This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mathematics Low‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics Low This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

i don't get the example of the 2-sphere and euclidean plane in the discussion section: a local diffeomorphism is not required to be onto, so i see no contradiction in the fact that the image of the 2-sphere under the local diffeo is compact. please can someone explain? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.122.45.24 (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

oh now i see. compactness of source space implies surjectivity (replied to myself here in case anybody had the same doubt).147.122.45.24 (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Given a vector field on a manifold ${\displaystyle X}$, we have its time-${\displaystyle t}$ local flow ${\displaystyle \Phi ^{t}}$. This will be a "locally-defined" diffeomorphism, namely a diffeomorphism between open subsets of ${\displaystyle X}$. If ${\displaystyle \Phi ^{t}}$ is defined on all of ${\displaystyle X}$, the it is a diffeomorphism.

Thus, in general, I am not sure how a local diffeomorphism (that is not a diffeomorphism) might arise from a flow. SkiingArcher (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply