STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SPACES OF SMOOTH MAPS WITH
INFINITE-DIMENSIONAL TARGET

arXiv:1603.09127v3 [math.GN] 7 Apr 2016

EIVIND OTTO HJELLE AND ALEXANDER SCHMEDING

A BSTRACT. In this article we study two “strong” topologies for spaces of smooth functions from a finite-dimensional manifold to a (possibly infinite-dimensional) manifold
modelled on a locally convex space. Namely, we construct Whitney type topologies for
these spaces and a certain refinement corresponding to Michor’s F D-topology. Then
we establish the continuity of certain mappings between spaces of smooth mappings,
e.g. the continuity of the joint composition map. As a first application we prove that the
bisection group of an arbitrary Lie groupoid (with finite-dimensional base) is a topological group (with respect to these topologies).
For the reader’s convenience the article includes also a proof of the folklore fact that
the Whitney topologies defined via jet bundles coincide with the ones defined via local
charts.

Keywords: topologies on spaces of smooth functions, Whitney topologies, continuity
of composition, bisections of a Lie groupoid, manifolds of smooth maps
MSC2010: 54C35 (primary); 26E20, 58D15, 58H05 (secondary)
Acknowledgment: This research was part of StudForsk at NTNU, Trondheim. We
acknowledge financial support by Olav Thon Stiftelsen.
C ONTENTS
Introduction and statement of results

2

1. The very strong topology

6

2. Composition of maps in the very strong topology

13

3. The fine very strong topology

21

4. The manifold structure on smooth vector valued functions

24

5. Application to bisection groups

28

E-mail addresses: eivindhj@stud.ntnu.no and alexander.schmeding@math.ntnu.no.
1

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

2

Appendix A. Calculus in the locally convex setting

31

Appendix B.

Auxiliary results for Sections 1 and 2

34

Appendix C.

Alternative description of the topology via jet bundles

38

References

45

I NTRODUCTION

AND STATEMENT OF RESULTS

This paper gives a systematic treatment of two topologies for spaces of smooth functions from a finite-dimensional manifold to a (possibly infinite-dimensional) manifold
modeled on a locally convex space.
In particular, we establish the continuity of certain mappings between spaces of smooth
mappings, e.g. the continuity of the joint composition map. As a first application we
prove that the bisection group of an arbitrary Lie groupoid (with finite-dimensional
base) is a topological group. For the most part, these results are generalizations of well
known constructions to spaces of smooth functions with infinite-dimensional range. We
refer to [Ill03, Mic80, Hir94] for topologies on spaces of smooth functions between
finite-dimensional manifolds.
To understand these results of the present article, recall first the situation for spaces of
smooth functions between finite-dimensional manifolds. For 0 ≤ r ≤ ∞, let Cr (M, N)
denote the set of r-times continuously differentiable functions between manifolds M and
N In the case where r is finite, the standard choice for a topology on Cr (M, N) is the well
known Whitney Cr -topology (cf. [Ill03, Hir94]). For r = ∞ and M non-compact there
are several choices for a suitable topology. One can for example choose the topology
generated by the union of all Whitney Cr -topologies. We call this topology the strong
C∞ -topology and write CS∞ (M, N) for the smooth functions with this topology.1 Note
that each basic neighborhood of the strong C∞ -topology allows one to control derivatives of functions only up to a fixed upper bound. However, in applications one wants to
control the derivatives of up to arbitrary high order (this is made precise in Section 1).
To achieve this one has to refine the strong topology, obtaining the very strong topol∞ (M, N) the smooth
ogy2 in the process (cf. [Ill03] for an exposition). We denote by CvS
functions with the very strong topology and note that this topology is fine enough for
many questions arising from differential topology.
1The strong topology is in the literature often also called the “Whitney C∞ -topology”. Following

Illman in [Ill03], we will not use this naming convention as it can be argued that the strong C∞ -topology
is not a genuine C∞ -topology. See ibid. for more information.
2In [Mic80] this topology is called the D-topology.

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

3

Unfortunately, as is argued in [Mic80] this topology is still not fine enough, if one
wants to obtain manifold structures on C∞ (M, N) (and subsequently on the group of
diffeomorphisms Diff(M)). Hence Michor constructed a further refinement of the very
strong topology, called the F D-topology. In the present paper, we call this topology the
fine very strong topology and denote the space of smooth functions with this topology
∞ (M, N).
by CfS
Note that the topologies discussed so far coincide if the source manifold is compact. In
fact in this case, all of these topologies coincide with the compact open C∞ -topology (see
e.g. [Nee06, Definition 5.1]). The compact open C∞ -topology for infinite-dimensional
target manifolds is already well understood and has been used in many investigations,
for example in infinite-dimensional Lie theory, e.g. [Glö02]. Hence our investigation
will only turn up new results for non-compact source manifolds and infinite-dimensional
target manifolds.

We will now go into some more detail and explain the main results of the present paper.
Our aim is now to generalize the construction of the very strong and fine very strong
topology to the set of smooth functions C∞ (M, X ), where X is a locally convex manifold.
Here smooth maps are understood in the sense of Bastiani’s calculus [Bas64] (often also
called Keller’s Cr -theory [Kel74]). We refer to [Mil83, Glö02, Nee06] for streamlined
expositions, but have included a brief recollection in Appendix A.
Working in this framework we construct the very strong and the fine very strong topology for C∞ (M, X ), where M is finite-dimensional and X is a locally convex manifold.
Our exposition mostly follows Illman’s article [Ill03] and we adapt his arguments to
our setting. In particular, we describe the topology in terms of local charts as in [Ill03]
(cf. also [Hir94]). For finite-dimensional manifolds one can alternatively introduce the
topology using jet bundles and it is well known that both approaches yield the same
topology. This fact seems to be a folklore theorem, but we were not able to locate a
proof in the literature. As this fact is needed later on, a proof is given in Appendix C.
The advantage of the approach using local charts can be summarized as follows: Arguments and proofs often split into two distinct steps. First one establishes a property
of the function space topology only for the (easier) special case of vector space valued
smooth mappings. Then a localization argument involving manifold charts allows one
to establish the result for smooth maps between manifolds.
To our knowledge the topologies discussed in the present paper have so far only been
studied for finite-dimensional manifolds. A topology somewhat similar to the very
strong topology but for infinite-dimensional manifolds can be found in [KM97, Section 41]. Albeit the similar look, be aware that the jet bundles used in the construction
are only manifolds in the inequivalent convenient setting of calculus. In particular, the
topology in loc.cit. does not coincide with the one constructed here if M is non-compact

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

4

(cf. [KM97, 42.2 Remarks]). We refer to Remark 1.12 for related topologies on function spaces between Banach manifolds. For finite-dimensional manifolds, our construction recovers exactly the ones in the literature. We exploit this and recall that the set
Prop(N, N) ⊆ C∞ (M, N) of all proper maps is open in the very strong and the fine very
strong topology. Then one can establish continuity of certain composition mappings, in
particular our results subsume the following theorem.
Theorem A Let M, N be finite-dimensional manifolds, X and Y be (possibly infinitedimensional) manifolds. In the following, endow all function spaces either with the very
strong or the fine very strong topology. Then the joint composition
Γ : Prop(M, N) ×C∞ (N, X ) → C∞ (M, X ),

( f , g) 7→ g ◦ f

is continuous.
Further, for any smooth map h : X → Y , the pushforward
h∗ : C∞ (M, X ) → C∞ (M,Y ),

f 7→ h ◦ f

is continuous.
Having this theorem at our disposal, we construct an interesting class of topological
groups: Suppose G = (G ⇒ M) is a Lie groupoid. This means that G, M are smooth
manifolds, equipped with submersions α , β : G → M and an associative and smooth
multiplication G×α ,β G → G that admits a smooth identity map 1 : M → G and a smooth
inversion ι : G → G. Then the bisections Bis(G ) of G are the sections σ : M → G of α
such that β ◦ σ is a diffeomorphism of M. This becomes a group with respect to
(σ ⋆ τ )(x) := σ ((β ◦ τ )(x))τ (x) for x ∈ M.
Many interesting groups from differential geometry such as diffeomorphism groups,
automorphism groups and gauge transformations of principle bundles can be realised
as bisection groups of suitable Lie groupoids. By construction Bis(G ) ⊆ C∞ (M, G) and
with respect to the topologies on the space of smooth functions we obtain the following.
Theorem B Let G = (G ⇒ M) be a Lie groupoid with finite-dimensional base M. Then
(Bis(G ), ⋆) is a topological group with respect to the subspace topology induced by
either the very strong or the fine very strong topology on C∞ (M, G).
This result is a first step needed to turn the bisection group into an infinite-dimensional
Lie group. In fact, it turns out that one can establish this result quite easily (see below)
once Theorem B is available. The key step to establish the applications mentioned
below, is to work out the continuity of certain composition mappings (which has been
done in Theorem A). Then Proposition C and Theorem D below can be established using
standard techniques from the literature. In the present paper we will be only concerned
with properties of the topology on function spaces. Hence the next results are stated

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

5

without a proof. We provide only some references to the literature and hope to provide
details in future work.
Proposition C Let M be a finite-dimensional manifold and X be a possibly infinite∞ (M, X ) can be turned
dimensional manifold which admits a local addition.3 Then CfS
into a manifold modeled on spaces of compactly supported sections of certain bundles.
It turns out that once the space of smooth functions is endowed with the correct topology
it is not hard to prove Proposition C. More details and references to literature containing the necessary auxiliary facts can be found at the end of Section 1. Proposition C
generalizes [Mic80, Theorem 10.4] in so far as it admits arbitrary infinite-dimensional
manifolds as target manifolds (whereas loc.cit. was confined to finite-dimensional targets). We remark that in [KM97, 42.4 Theorem] the smooth functions C∞ (M, X ) for
M and X as in Proposition C have been endowed with a manifold structure in the inequivalent convenient setting of calculus. However, following [KM97, 42.2 Remarks]
the topology on C∞ (M, X ) used in the construction does not coincide with the fine very
strong topology if M is non-compact. Hence both constructions are inequivalent even if
both M and X are finite-dimensional (and M is non-compact).
The manifold structure provided by Proposition C allows one to establish the Lie group
structure for a general class of bisection groups. Adapting arguments from [Mic80] and
[SW15a] one can prove that
Theorem D The group of bisections of a Lie groupoid G = (G ⇒ M) with M finitedimensional and G a Banach manifold4 is an infinite-dimensional Lie group.
This generalizes the construction from [SW15a], where the group of bisections of a Lie
groupoid with compact base was turned into an infinite-dimensional Lie group. Thus
one obtains a conceptual approach to the Lie group structures of many groups which are
of interest in differential geometry (e.g. automorphism groups and gauge transformation
groups of principle bundles over a non compact base). Moreover, Theorem D is a crucial
ingredient if one wants to extend the strong connection between Lie groupoids and
infinite-dimensional Lie groups which was developed in [SW15b].

3This is for example satisfied if X is a Lie group, see also [KM97, Section 42.4] for a definition of

local additions and more examples.
4Assuming certain mild conditions on G (i.e. an adapted local addition, cf. [SW15a]), it is not necessary to assume that G is a Banach manifold.

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

1. T HE

6

VERY STRONG TOPOLOGY

In this section, we introduce the very strong topology on the space C∞ (M, X ) of smooth
maps from a finite-dimensional smooth manifold M to a possibly infinite-dimensional
smooth manifold X . The very strong topology allows us to control derivatives of smooth
maps up to arbitrarily high order on certain families of compact sets. This is a straightforward generalization of the very strong topology on the space of smooth maps between
finite-dimensional manifolds as described in [Ill03].
Notation and conventions. We write N := {1, 2, . . .} and N0 := {0, 1, . . .}, and will
only work with vector spaces over the field of real numbers R. Finite-dimensional manifolds are always assumed to be σ -compact, i.e. a countable union of compact subspaces
(which for finite-dimensional manifolds is equivalent to being second countable). We
always endow Rn with the supremum norm k · k∞ unless otherwise stated. We define
Bnε (x) := {y ∈ Rn : ky − xk∞ < ε }. Notation and conventions regarding locally convex
vector spaces, smooth maps, and infinite-dimensional manifolds is covered in Appendix
A. Typically, M and N will be finite-dimensional smooth manifolds, X a smooth manifold modeled on a locally convex vector space, and E a locally convex vector space.
Definition 1.1. Let E be a locally convex vector space, p a continuous seminorm on E,
f : Rm → E smooth, A ⊆ Rm compact, r ∈ N0 , and e1 , . . . , em the standard basis vectors
in Rm . Then define
k f k(r, A, p) = sup{p(d(k) f (a; α )) : a ∈ A, α ∈ {e1 , . . ., em }k , 0 ≤ k ≤ r}.
Remark 1.2. The symbol d(k) f is defined in Definition A.4. Elsewhere in the literature,
d(k) f (x; y) = d(k) f (x; y1 , . . ., yk ) is often denoted

