Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 32 references

Regularity Conditions for Critical Point Convergence

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Under bounded critical point resolution, $C^1$ convergence makes counts of maxima, minima, and saddles converge; $C^2$ convergence with a Morse limit makes Morse-indexed counts converge.

desk verdict The C2/Morse half is solid, but the C1 half has a genuine mountain-pass gap that breaks Theorem 3 as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01854 v2 pith:BX32PSNX submitted 2025-07-02 math.GN math.PRmath.STstat.TH

Thomas J. Maullin-Sapey , Samuel Davenport This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.GNmath.PRmath.STstat.TH MSC 58K0560G60
keywords criticalpointconvergencehomologicalindexMorsetheoryC^kempiricalprocessesmountainpasstheoremPoincaré-Hopfboundedresolution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks when the number of local maxima, minima, and saddles of a sequence of functions $f_n$ converges to those of a limit $f$, under convergence in the $C^1$ or $C^2$ metric. The authors show that $C^1$ convergence alone is not enough: two peaks of $f_n$ can merge into one peak of $f$. They identify a condition called bounded critical point resolution — the distance between distinct critical points of $f_n$ is bounded below by a positive constant — under which the counts of maxima, minima, and saddles do converge, even when the limit has degenerate critical points. When the limit is Morse and convergence is $C^2$, they show the Morse-indexed counts converge as well. The paper matters because practitioners routinely read topological features off finite-sample approximations, and these theorems state the regularity conditions that make that practice valid.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the critical point resolution $R(\{f_n\}) := \liminf_{n\to\infty} \inf_{p_1\ne p_2 \in Z(\nabla f_n)} |p_1-p_2|$, the limiting minimal distance between distinct critical points of the approximating functions; Assumption 3 requires this to be positive. It prevents the collision of peaks and saddles that breaks convergence. The arguments also rely on two named tools: the homological index of a vector field on a manifold with boundary, used through the generalized Poincaré–Hopf theorem, and a mountain pass theorem for convex domains that detects whether a critical point is a maximum, minimum, or saddle. In the $C^2$ setting, the Morse lemma is proved via a homotopy whose flows give explicit constants for the size of Morse neighborhoods, allowing the neighborhoods of $f_n$ and $f$ to be matched.

What would settle it

Run a $C^1$-convergent sequence of smooth functions on a compact domain whose two local maxima move toward each other and merge into a single maximum of the limit, while keeping all critical points away from the boundary; this sequence satisfies the paper's other hypotheses but violates bounded critical point resolution and exhibits $N_M(f_n)=2$ converging to $N_M(f)=1$. To test the positive claim directly, one would need a sequence satisfying Assumptions 1 and 3 with $C^1$ convergence where maxima, minima, or saddle counts fail to converge; the paper's Theorem 3 asserts that none exists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that two regularity conditions on the approximating sequence — no critical points of the limit on the boundary, and bounded critical point resolution — are sufficient for the number of local maxima, minima, and saddles of $f_n$ to converge to those of $f$ under $C^1$ convergence (Theorem 3). The proof works by pairing a generalized Poincaré–Hopf theorem for manifolds with boundary, which forces critical points of $f_n$ to appear near those of $f$ with matching homological index, with a mountain-pass theorem on convex domains, which rules out a local maximum of $f_n$ converging to a saddle or undulation of $f$. Under $C^2$ convergence with a Morse limit, the authors prove a stronger statement (Theorem 5): the number of critical points of each Morse index converges, via a homotopy-based Morse lemma that provides explicit bounds on the Morse neighborhoods and a controlled correspondence between critical points. Probabilistic versions of both theorems are obtained for random processes by importing these deterministic results onto almost-sure representations.

Load-bearing premise

The whole convergence result rests on the assumption that the critical points of the approximating functions stay at least some fixed positive distance apart as the sample grows; if two critical points drift together and merge in the limit, the counts can fail to converge even when derivatives converge.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If $f$ has no undulation points, then under $C^1$ convergence plus the two assumptions the total number of critical points $N_C(f_n)$ converges to $N_C(f)$; otherwise it can only be bounded above in the limit.
  • The convergence statements hold for maxima, minima, and saddles separately, not just for homological-index counts, which is what applications that count peaks and clusters need.
  • Under $C^2$ convergence with $f$ Morse, every Morse-indexed count $N^M_\lambda(f_n)$ converges to $N^M_\lambda(f)$, giving the sharp guarantee that no extra critical points of any index appear in the limit.
  • For random processes, weak convergence of the process and its derivatives, plus mild probability conditions, imply weak convergence of the critical-point counts; in particular, when the limiting process almost surely has no undulation points, the total count converges.
  • The assumptions can be checked mostly in terms of the approximating functions $f_n$ themselves, so the theory gives a template for verifying convergence in concrete estimators.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable consequence for practice: estimators built on fixed lattices plausibly satisfy bounded critical point resolution, whereas kernel smoothers whose bandwidth shrinks to zero may not, and one can check whether $R(\{\hat G_n\})$ has positive liminf in probability for a given estimator.
  • The same Poincaré–Hopf machinery that prevents critical-point collisions may also control the convergence of the Euler characteristic of excursion sets, since it already counts critical points with sign; the authors flag this direction as future work.
  • The theorems suggest a practical diagnostic: monitor the minimal distance between critical points of successive approximations; if it collapses, topological summaries such as peak counts are unstable and should not be trusted.
  • For smooth Gaussian random fields, the condition that peaks are almost surely separated is plausible in generic settings, and verifying it would let the probabilistic theorems apply directly to common neuroimaging peak-counting pipelines.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies when C^k convergence of functions on a compact manifold with boundary implies convergence of the numbers of critical points of various types. In the C^1 setting the authors introduce a bounded critical-point-resolution assumption, then use a generalized Poincaré-Hopf theorem and a mountain-pass theorem to claim convergence of the numbers of local maxima, minima, and saddles. In the C^2 setting they prove convergence of Morse-indexed critical point counts via a homotopy-based Morse lemma with explicit constants. The paper closes with a probabilistic reformulation in the language of empirical processes.

Significance. If the central theorems held, they would provide useful and fairly minimal regularity conditions under which topological summaries of finite-sample approximations stabilize, and the paper is honest about failure modes (Examples 1–3). The C^2/Morse strand, Theorems 4 and 5, is carefully argued with explicit constant tracking and appears sound. However, the C^1 strand, which is the paper's headline contribution, has a central gap in the proof of Theorem 3 and an overclaim in Theorem 2, so the paper is not yet in a publishable state.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Theorem 3, Step 2] The application of Theorem 10 does not justify the stated conclusion. Theorem 10 returns a point p'_n with f_n(p'_n) = c_n < f_n(p_n); it does not allow one to prescribe the level c = f(p). The proof then treats p'_n as lying on f_n^{-1}(c), but no estimate shows c_n = c or c_n → f(p). Consequently the limiting identity c = f(p*) and the transversality contradiction at level c do not follow. This is the load-bearing step for convergence of local maxima.
  2. [§3.2, Theorem 3, Step 2] The displayed limiting argument `0 = ∇f_n(p'_n)·(p'_n - p)` is inconsistent with the definition of tangency. If f_n^{-1}(c_n) is tangential to ∂B_δ(p) at p'_n, then ∇f_n(p'_n) is normal to ∂B_δ(p), hence collinear with the radial vector p'_n - p; the scalar product is ±|∇f_n(p'_n)||p'_n - p|, not 0. The contradiction with Condition (2) should be obtained by passing to the limit of the vanishing tangential component, not by the displayed equality. As written, the limiting step is invalid.
  3. [§3.2, Theorem 2] The statement `lim sup_{n→∞} N_0^H(f_n) = N_0^H(f)` is stronger than what the proof establishes and is false as stated. The proof only shows that near an undulation point of f there is at most one critical point of f_n, and if present it has index zero; it gives no existence. For S = [-1,1], f(x) = x^3, and f_n(x) = x^3 + x/n, we have f_n → f in C^1, Assumptions 1 and 3 hold, f has one undulation point at 0, and N_0^H(f_n) = 0 for all n while N_0^H(f) = 1. The statement should be changed to `lim sup ≤ N_0^H(f)`, and downstream uses, including Theorem 3's final line and the proof of Theorem 6, should be re-checked; the weaker inequality suffices when undulations are assumed absent.
  4. [§3.2, Lemma 3] The proof does not verify condition (iii) on the annulus B_{2γ} \ B_γ for the adjusted functions \tilde f_n. After defining \tilde f_n, the gradient lower bound is shown only on B_ϵ \ B_{2γ}; condition (iii) requires absence of critical points on all of B_ϵ \ Int(B_γ). The missing estimate can likely be obtained by the same modulus-of-continuity argument applied to f_n, but it should be written out.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§4, Theorem 7, assumption (M2)] Assumption (M2) is written as `P*[L = 0]` and appears to be missing the required `= 0`; as stated it is not a probability condition.
  2. [§3.3, Theorem 4] The statement uses `Γ_n : B_{r_n}(p_n) → R^D` while writing `(x - p_n)` in the displayed identity, which treats p_n as both a point of S and a coordinate origin. This is reconciled after the translations in the proof, but the statement should say so explicitly.
  3. [§4, Theorem 6 proof] The sentence `Noting the final line of Theorem 2` is ambiguous once Theorem 2 is corrected to a limsup inequality; the proof should state explicitly that H5 together with the limsup bound yields the needed convergence of N_0^H.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the convergence theorems are derived from external hypotheses and external theorems, not from their own conclusions.

