Skip to main content
MathOverflow

Return to Question

added 11 characters in body
Source Link
Alex M.
Alex M.
  • 5.4k
  • 11
  • 35
  • 52

Recall that a morphism $f:C \to D$ in a category $\mathscr{C}$ is representable if for all maps $g:E \to D$ in $\mathscr{C},$ the pullback $C \times_{D} E$ exists.

Let now $\mathscr{C}$ be the category of smooth manifolds. Then any submersion is representable. Is the converse true? I have heard from various people that the converse is true, but the only reference I have found is David Metzler's preprint on the arXiv:

Topological and Smooth StacksTopological and Smooth Stacks.

However, the proof he gives there is not complete, for it assumes implicitly that if $M \times_N L$ is a pullback of manifolds, then the induced map $$M \times_N L \to M \times L$$ is a a smooth embedding. I do not see how this is automatic.

I do have a sketch of a proof that this map must be a topological embedding (using diffeological spaces) but is it necessarily an immersion? I would like to argue this using curves, however, this is difficult without knowledge of how to differentiate them in the pullback.

Does anyone have either have a proof or a counterexample for this statement?

Recall that a morphism $f:C \to D$ in a category $\mathscr{C}$ is representable if for all maps $g:E \to D$ in $\mathscr{C},$ the pullback $C \times_{D} E$ exists.

Let now $\mathscr{C}$ be the category of smooth manifolds. Then any submersion is representable. Is the converse true? I have heard from various people that the converse is true, but the only reference I have found is David Metzler's preprint on the arXiv:

Topological and Smooth Stacks

However, the proof he gives there is not complete, for it assumes implicitly that if $M \times_N L$ is a pullback of manifolds, then the induced map $$M \times_N L \to M \times L$$ is a a smooth embedding. I do not see how this is automatic.

I do have a sketch of a proof that this map must be a topological embedding (using diffeological spaces) but is it necessarily an immersion? I would like to argue this using curves, however, this is difficult without knowledge of how to differentiate them in the pullback.

Does anyone have either have a proof or a counterexample for this statement?

Recall that a morphism $f:C \to D$ in a category $\mathscr{C}$ is representable if for all maps $g:E \to D$ in $\mathscr{C},$ the pullback $C \times_{D} E$ exists.

Let now $\mathscr{C}$ be the category of smooth manifolds. Then any submersion is representable. Is the converse true? I have heard from various people that the converse is true, but the only reference I have found is David Metzler's Topological and Smooth Stacks.

However, the proof he gives there is not complete, for it assumes implicitly that if $M \times_N L$ is a pullback of manifolds, then the induced map $$M \times_N L \to M \times L$$ is a a smooth embedding. I do not see how this is automatic.

I do have a sketch of a proof that this map must be a topological embedding (using diffeological spaces) but is it necessarily an immersion? I would like to argue this using curves, however, this is difficult without knowledge of how to differentiate them in the pullback.

Does anyone have either have a proof or a counterexample for this statement?

Source Link
David Carchedi
David Carchedi
  • 15.5k
  • 38
  • 99

Is every representable map a submersion?

Recall that a morphism $f:C \to D$ in a category $\mathscr{C}$ is representable if for all maps $g:E \to D$ in $\mathscr{C},$ the pullback $C \times_{D} E$ exists.

Let now $\mathscr{C}$ be the category of smooth manifolds. Then any submersion is representable. Is the converse true? I have heard from various people that the converse is true, but the only reference I have found is David Metzler's preprint on the arXiv:

Topological and Smooth Stacks

However, the proof he gives there is not complete, for it assumes implicitly that if $M \times_N L$ is a pullback of manifolds, then the induced map $$M \times_N L \to M \times L$$ is a a smooth embedding. I do not see how this is automatic.

I do have a sketch of a proof that this map must be a topological embedding (using diffeological spaces) but is it necessarily an immersion? I would like to argue this using curves, however, this is difficult without knowledge of how to differentiate them in the pullback.

Does anyone have either have a proof or a counterexample for this statement?