∂k
f (x)
∂ yk · · · ∂ y1
where y = (y1 , . . ., yk ).

or

∂
f (x),
∂y

In the definition above we require α ∈ {e1 , . . . , em }k . But for any α ∈ Bn1 (0) and a ∈ A
and k ≤ r we have p(d(k) f (a; α )) ≤ Kk f k(r, A, p) for some constant K depending only
on r and m, by (3) in Proposition A.7.
If E = Rn , any norm generates the topology on E and norms are in particular seminorms.
By Proposition 1.13, the very strong topology is not affected if we always assume that
the seminorm p on Rn is the supremum norm k · k∞ . In this case we simply write
k f k(r, A) for k f k(r, A, k · k∞).
Lemma 1.3 (Triangle inequality). Let E, p, A, r be as in Definition 1.1. Then the map
k · k(r, A, p) : C∞ (Rm , E) → R
satisfies the triangle inequality. In fact it is a seminorm on C∞ (Rm , E).

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

7

Proof. Use linearity of d(−)(a, α ) for fixed (a, α ), and the fact that p satisfies the triangle inequality.

Definition 1.4 (Elementary neighborhood). Let E, p, and r be as in Definition 1.1, M
an m-dimensional smooth manifold, X a smooth manifold modeled on E. Consider
f : M → X smooth, (U, φ ) a chart on M, (V, ψ ) a chart on X , A ⊆ U compact such that
f (A) ⊆ V , and ε > 0. Define
N r ( f ; A, (U, φ ), (V, ψ ), p, ε ) = {h ∈ C∞ (M, E) : h(A) ⊆ V and
kψ ◦ h ◦ φ −1 − ψ ◦ f ◦ φ −1 k(r, φ (A), p) < ε }.
We call this set an elementary Cr -neighborhood of f in C∞ (M, E).
Conventions for elementary neighborhoods If X = Rn , we will assume that p is the
supremum norm and omit the p when writing down the elementary neighborhoods.
When there is a canonical choice of charts for our manifolds, e.g. if X = E is a locally convex vector space, we omit the obvious charts when writing down elementary Cr -neighborhoods. Thus for f : M → E we write e.g. N r ( f ; A, (U, φ ), p, ε ) :=
N r ( f ; A, (U, φ ), (X , id), p, ε ).
Remark 1.5.
(1) The conditions f (A) ⊆ V and h(A) ⊆ V ensure that the map ψ ◦
h ◦ φ −1 − ψ ◦ f ◦ φ −1 makes sense. Further, the conditions enable us to control the open sets into which a (given) compact set is mapped, i.e. the kind of
control provided by the well known compact open topology (cf. [Nee06, Definition I.5.1]). Indeed, by restricting to elementary C0 -neighborhoods, one would
recover a subbase of the compact open topology on C∞ (M, X ).
(2) We define elementary neighborhoods only for finite-dimensional source manifolds as the seminorms in Definition 1.1 make only sense for these manifolds.
Compare Remark 1.12 for more information on alternative approaches to the
topology which avoid this problem.
We now define what will become the basis sets in the very strong topology on C∞ (M, X ).
Definition 1.6 (Basic neighborhood). Let f : M → X be a smooth map from a finitedimensional smooth manifold M to a smooth manifold X modeled on a locally convex
vector space E. A basic neighborhood of f in C∞ (M, X ) is a set of the form
\

N ri ( f ; Ai , (Ui, φi ), (Vi , ψi ), pi , εi ),

i∈Λ

where Λ is a possibly infinite indexing set, for all i the other parameters are as in Definition 1.4, and {Ai }i∈Λ is locally finite. We call {Ai }i∈Λ the underlying compact family
of the neighborhood.

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

8

Without loss of generalization, Λ = N, since every locally finite family over a σ -compact
space is countable.
As Proposition 1.8 show, the basic neighborhoods in C∞ (M, X ) form a basis for a topology on C∞ (M, X ). In order to prove the proposition we need the following lemma.
Lemma 1.7. Let f : M → X be smooth, and g ∈ N := N r ( f ; A, (U, φ ), (V, ψ ), p, ε ).
Then there exists ε ′ > 0 such that N ′ := N r (g; A, (U, φ ), (V, ψ ), p, ε ′) ⊆ N .
Proof. For h, h̃ ∈ C∞ (M, X ) with h(A), h̃(A) ⊆ V , let
d(h, h̃) = kψ ◦ h̃ ◦ φ −1 − ψ ◦ h ◦ φ −1 k(r, φ (A), p).
Note that d satisfies the triangle inequality by Lemma 1.3, and that h ∈ N is equivalent
to d( f , h) < ε .
Set ε ′ = ε − d( f , g), and let N ′ be as in the statement of the lemma. If h ∈ N ′ , then
d( f , h) ≤ d( f , g) + d(g, h) < d( f , g) + (ε − d( f , g)) = ε .
Hence h ∈ N , and N ′ ⊆ N .



