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.
The weak Whitney proper embedding theorem
Statement
Every smooth -manifold admits a proper smooth embedding into .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A smooth -manifold .
The manifold embeds in some finite-dimensional Euclidean space, and in the noncompact case one may choose an embedding with bounded and proper (Every smooth manifold embeds in some finite-dimensional Euclidean space).
A projection that avoids secant and tangent directions preserves injectivity and immersion, and in the bounded-plus-proper model it also preserves properness (A generic linear projection preserves injectivity and immersion, A generic projection can preserve properness).
A proper injective immersion is a smooth embedding (A proper injective immersion is a smooth embedding).
Proof
Choose the embedding from [L1]. If is compact, is automatically proper. If is noncompact, use the supplied form relative to a decomposition , with bounded and proper.
If , compose with a linear isometric inclusion . This composite is still a proper smooth embedding, so the theorem is proved in this case. Hence assume .
The generic-projection lemma in [L2] gives a dense set of directions for which is an injective immersion. If is compact, choose any such ; the projected map is proper because its source is compact. If is noncompact, the set is a nonempty open set, so it meets the dense good-direction set. Choose in that intersection. Then is not parallel to the proper-coordinate axis, and the corrected properness lemma in [L2] makes proper. In either case [L3] upgrades the proper injective immersion to a smooth embedding into .
In the noncompact case put and decompose . The component of perpendicular to is bounded. Its scalar component along is with bounded, and the argument in the properness lemma shows this function is proper. Thus the projected embedding again has bounded-plus-proper form, now with proper-coordinate unit vector .
If the new ambient dimension is still greater than , repeat steps 3.1-4.1. Step 3.1 restores the embedding hypothesis after each projection; compactness preserves properness in the compact case, and step 4.1 preserves the bounded-plus-proper form in the noncompact case. After the finite number of projections, the ambient dimension is and the resulting map is a proper smooth embedding.
The low-dimensional branch is step 2.1, and the projection branch is step 5.1. Therefore every smooth -manifold admits a proper smooth embedding into .
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
12 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- John M. Lee, Introduction to Smooth Manifolds, 2nd ed., Theorem 6.15 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Marco Gualtieri, Topology I: Smooth Manifolds, Part 11 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Hassler Whitney, Differentiable manifolds in Euclidean space (standard reference, not scraped)