## A Lemma on Nonzero Jacobians

Okay, let’s dive right in with a first step towards proving the inverse function theorem we talked about at the end of yesterday’s post. This is going to get messy.

We start with a function and first ask that it be continuous and injective on the closed ball of radius around the point . Then we ask that all the partial derivatives of exist within the open interior — note that this is *weaker* than our existence condition for the differential of — and that the Jacobian determinant on . Then I say that the image actually contains a neighborhood of . That is, the image doesn’t “flatten out” near .

The boundary of the ball is the sphere of radius :

Now the Heine-Borel theorem says that this sphere, being both closed and bounded, is a compact subset of . We’ll define a function on this sphere by

which must be continuous and strictly positive, since if then , but we assumed that is injective on . But we also know that the image of a continuous real-valued function on a compact, connected space must be a closed interval. That is, , and there exists some point on the sphere where this minimum is actually attained: .

Now we’re going to let be the ball of radius centered at . We will show that , and is thus a neighborhood of contained within . To this end, we’ll pick and show that .

So, given such a point , we define a new function on the closed ball by

This function is continuous on the compact ball , so it again has an absolute minimum. I say that it happens somewhere in the interior .

At the center of the ball, we have (since ), so the minimum must be even less. But on the boundary , we find

so the minimum can’t happen on the boundary. So this minimum of happens at some point in the open ball , and so does the minimum of the *square* of :

Now we can vary each component of separately, and use Fermat’s theorem to tell us that the derivative in terms of must be zero at the minimum value . That is, each of the partial derivatives of must be zero (we’ll come back to this more generally later):

This is the product of the vector by the matrix . And the determinant of this matrix is : the Jacobian determinant at , which we assumed to be nonzero way back at the beginning! Thus the matrix must be invertible, and the only possible solution to this system of equations is for , and so .

[…] yourself. Just like last time we’ve got a messy technical lemma about what happens when the Jacobian determinant of a […]

Pingback by Another Lemma on Nonzero Jacobians « The Unapologetic Mathematician | November 17, 2009 |

[…] a smaller neighborhood on which is injective. We pick some closed ball centered at , and use our first lemma to find that must contain an open neighborhood of . Then we define , which is open since both […]

Pingback by The Inverse Function Theorem « The Unapologetic Mathematician | November 18, 2009 |

[…] that for all . A maximum is similarly defined, except that we require in the neighborhood. As I alluded to recently, we can bring Fermat’s theorem to bear to determine a necessary […]

Pingback by Local Extrema in Multiple Variables « The Unapologetic Mathematician | November 23, 2009 |