Proposition 1.8. Let U and U ′ be basic neighborhoods of f and f ′ in C∞ (M, X ),
respectively. If g ∈ U ∩ U ′ , then there exists a basic neighborhood V of g such that
V ⊆ U ∩ U ′.
Hence the basic neighborhoods form a basis for a topology on C∞ (M, E), called the
very strong topology on C∞ (M, E).
Proof. We may write
U =

\

Ni

and

U′=

\

N j′

j∈Λ′

i∈Λ

for some sets Λ and Λ′ , where Ni and Ni ′ are elementary neighborhoods of f and f ′ ,
respectively. For all i ∈ Λ and j ∈ Λ choose as in Lemma 1.7 elementary neighborhoods
Mi and M j′ of g such that Mi ⊂ Ni and M j′ ⊂ N j ′ . Then

! 
V :=

\

i∈Λ

Mi ∩ 

\

j∈Λ′

Mi′  ⊆ U ∩ U ′ .

It remains to check that V is in fact a basic neighborhood of g. The set V is a basic
neighborhood of g provided that the underlying compact family of V is locally finite.
This is indeed the case since the underlying compact families of U and U ′ are locally
finite and finite unions of locally finite families are locally finite.

The preceding proposition justifies the following definition.

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

9

Definition 1.9 (Very strong topology). The very strong topology on C∞ (M, X ) is the
topology on C∞ (M, X ) with basis the basic neighborhoods in C∞ (M, X ).
∞ (M, X ).
The set C∞ (M, X ) equipped with the very strong topology will be denoted by CvS
∞ (M, E), where E is a locally convex space.
Remark 1.10. We will work later on with CvS
To this end, we considered E as a manifold with the canonical atlas given by the identity.
This may seem artificial at first glance as one in principle needs to take all “manifold
charts” of E into account. Note however that by Lemma B.2 the very strong topology
on C∞ (M, E) is generated by all basic neighborhoods of the form

(1)

\

N ri ( f ; Ai , (Ui , φi ), (E, idE ), pi , εi ),

i∈Λ

i.e. it suffices to consider elementary neighborhoods with respect to the identity chart.
Hence the topology on C∞ (M, E) is quite natural.
Similarly for C∞ (Rn , E) the charts (Ui , φi ) in (1) can be replaced by (Rn , idRn ) by
Lemma B.3. In the following, we will always assume that our elementary and basic
neighborhoods are constructed with respect to the identity if one (or both) of the manifolds are a locally convex space.
Remark 1.11. There are other well-known topologies on C∞ (M, X ). The strong topology (or Whitney C∞ -topology) and the compact open C∞ -topology (or weak topology)
have as bases neighborhoods of the form described in Definition 1.6, with some additional restrictions. For the strong topology the collection {ri }i∈Λ of indices giving
differentiation order is bounded, and for the compact open C∞ -topology we require that
the indexing set Λ is finite.
The very strong topology is finer than the strong topology which is finer than the compact open C∞ -topology, and in the case that M is compact all of these topologies coincide
(since every locally finite family meets a compact set only finitely many times). We refer the reader to section 2.1 in [Hir94] for information about the strong and compact
open C∞ topologies in the case that X is finite-dimensional. A comparison of the strong
topology and the very strong topology can be found in the introduction of [Ill03].
Since the very strong topology is finer than the strong topology, subsets of C∞ (M, X )
that are open in the strong topology are also open in the very strong topology. [Hir94,
Section 2.1] has several results stating that certain subsets of C∞ (M, N) are open in the
strong topology, consequently also in the very strong topology. In particular, the set
∞ (M, N). We write Prop (M, N) for
Prop(M, N) of proper smooth maps is open in CvS
vS
∞
the subspace Prop(M, N) of CvS (M, N) equipped with the subspace topology.
Remark 1.12. One can also define the very strong topology on the space C∞ (X ,Y )
where X and Y are Banach manifolds (i.e. modeled on Banach spaces). To this end one
needs to redefine the seminorms generating the topology, which in the vector space case
will take the following form:

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

10

If X ,Y are Banach spaces, f : X → Y smooth, r ∈ N0 , and A ⊆ X compact define
n
o
(2)
k f k(r, A) = sup kDk f (x)kY : 0 ≤ k ≤ r and x ∈ A ,
where Dk f denotes the k-th Fréchet derivative of f .

Here we use that every smooth Bastiani map is also smooth in the sense of Fréchet
differentiability by [Mil83, Lemma 2.10]. It is easy to see that all statements made on
elementary neighborhoods in the present section remain valid. Hence we obtain a very
strong topology on smooth functions between Banach manifolds.
Note that one can prove as in Appendix C that the “very strong topology” constructed
with respect to the seminorms (2) induces again the (original) very strong topology on
C∞ (X ,Y ) if X is finite-dimensional. Unfortunately, for an infinite-dimensional Banach
manifold X this topology does not allow us to control the behavior of functions “at
infinity” (or anywhere for that matter since compact subsets of infinite-dimensional Banach spaces have empty interior). To see this recall that manifolds modeled on infinitedimensional Banach space don’t have a locally finite compact exhaustion by the Baire
category theorem.
Recall however, that one can define a Whitney C∞ -topology for X ,Y Banach manifolds
via jet bundles (see e.g. [Mic80, KM97] or Appendix C for a short exposition). As
shown in [MROD92, Chapter 9], this topology then allows one to control the behavior
of a function on all of X . The key difference is that the Whitney topology defined in this
way controls the behavior of jets on locally finite families of closed sets. Obviously, one
can not hope to describe it via the seminorms as the existence of the suprema in the seminorms is tied to the compactness of the sets. Even worse, for an infinite-dimensional
manifold X and Y = E a locally convex space, the largest topological vector space contained in C∞ (X , E) with respect to this topology is trivial (cf. [KM97, 437]). For these
reasons we work exclusively with the very strong topology for finite-dimensional source
manifolds.
Additional facts about the very strong topology. Sometimes it is convenient to assume that the continuous seminorms p used in constructing very strong neighborhoods
are of a certain form, as we have already remarked. There is no loss of generality in
making such assumptions if the family of seminorms that we restrict to is “big enough”.
Proposition 1.13. Let M be a finite-dimensional smooth manifold and X a smooth manifold modeled on a locally convex vector space E. Suppose P is a generating family of
seminorms for E (see Definition A.2).
If we replace every instance of “p is a continuous seminorm on E” in the definitions
and results earlier in this section with “p ∈ P”, then the resulting very strong topology
on C∞ (M, X ) is unaffected.