full rationale

None of the paper's central claims reduces to its inputs by construction. Assumptions 1 and 3 (no boundary critical points; bounded critical point resolution) are external hypotheses about f and {f_n}, not disguised versions of the target conclusions N_M(f_n) -> N_M(f), N_m(f_n) -> N_m(f), or N_S(f_n) -> N_S(f). The proofs invoke external machinery stated in the appendices: the generalized Poincare-Hopf theorem from Jubin [11], the mountain pass theorem on convex domains from Jabri/Li Ma [12, 26], and the quantitative Morse lemma from Ioffe and Schwartzman [14]. No parameter is fitted and no prediction is manufactured from data. The only self-referential element is Lemma 2, whose proof credits the strategy of Lemma A.1 of [2] and Theorem 3.2 of [3]; however, the proof is fully supplied in the text and does not depend on accepting an unverified self-cited result. The skeptic's objection about the mountain pass application in Theorem 3, Step 2 (concerning whether the mountain pass level tends to c = f(p)) is a potential correctness gap in the proof, but it is not circularity: it does not show that the theorem's conclusion is assumed or that an input equals an output by definition. Under the stated hard rules, proof gaps without a demonstrated reduction to inputs are not scored as circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper postulates no fitted constants and introduces no new entities. It relies on deep external theorems (generalized Poincaré-Hopf, mountain pass, effective Morse lemma) and on two structural assumptions (no boundary critical points, positive critical point separation). The mountain pass theorem as stated in Appendix D is the most fragile input.

assumptions (9)
  • standard math Generalized Poincaré-Hopf theorem for vector fields on compact oriented manifolds with boundary (Theorem 8, from Jubin [11])
    Used in Theorems 2 and 3 to equate the interior homological index of f with that of an interpolating function; the paper states the theorem but does not prove it.
  • standard math Mountain pass theorem for compact convex domains (Theorem 10, from Jabri [12] and Ma [26])
    Used in Theorem 3 Step 2 to force either a critical point or a boundary tangency. As stated in Appendix D it does not fix the level, which creates the main proof gap.
  • standard math Effective Morse lemma for C1,1 functions with explicit neighborhood constants (Ioffe-Schwartzman [14], Appendix E)
    Underlies Theorem 4's construction of bi-Lipschitz coordinate changes and explicit radii; the proof is reproduced in the appendix.
  • standard math Palais-Smale condition is satisfied by compactness of the convex domain
    Invoked in Appendix D to ensure the mountain pass sequence converges.
  • standard math Almost sure representation theorem for weak convergence of empirical processes (van der Vaart and Wellner [15])
    Used in Section 4 to pass from weak convergence of random processes to pathwise C1/C2 convergence on a high-probability event.
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: f has no critical points on the boundary of S
    Simplifies boundary behavior of the homological index; without it the paper's [0,1] counterexample shows convergence can fail.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 3: bounded critical point resolution, liminf of mutual distances of critical points of fn is positive
    This is the key hypothesis for the C1 theorems; it is not implied by C1 convergence or Morseness.
  • domain assumption f has isolated critical points
    Required for the homological index to be defined and for the finite critical point arguments.
  • domain assumption Measurability and non-degeneracy assumptions (H1)-(H5) and (M1)-(M4) for the probabilistic versions
    These transfer the deterministic theorems to random processes; they mirror the deterministic hypotheses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Regularity Conditions for Critical Point Convergence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BX32PSNX

@misc{pith2026250701854,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Regularity Conditions for Critical Point Convergence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BX32PSNX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01854}
}
abstract

We focus on a sequence of functions $\{f_n\}$, defined on a compact manifold with boundary $S$, converging in the $C^k$ metric to a limit $f$. A common assumption implicitly made in the empirical sciences is that when such functions represent random processes derived from data, the topological features of $f_n$ will eventually resemble those of $f$. In this work, we investigate the validity of this claim under various regularity assumptions, with the goal of finding conditions sufficient for the number of local maxima, minima and saddle of such functions to converge. In the $C^1$ setting, we do so by employing lesser-known variants of the Poincar\'{e}-Hopf and mountain pass theorems, and in the $C^2$ setting we pursue an approach inspired by the homotopy-based proof of the Morse Lemma. To aid practical use, we end by reformulating our central theorems in the language of the empirical processes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01854 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The collar of a manifold with boundary. Tangential and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the computation of IndH(∇f) for two functions. The contributions from critical points on the boundary are highlighted in red, whilst those of the critical points in the interior are shown in black. As predicted by Poincar´e-Hopf theorem, Theorem 8, in this case IndH(∇f) = 1 = χ(Bϵ) for both functions. If f ∈ C 1 (S, R), s ∈ Int(S) is a critical point, λ ∈ Z and IndH(∇f, s) = λ, then we say that s is … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the homological index for isolated critical points. In each example, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the Morse index for various Morse points. In each example, a surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Examples in which (a) fn C0 −−→ f and f is Morse, but NC(fn) is undefined for all n, (b) fn C0 −−→ f, each fn is Morse and f is Morse, but NC(fn) → ∞ whereas NC(f) = 0, and (c) fn C1 −−→ f, each fn is Morse and f is Morse, but NC(fn) = 2 for all n, whilst NC(f) = 1. In…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A sequence of functions fn C0 −−→ f such that each function is C∞ and Morse and every fn has a single isolated local maxima, but f has no critical points at all. The function in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A sequence of functions fn C1 −−→ f such that all functions are Morse, but every fn has two local maxima, whilst the limit f, given by f(x) = 1 − x 2 , has only one. Here, the smooth bump function b is defined as in Example 2. In this case, it is clear that R({fn}) = 0…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A sequence of functions fn C1 −−→ f such that each function is Morse and has a single isolated critical point at the origin, but the Hessians do not converge. In fact, for all vectors ⃗v, if f is concave in the direction of ⃗v at the origin, then fn is convex in that d…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The partition of unity used in the proof of Theorem 2. In the light green region, ˜fn = fn, while in the blue region ˜fn = f. Also shown in light red, on top of the blue region, is a potential choice of collar, U, for B. definitions of δ and M and the last inequality …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A sequence of functions fn C2 −−→ f such that each fn has a single critical point, which is a local maxima, but the limit of these critical points is a saddle point of f. Highlighted in orange are the critical points of each function. Note that, while each fn has a si…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Surface plots for two functions (top), alongside top down views of the contour [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Sequences of one-dimensional (a) and two-dimensional (b) functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Illustration of homotopies St : (f − ϕ) ≃ f and Γt : Id ≃ Γ used by [14] to prove the Morse lemma. Here, St is a continuous deformation from a ‘standard’ saddle, x 2 − y 2 , into a saddle of f (top row). The homotopy Γt is constructed to ensure that St ◦ Γt is constan…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Illustration of the mountain pass theorem for convex domains. The theorem states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Robert J. Adler. The Geometry of Random Fields . Classics in Applied Mathematics. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM, 3600 Market Street, Floor 6, Philadelphia, PA 19104), 1981

    work page 1981

  2. [2]

    Multiple testing of local maxima for detection of peaks in random fields

    Dan Cheng and Armin Schwartzman. Multiple testing of local maxima for detection of peaks in random fields. Annals of statistics , 45(2):529, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Nichols, and Armin Schwarzman

    Samuel Davenport, Thomas E. Nichols, and Armin Schwarzman. Confidence regions for the location of peaks of a smooth random field, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Coleman and Luciano Pietronero

    Paul H. Coleman and Luciano Pietronero. The fractal nature of the universe. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications , 185(1):45–55, 1992

    work page 1992

  5. [5]

    de Gouveia dal Pino, Annibal Hetem, Jorge E

    Elisabete M. de Gouveia dal Pino, Annibal Hetem, Jorge E. Horvath, Carlos A. W. de Souza, Thyrso Villela, and J. C. N. de Araujo. Evidence for a Very Large Scale Fractal Structure in the Universe from COBE Measurements. ApJ Lett., 442:L45, April 1995

    work page 1995

  6. [6]

    Friston, Keith J

    Karl J. Friston, Keith J. Worsley, Richard S.J. Frackowiak, John C. Mazziotta, and Alan C. Evans. Assessing the significance of focal activations using their spatial extent. Human brain mapping, 1(3):210–220, 1994

    work page 1994

  7. [7]

    Topological fdr for neuroimaging

    Justin Chumbley, Keith Worsley, Guillaume Flandin, and Karl Friston. Topological fdr for neuroimaging. Neuroimage, 49(4):3057–3064, 2010

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Thomas Maullin-Sapey, Armin Schwartzman, and Thomas E. Nichols. Spatial confidence regions for combinations of excursion sets in image analysis: supplementary theory.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Statistical Methodology Series B , 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Adler and Jonathan E

    Robert J. Adler and Jonathan E. Taylor. Random fields and geometry . Springer Science & Business Media, 2009

    2009

  2. [10]

    Object detection under the linear subspace model with appli- cation to cryo-em images

    Amitay Eldar, Keren Mor Waknin, Samuel Davenport, Tamir Bendory, Armin Schwartz- man, and Yoel Shkolnisky. Object detection under the linear subspace model with appli- cation to cryo-em images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00364 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    A generalized poincar´ e-hopf index theorem

    Beno ˆ ıt Jubin. A generalized poincar´ e-hopf index theorem. arXiv preprint arXiv: 0903.0697v2, 2009

    2009 arXiv

  4. [12]

    The Mountain Pass Theorem: Variants, Generalizations and Some Appli- cations

    Youssef Jabri. The Mountain Pass Theorem: Variants, Generalizations and Some Appli- cations. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2003

    2003

  5. [13]

    Arnold, Alexander Varchenko, and Sabir M

    Vladimir I. Arnold, Alexander Varchenko, and Sabir M. Gusein-Zade. Singularities of Differentiable Maps: Volume I: The Classification of Critical Points Caustics and Wave Fronts. Monographs in Mathematics. Birkh¨ auser Boston, 1985

    1985

  6. [14]

