-ball cover has a countable locally finite shrinking).
For every compact set inside an open set there is a smooth manifold bump equal to near that compact set and supported in the open set (A manifold bump for a compact set inside an open set).
A locally finite sum of smooth functions is smooth (A locally finite sum of smooth functions is smooth).
Proof
Apply [L1] to the one-set open cover of the open manifold to obtain a countable cover by coordinate balls with compact closures contained in . Then apply [L2] to obtain a countable locally finite shrinking of that cover. For each , apply [L3] to to obtain a smooth function that is positive on and supported in .
The family is locally finite, so is smooth and nonnegative by [L4]. One has on because every vanishes there, and on because each point there lies in some .
Therefore .
Every open subset of a manifold is the cozero set of a smooth function
Statement
Every open subset of a smooth manifold is the cozero set of a smooth function on .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An open set .
Every closed subset of a manifold is the zero set of a smooth nonnegative function (Every closed subset of a manifold is the zero set of a smooth nonnegative function).
Proof
The complement is closed.
By [L1], there is a smooth nonnegative function with , so .
Hence is a smooth cozero set.
Every smooth manifold admits a countable smooth atlas with relatively compact domains
Statement
Every smooth manifold admits a countable smooth atlas whose chart domains have compact closures.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A smooth manifold .
The trivial open cover has a countable subordinate cover by relatively compact coordinate balls (Every open cover of a manifold has a countable relatively compact coordinate-ball subcover).
A smooth atlas is a cover by pairwise smoothly compatible smooth charts (Smooth atlases).
Proof
By [L1], there are countably many coordinate balls covering , each with compact closure.
Each carries its inherited smooth chart, and these charts are pairwise compatible because they come from the smooth structure of . Thus they form a countable smooth atlas by [F1].
This is the required countable smooth atlas.
The piecewise exponential flat function is not analytic at zero
Statement
False claim: the standard flat function is analytic at .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The standard flat function .
For , one has , while for (The standard flat function).
Every derivative of at is equal to (The standard flat function is smooth and flat at zero).
Refutation
By [L1], the Taylor series of at is the zero series.
By [F1], the function is positive on every punctured right neighbourhood of , so it is not equal near to its zero Taylor series.
Therefore is not analytic at .
A continuous partition of unity need not be smooth
Statement
False claim: every continuous partition of unity on a smooth manifold is smooth.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The cover and of .
A partition of unity subordinate to an open cover consists of nonnegative functions summing to with supports in the assigned open sets (Smooth partitions of unity subordinate to an open cover).
Define for , for , for , and .
Refutation
The functions from [A1] are continuous, nonnegative, and satisfy ; also and , so they form a continuous subordinate partition in the sense of [F1].
The function has a corner at and at , so it is not smooth.
Hence a continuous partition of unity need not be smooth.
A pointwise-defined sum of smooth functions need not be smooth
Statement
False claim: whenever is pointwise defined and each is smooth, the sum is automatically smooth.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A smooth bump supported in with , and for .
Local finiteness, not mere pointwise definability, is the hypothesis that forces a smooth sum (A locally finite sum of smooth functions is smooth).
Refutation
For each fixed , only finitely many of the values are nonzero, so is pointwise defined; moreover and for every .
The sequence but , so is not continuous at and therefore not smooth.
This refutes the claim and shows why [L1] needs local finiteness.
Naive extension by zero from an open set need not be smooth
Statement
False claim: if a smooth function is defined on an open set containing a closed set, then declaring it to be zero outside that open set always gives a smooth global extension.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The open set and the smooth function on it.
Smooth extension requires a cutoff supported away from the boundary of the original open set (Smooth extension from a closed neighbourhood).
Refutation
The naive zero extension is for and for .
This function has a jump at , so it is not smooth.
Therefore the cutoff in [L1] is genuinely necessary.
A smooth manifold need not be compact
Statement
False claim: every smooth manifold is compact.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The smooth manifold .
Open subsets of Euclidean space with their standard smooth structure are smooth manifolds (Smooth manifolds and their smooth charts).
The open cover , , of has no finite subcover.
Refutation
By [F1], the real line is a smooth manifold.
By [A1], the real line is not compact.
Hence the claim is false.
Weighted sums do not glue arbitrary manifold-valued maps
Statement
False claim: a partition of unity can glue arbitrary manifold-valued maps by weighted sums of their values.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The target manifold , the two-member cover , the subordinate smooth partition , and the constant maps and .
Partition-of-unity gluing works for real-valued functions because addition and scalar multiplication are available in the target (Smooth locally defined functions can be glued by a partition of unity).
On the overlap , the partition weights are and .
Refutation
On the overlap, the weighted sum would be .
The point does not lie on , so the weighted sum leaves the manifold target.
Thus the affine argument from [L1] does not extend to arbitrary manifold-valued maps.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
None yet.