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

11

Proof. Let T be the very strong topology on C∞ (M, X ) constructed with respect to
all continuous seminorms on E, and let T ′ be the very strong topology on C∞ (M, X )
obtained by restricting to seminorms in P. Then T ′ is obviously coarser than T since
every p ∈ P is continuous, so it suffices to show that T is coarser
than T ′ . This will be
T
the case if for every basic T -very strong neighborhood U = i∈Λ Ni of f ∈ C∞ (M, X ),
where each Ni is an elementary T -very strong neighborhood
Ni = N ri ( f ; Ai , (Ui , φi ), (Vi, ψi ), pi , εi ),

there exists a basic T ′ -very strong neighborhood U ′ of f such that U ′ ⊆ U .
Fix i ∈ Λ. By (2) in Proposition A.3 there exist ni ∈ N and pi,1 , . . ., pi,ni ∈ P and ci > 0
such that pi ≤ ci sup1≤ j≤ni pi, j . And then


ni
\
εi
ri
N
f ; Ai , (Ui , φi ), (Vi, ψi ), pi, j ,
Vi :=
⊆ Ni .
2ci
j=1
Indeed, if g ∈ Vi , then for a ∈ Ai , α ∈ {e1 , . . . , em }k , 0 ≤ k ≤ ri , and 0 ≤ j ≤ ni , we have
εi
ci pi, j (d(ψi ◦ g ◦ φi−1 − ψi ◦ f ◦ φi−1 )(k) (a, α )) < ,
2
which together with pi ≤ ci sup pi, j clearly implies that g ∈ Ni .
Now set U ′ :=
U′⊆U.

T

i∈Λ Vi .

This is a basic T ′ -very strong neighborhood of f such that


The following lemma is useful when constructing certain basic neighborhoods. The
proof given here is fairly detailed, but throughout the remainder of this text the details
of similar arguments will be omitted.
Lemma 1.14. Let M be a finite-dimensional smooth manifold, X a locally convex manifold, and f : M → X a smooth map. Suppose {Kn }n∈N is a locally finite family of
compact subsets of M. Then there exist families of charts {(Vi , ψi )}i∈N for X and
{(Ui , φi )}i∈N for M, and a locally finite family {Ai }i∈N of compact subsets of M such
that
(1) i∈N Ai = n∈N Kn ,
(2) Ai ⊆ Ui for all i ∈ N,
(3) f (Ui ) ⊆ Vi for all i ∈ N.
S

S

Proof. Fix n ∈ N. For every x ∈ Kn choose a chart (Vn,x , ψn,x ) around f (x) and a chart
(Un,x , φn,x ) around x. By shrinking Un,x we may assume that f (Un,x ) ⊆ Vn,x . Since M is
locally compact there exists a compact neighborhood A′n,x around x such that A′n,x ⊆ Un,x .
Now set An,x = Kn ∩A′n,x . By compactness of Kn there exist finitely many xn,1 , . . . , xn,kn ∈
n
Kn such that {An,xn, j }ki=1
covers Kn .

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

12

The families {(Vn,xn,i , ψn,xn,i )}n,i , {(Un,xn,i , φn,xn,i )}n,i and {An,xn,i }n,i have the desired
properties. By relabeling the indices we can take the indexing set to be N.

Lemma 1.15. Let M be a finite-dimensional smooth manifold, X a smooth manifold
modeled on a locally convex vector space E, and let U ⊆ M and V ⊆ X be open subsets.
∞
∞ (M, X ).
Consider the subspace CvS,sub
(U,V ) := { f ∈ C∞ (M, X ) : f (U ) ⊆ V } ⊆ CvS
∞
∞ (M, X ).
(1) CvS,sub
(U,V ) is an open subset of CvS
∞
∞ (U,V ) is continuous.
(2) The restriction resvS : CvS,sub
(U,V ) → CvS
∞
r
(3) If f ∈ C (U,V ) and N ( f ; A, (Uφ , φ ), (Vψ , ψ ), p, ε ) is an elementary neighborhood of f such that ψ (Vψ ) is a convex set, then there exists g ∈ C∞ (M, X ) with
r
r
res−1
vS (N ( f ; A, (Uφ , φ ), (Vψ , ψ ), p, ε )) = N (g; A, (Uφ , φ ), (Vψ , ψ ), p, ε )

(3)
Proof.

(1) Suppose f ∈ C∞ (U,V ). Since U is an open subset of M, the subspace U is
metrizable and locally compact, hence σ -compact. Combining Lemma B.4 and
Lemma 1.14, we find a locally finite exhaustion {An }n∈N of U by compact sets,
charts {(Un, φn )}n∈N for M, and charts {(Vn , ψn )}n∈N for X such that An ⊆ Un
and f (An ) ⊆ Vn for all n ∈ N. Since f (An ) ⊆ V , shrink the Vn if necessary such
that Vn ⊆ V for all n ∈ N (while still f (An ) ⊆ Vn ). Take any continuous seminorm
p on E and define
\

U =

N 0 ( f ; An , (Un, φn ), (Vn , ψn ), p, 1) .

n∈N

If gS∈ U , then g(An ) ⊆ Vn ⊆ V for all n ∈ N, from which it follows that g(U ) =
∞ (M, X ) such that U ⊆
g ( An ) ⊆ V . So U is a neighborhood of f in CvS
C∞ (U,V ).
(2) Take an arbitrary basic neighborhood
U =

\

N ri ( f ; Ai , (Ui , φi ), (Vi, ψi ), pi , εi )

i∈Λ
∞ (U,V ). We will show that given g ∈ res−1 (U ), there exists a basic neighin CvS
vS
∞ (M, X ) such that V ⊆ res−1 (U ), i.e. res−1 (U ) is open.
borhood V of g in CvS
vS
vS
By Lemma 1.8 there are elementary neighborhoods of resvS (g) such that

V =

\

N ri (resvS (g); Ai , (Ui , φi ), (Vi , ψi ), pi , δi ) .

i∈Λ

is contained in U . Now clearly i∈Λ N ri (g; Ai , (Ui , φi ), (Vi , ψi ), pi , δi ) is con−1
tained in res−1
vS (V ) ⊆ resvS (U ).
(3) Since M is finite-dimensional, whence paracompact, we can choose a neighborhood W of A and a smooth cutoff function ρ : M → R with ρ |W ≡ 1 and
ρM\ f −1 (Vψ )∩Uφ ≡ 0. Composing with a suitable translation, we may assume without loss of generality that ψ (Vψ ) is a convex 0-neighborhood. Suppressing the
T

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

13

translation we can thus define
(
ψ −1 (ρ (x) · ψ ◦ f (x)) if x ∈ Uφ ,
g : M → X , x 7→
ψ −1 (0)
else.
Now as g|W = f |W the identity (3) is satisfied.
2. C OMPOSITION



OF MAPS IN THE VERY STRONG TOPOLOGY

Throughout this section, M and N are finite-dimensional smooth manifolds and X denotes a smooth manifold modeled on a locally convex vector space E.
It is a desirable property of the very strong topology on C∞ (M, X ) that composition
∞
∞
∞
Γ : CvS
(M, N) ×CvS
(N, X ) → CvS
(M, X )

( f , h) 7→ h ◦ f
is continuous. But this is not the case in general, a counterexample can be found in
Example 2.1. However, the restriction of the composition map
∞
∞
Γ : PropvS (M, N) ×CvS
(N, X ) → CvS
(M, X )
∞ (M, N) consisting of all
is continuous, where PropvS (M, N) denotes the subspace of CvS
the proper maps. This is precisely what Theorem 2.5 says, and proving it is the main
goal of this section.

As we will see, the crucial property of proper maps needed is the fact that if {Ai } is a
locally finite family of subsets of M and f : M → N is proper, then { f (Ai )} is locally
finite. This will enable us to choose for a basic neighborhood V of some composition
∞ (M, X ) basic neighborhoods U and U ′ of f and h, respectively, such that
h ◦ f in CvS
Γ(U × U ′ ) ⊆ V . The challenge is to choose U ′ in such a way that the underlying
compact family of the neighborhood is locally finite.
We now give the promised counterexample to the statement that composition of maps in
the very strong topology is continuous in general. This example is inspired by the proof
of [Glö06, Proposition 2.2(b)].
Example 2.1. The composition map
∞
∞
∞
Γ : CvS
(R, R) ×CvS
(R, R) → CvS
(R, R),

( f , h) 7→ h ◦ f

is not continuous.
∞ (R, R) there exists a basic
Proof. Note that for every basic neighborhood U of f ∈ CvS
′
neighborhood U of f with underlying compact family {[2n − 1, 2n + 1]}n∈Z such that
f ∈ U ′ ⊆ U , since each compact interval [2n − 1, 2n + 1] intersects only finitely many
sets belonging to the locally finite underlying compact family of U .

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

14

To show discontinuity of Γ it suffices to show discontinuity at (0, 0). Let V be the basic
neighborhood of 0 given by
\

V :=

N n (0; [2n − 1, 2n + 1], 1).

n∈N

We will show that for any pair of basic neighborhoods
U =

\

N

rn

(0; [2n − 1, 2n + 1], εn),

N

rn′

(0; [2n − 1, 2n + 1], εn′ ),

n∈Z

U′=

\

n∈Z

there exists a pair of functions ( f , h) ∈ U ′ × U such that h ◦ f ∈
/V.
Construct h ∈ C∞ (R, R) such that in a neighborhood of 0, h is given by the equation
h(x) = xr0 +1 , and such that supp h ⊆] − 1, 1[. For some sufficiently small k > 0 we will
have kh ∈ U . For every m ∈ N define
hm (x) :=

k
h(mx)
mr0

and note that hm ∈ U , since
( j)

|hm (x)| =

km j ( j)
|h (mx)| ≤ k|h( j) (mx)| < ε0
mr0

for j ≤ r0 , where we use the notation g( j) (y) = d( j) g(y; 1, . . ., 1) for smooth maps
g : R → R.
Let 2n ≥ r0 + 1 and construct f˜ ∈ C∞ (R, R) such that f˜(x) = x − 2n in a neighborhood
of 2n and supp f˜ ⊆]2n − 1, 2n + 1[. Then for some sufficiently small s > 0 we have
f := s f˜ ∈ U ′ .
So far we have a sequence {hm }m∈N ⊂ U and f ∈ U ′ . By construction, hm ◦ f (x) =
kmsr0 +1 (x − 2n)r0+1 in a neighborhood of 2n. Hence
|(hm ◦ f )(r0 +1) (2n)| = kmsr0 +1 (r0 + 1)! ≥ 1
for large enough m, in which case hm ◦ f ∈
/V.



Having given the example above, we return our focus to the main task of the section,
which is proving Theorem 2.5. Leading up to the theorem is a sequence of lemmata.
Although we are actually interested in mapping spaces between manifolds, we first give
a lemma that only applies to vector spaces. In a sense, this lemma resolves the main
difficulty, and generalizing to manifolds is only a matter of dealing with charts.

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

15

Lemma 2.2. Consider the composition map
∞
∞
∞
Γ : CvS
(Rm , Rn ) ×CvS
(Rn , E) → CvS
(Rm , E),

( f , h) 7→ h ◦ f .

∞ (Rm , Rn ) ×C ∞ (Rn , E), and consider an arbitrary elementary neighborLet ( f , h) ∈ CvS
vS
∞ (Rm , E) of h ◦ f . For all compact neighborhoods A′
hood N = N r (h ◦ f ; A, p, ε ) ⊆ CvS
′
of f (A) there exist δ , δ > 0 such that the elementary neighborhoods

M = N r ( f ; A, δ )

and

M ′ = N r (h; A′ , p, δ ′ )

satisfy Γ(M × M ′ ) ⊆ N .
Proof. Let A′ be any compact neighborhood of f (A). We proceed in several steps.
Step 1. Our first goal is to define M . We want a δ > 0 such that for all fˆ ∈ C∞ (Rm , Rn ),
the inequality k fˆ − f k(r, A) < δ implies
ε
and
fˆ(A) ⊆ A′ .
kh ◦ ( fˆ − f )k(r, A, p) <
2
By Lemma B.1 it is possible to choose δ such that the first property holds. We may
choose δ such that the second property also holds, because fˆ(A) = ( fˆ − f )(A) + f (A) ⊆
Bδn (0) + f (A). Pick such a δ and define
M := N r ( f ; A, δ ).
Observe that by the triangle inequality (Lemma 1.3) there exists an R > 0 such that
every fˆ ∈ M satisfies k fˆk(r, A) ≤ R.
Step 2. Our second goal is to define M ′ . We want a δ ′ > 0 such that for all ĥ ∈
C∞ (Rn , E) and all fˆ ∈ M ,
ε
kĥ − hk(r, A′, p) < δ ′
=⇒
k(ĥ − h) ◦ fˆk(r, A, p) < .
2
′
A δ having this property exists by Lemma B.1 and the observation at the end of step 1.
Now define
M ′ := N r (h; A′ , p, δ ′ ).
Step 3. Now we must show that M and M ′ have the desired property. Let fˆ ∈ M and
ĥ ∈ M ′ . By the triangle inequality,
kĥ ◦ fˆ − h ◦ f k(r, A, p) ≤ k(ĥ − h) ◦ fˆk(r, A, p) + kh ◦ ( fˆ − f )k(r, A, p) < ε .
So ĥ ◦ fˆ ∈ N . Thus Γ(M × M ′ ) ⊆ N .



A version of the preceding lemma still holds if we replace Rm and Rn with finitedimensional smooth manifolds and E with an infinite-dimensional smooth manifold.
This is our next result.

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

16

Lemma 2.3. Given f ∈ C∞ (M, N) and h ∈ C∞ (N, X ) and an arbitrary elementary neighborhood
∞
(M, X )
N := N r (h ◦ f ; A, (U, φ ), (W, η ), p, ε ) ⊆ CvS
of h ◦ f there exist finitely many
M j := N r ( f ; A j , (U, φ ), (V j , ψ j ), δ j ) and M j′ := N r (h; A′j , (V j , ψ ), (W, η ), p, δ j′ )
such that
(1) Γ

\

Mj ×Mj

j

(2)

[


′

A j = A,

!

⊆N ,

j

(3) f (A j ) ⊆ int A′j ⊆ A′j ⊆ V j for all j.
Moreover, given any neighborhood Q of f (A) we may choose the V j such that all V j ⊆ Q.
Proof. Since f (A) is compact we may choose finitely many sets
D j ⊆ int A′j ⊆ A′j ⊆ V j ⊆ N

such that

f (A) ⊆

[

D j,

j

where D j and A′j are compact, and V j is a chart domain for a chart (V j , ψ j ) on N.
ing the V j we may assume that every V j ⊆ Q. Set

Shrink-

A j := A ∩ f −1 (D j ),
to obtain compact sets that satisfy
[

Aj = A

and

f (A j ) ⊆ D j , for all j.

j

Let N j := j N r (h ◦ f ; A j , (U, φ ), (W, η ), p, ε ), and note that N = j N j . For each j
apply Lemma 2.2 to the maps ψ j ◦ f ◦ φ −1 and η ◦ h ◦ ψ −1
j and the elementary neighborhood
N˜j := N r (η ◦ h ◦ f ◦ φ −1 ; φ (A j ), p, ε )
to obtain elementary neighborhoods
M˜j = N r (ψ j ◦ f ◦ φ −1 ; φ (A j ), δ j ) and M˜j′ = N r (η ◦ h ◦ ψ −1 ; ψ j (A′j ), p, δ j′ )
T

T

j

such that

Γ(M˜j × M˜j′ ) ⊆

N˜j .

The elementary neighborhoods M˜j and M˜j′ of ψ j ◦ f ◦ φ −1 and η ◦h◦ ψ −1
j , respectively,
induce elementary neighborhoods
M j = N r ( f ; A j , (U, φ ), (V j , ψ j ), δ j ) and M j′ = N r (h; A′j , (V j , ψ j ), (W, η ), p, δ j′ )

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

17

of f and h, respectively. These neighborhoods correspond to each other in the sense that
˜′
fˆ ∈ M j if and only if ψ j ◦ fˆ ◦ φ −1 ∈ M˜j , and ĥ ∈ M j′ if and only if η ◦ ĥ ◦ ψ −1
j ∈ Mj.
Similarly for N˜j and N j . Since Γ(M˜j × M˜j′ ) ⊆ N˜j , one has by the correspondence
described here that Γ(M j × M j′ ) ⊆ N j .
Now just observe that
Γ

\

!

′

Mj ×Mj

j

⊆

\
j

 \
Γ M j × M j′ ⊆ N j = N .
j



∞ (M, N) and h ∈ C ∞ (N, X ) and a basic
Lemma 2.4. Consider
smooth maps f ∈ CvS
vS
T
neighborhood U = i∈Λ Ni , where each

Ni = N ri (h ◦ f ; Ai , (Ui , φi ), (Wi , ηi ), pi , εi )

is an elementary neighborhood of h ◦ f .
If { f (Ai )}i∈Λ is locally finite, then there exist basic neighborhoods V and V ′ of f and
h, respectively, such that Γ(V × V ′ ) ⊆ U .
Proof. Since { f (Ai )}i∈Λ is locally finite, there exist compact neighborhoods Qi of f (Ai )
such that {Qi }i∈Λ is locally finite, by [Čec66, 30.C.10]. Here we use our assumption
that finite-dimensional manifolds are σ -compact.
For each i ∈ Λ, Lemma 2.3 implies that there exist
Wi :=
Wi ′ :=

ni
\

j=1
ni
\

N ri ( f ; Ai, j , (Ui , φi ), (Vi, j , ψi, j ), δi, j ),
N ri (h; A′i, j , (Vi, j , ψi, j ), (Wi , ηi ), pi , δi,′ j )

j=1

such that
(1) Γ(Wi × Wi ′ ) ⊆ Ni ,
(2)
(3)

ni
[

j=1
A′i, j

Ai, j = Ai ,
⊆ Vi, j ⊆ Qi for all j.