    Parametric Morse lemmas for C1,1-functions

    Alexander Ioffe and Efim Schwartzman. Parametric Morse lemmas for C1,1-functions. Recent Developments in Optimization Theory and Nonlinear Analysis: AMS/IMU Special Session on Optimization and Nonlinear Analysis, May 24-26, 1995, Jerusalem, Israel , 204:139, 1997. 33

    1995

  7. [15]

    Aad van der Vaart and Jon A. Wellner. Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes: With Applications to Statistics . Springer Series in Statistics. Springer, 1996

    1996

  8. [16]

    John M. Lee. Introduction to Smooth Manifolds. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer New York, 2013

    2013

  9. [17]

    John M. Lee. Introduction to Topological Manifolds . Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer New York, 2010

    2010

  10. [18]

    Differential Topology

    Victor Guillemin and Alan Pollack. Differential Topology. AMS Chelsea Publishing. AMS Chelsea Pub., 2010

    2010

  11. [19]

    M´ emoire sur les courbes d´ efinies par une ´ equation diff´ erentielle (i).Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees, 7:375–422, 1881

    Henri Poincar´ e. M´ emoire sur les courbes d´ efinies par une ´ equation diff´ erentielle (i).Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees, 7:375–422, 1881

  12. [20]

    Vektorfelder in n-dimensionalen-mannigfaltigkeiten

    Heinz Hopf. Vektorfelder in n-dimensionalen-mannigfaltigkeiten. Mathematische Annalen, 96:225–250, 1927

    1927

  13. [21]

    Morse Theory

    John Milnor. Morse Theory. Annals of Mathematics Studies. Princeton University Press, 1963

    1963

  14. [22]

    Topics in Nonlinear Functional Analysis: Notes by R

    Louis Nirenberg. Topics in Nonlinear Functional Analysis: Notes by R. A. Artino . Courant Inst. of Math. Sciences, 1974

    1974

  15. [23]

    Moo K. Chung. Introduction to random fields. arXiv. 2007.09660 , 2020

    2007 arXiv

  16. [24]

    An Invitation to Morse Theory

    Liviu Nicolaescu. An Invitation to Morse Theory . Universitext. Springer New York, 2007

    2007

  17. [25]

    An introduction to transversality

    Charlotte Greenblatt. An introduction to transversality. 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    Mountain pass on a closed convex set

    Li Ma. Mountain pass on a closed convex set. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 205(2):531–536, 1997

    1997

  19. [27]

    Hirsch, Stephen Smale, and Robert L

    Morris W. Hirsch, Stephen Smale, and Robert L. Devaney. Differential Equations, Dynam- ical Systems, and an Introduction to Chaos . Pure and Applied Mathematics - Academic Press. Elsevier Science, 2004. 34 Appendices A Supporting Lemmas Lemma 5. Suppose ϕ : S → R is C2 with Hϕ...

    2004

  20. [28]

    By the uniform convergence of fn to f , we see that for each i ∈ {1, 2}: |fnm(tnm i ) − f (t∗ i )| ≤ ||fnm − f ||∞ + |f (tnm i ) − f (t∗ i )| m→∞− − − − →0 Combining this with the above we see that: f (t∗

  21. [29]

    − fnm(tnm 2 )| + |fnm(tnm 1 ) − f (t∗ 1)| = 0 Thus, f (t∗

  22. [30]

    As f is a homeomorphism we have that t∗ 2 = t∗

    = f (t∗ 1). As f is a homeomorphism we have that t∗ 2 = t∗

  23. [31]

    However, this is a contradiction, as t∗ 2 ̸= t∗

  24. [32]

    It now follows from the definition of κ that, for n large enough, ( fn(B1)) κ 2 ⊂ fn(B2)

    Thus, lim inf n→∞ κn = κ for some κ >0. It now follows from the definition of κ that, for n large enough, ( fn(B1)) κ 2 ⊂ fn(B2). Finally assume that n is large enough that ||fn − f ||∞ < κ 2 . If y ∈ f (B1), it follows that there exists an x ∈ B1 such that f (x) = y and thus ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.