Let $M,N$$\pi \colon M\to N$ be real smooth manifolds and $p\colon M\to N$ a smooth map between real smooth manifolds. Then smooth functions on $M$ form$C^\infty(M)$ forms a module over the ring of smooth functions on $N$$C^\infty(N)$ (via pullback). Is it know whether this module is flat when $p$$\pi$ is a submersion?
Recall that the usual definition of flatness is equivalent to the following equational condition: whenever $ h_1 \ldots h_k\in C^\infty(N) $ and $g_1 \ldots g_k\in C^\infty(M)$ are such that: $$h_1 g_1 + \ldots + h_k g_k = 0$$ (as functions on $M$) then there are functions $G_1 \ldots G_r\in C^\infty(M)$ and $a_{i,j}\in C^\infty(N)$ such that: $$g_i= \sum_j a_{i,j}G_j \; \forall i $$ and $$\sum_i h_i a_{i,j}= 0 \; \forall j$$
This condition of flatness is equivalent to the usual one (see the comments below).
It isIt's known that the inclusion of an open subset $U\subset N$ is a flat morphism since smooth functions on $U$ are obtained from the smooth functions on $N$ by localizing w.r.t. functions vanishing nowhere on $U$.
It isIt's also known that a smooth flat map hasmaps have to be open. Proofs of both of these facts can be found for example in the book: Gonzales, Salas, $C^\infty$-differentiable spaces, Lecture notes in Mathematics, Springer 2000.
TheI've asked some of the experts including Malgrange and the above authors and it seems that the answer is not known.
I gave the equational condition of flatness given abovesince it seems to belike the most reasonable thing to use trying to come up with a proofhere. But considering already the simplest situation here's what gets me stuck: suppose you want to check flatness of the standard projection $\mathbb{R}^2 \to \mathbb{R}, (x,y)\mapsto x$, and take the case of just one $h\in C^\infty(\mathbb{R})$ and one $g\in C^\infty(\mathbb{R}^2)$ with $hg=0$. If you pick $h(x)$ to be strictly positive for $x<0$ and $0$ for $x\geq 0$, then the flatness condition translates into:
Anyone has an idea how to prove this "simple" case, or sees a counter example?
(Edit: George Lowther beautifully proves this "simple" case, and also comes closer to the full result in his second answer. If you also think he deserves some credit consider up-voting his second answer since the first one turned community wiki.)