Then {Ai, j }i, j is locally finite by (2) and since {Ai }i is locally finite, and {A′i, j }i, j is
locally finite by (3) and since {Qi }i is locally finite. Hence
V :=

\

i∈Λ

Wi

and

V ′ :=

\

i∈Λ

Wi ′

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

18

are basic neighborhoods of f and h, respectively, such that
!
\
\
\


′
′
⊆
Wi × Wi
Γ(Wi × Wi ′ ) ⊆
Ni = U .
Γ V ×V = Γ
i∈Λ

i∈Λ

i∈Λ



Theorem 2.5. Let M and N be finite-dimensional smooth manifolds and let X be a
smooth manifold modeled on a locally convex vector space E. Then the composition
map
∞
∞
Γ : PropvS (M, N) ×CvS
(N, X ) → CvS
(M, X )
sending ( f , h) to h ◦ f is continuous.
∞ (N, E) and a
Proof. It suffices to show that given maps f ∈ PropvS (M, N) and h ∈ CvS
basic neighborhood

U =

\

N ri (h ◦ f ; Ai , (Ui, φi ), (Vi , ψi ), pi , εi )

i∈Λ
∞ (M, X ), there exist basic neighborhoods V and V ′ of f and h, respectively,
of h ◦ f in CvS
such that Γ(V × V ′ ) ⊆ U .

So suppose that we are given f , h and U as above. Then { f (Ai )}i∈Λ is locally finite
since f is proper, by [Eng89, Lemma 3.10.11]. Thus we may apply Lemma 2.4 to
obtain the desired neighborhoods V and V ′ .

Unfortunately, precomposition is not continuous in general as an examination of Example 2.1 reveals. However, precomposition by a proper map is continuous.
Proposition 2.6. Let f ∈ PropvS (M, N). Then the following map is continuous
∞
∞
f ∗ : CvS
(N, X ) → CvS
(M, X ),

h 7→ h ◦ f

∞ (N, X ) → Prop(M, N) × C ∞ (N, X ) given by ι (h) = ( f , h) is
Proof. The map ι f : CvS
f
vS
∗
continuous. Hence f , which is the composition

ιf

Γ

∞
∞
∞
→ PropvS (M, N) ×CvS
(N, X ) −
→ CvS
(M, X ),
CvS
(N, X ) −

is also continuous.



We will now prove that postcomposition is always continuous. This result is needed
even for postcomposition by a map f : X → Y between infinite-dimensional manifolds.
Thus the next proposition can not readily be deduced from Theorem 2.5 (or the other
results in this section)5. Instead we have to take a detour using results on the (coarser)
compact open C∞ -topology (cf. to the proof of Lemma B.2).
5For the finite-dimensional case, a proof along these lines can be found in [Ill03].

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

19

Proposition 2.7. Let f : X → Y be smooth, where Y is a (possibly infinite-dimensional)
manifold. Then for any finite-dimensional manifold M the following map is continuous
∞
∞
f∗ : CvS
(M, X ) → CvS
(M,Y ),

h 7→ f ◦ h

Proof. To see that f∗ is continuous, we proceed in several steps.
Step 1 Special elementary neighborhoods. Consider first an arbitrary elementary neigh∞ (M,Y ). Since h(A) is compact,
borhood N = N r ( f ◦ h; A, (U, φ ), (V, ψ ), q, ε ) in CvS
S
there are finitely many manifold charts (Wi , κi ) of X with h(A) ⊆ i Wi . Now the
openSsets h−1 (Wi ) cover A and thus there are finitely many compact sets K j such that
A = j K j and h(K j ) ⊆ Wi j . Thus we replace A by the finitely many compact sets. Note
that this will ensure that the families of compact sets considered later remain locally
finite. To shorten the notation, assume without loss of generality that there is a manifold
chart (W, κ ) of X such that h(A) ⊆ W and f (W ) ⊆ V . In particular, we can thus consider
ψ
the mapping fκ := ψ ◦ f ◦ κ −1 : κ (W ) → ψ (V )
Step 2 The preimage of a special elementary neighborhood of f ◦ h is a neighborhood
of h. We work locally in charts. Let Y be modeled on the locally convex space F and X
be modeled on the locally convex space E. Recall that the compact open C∞ -topology
(see [Nee06, Definition I.5.1]) controls the derivatives of functions on compact sets.
Moreover, the elementary neighborhoods of the very strong topology form a subbase of
the compact open C∞ -topology. We denote by C∞ (M, F)co the vector space of smooth
functions with the compact open C∞ -topology.
Choose a compact neighborhood C ⊆ U of A such that h(C) ⊆ W (this entails f ◦ h(C) ⊆
V ). We endow the subset ⌊C, κ (W )⌋ := {g ∈ C∞ (M, E) | g(C) ⊆ κ (W )} with the subspace topology induced by the compact open C∞ -topology. As κ (W ) ⊆ E is open, we
note that ⌊C, κ (W )⌋ is open in C∞ (M, E)co . Now [Glö04, Proposition 4.23 (a)] shows
that
ψ
( fκ )∗ : ⌊C, κ (W )⌋ → C∞ (intC, F)co , h 7→ (ψ ◦ f ◦ κ −1 ) ◦ h
is continuous. Moreover, Nloc := N r (ψ ◦ f ◦ h|intC ; A, (U ∩ intC, φ ), (F, idF ), q, ε ) is
ψ
open in C∞ (intC, F)co . Further, fκ ◦ κ ◦ h|intC = ψ ◦ f ◦ h|intC . Observe that thus κ ◦ h ∈
ψ
(( fκ )∗ )−1 (Nloc). As the elementary neighborhoods form a subbase of the compact
ψ
open C∞ -topology, Lemma B.2 together with continuity of ( fκ )∗ yields
(4)

⌊C, κ (W )⌋ ∩

N
\

ψ

N r (κ ◦ h; Ak , (Uk , φk ), (E, idE ), pk , εk ) ⊆ (( fκ )∗ )−1 (Nloc ).

k=1

Recall from the proof of [Glö04, Proposition 4.23 (a)] that the compact sets Ak are
contained by construction in intC. Thus one easily deduces from (4) that
N 0 (h;C, (U, φ ), (W, κ ), p1, 1) ∩

N
\

k=1

N r (h; Ak , (Uk , φk ), (W, κ ), pk , εk ) ⊆ ( f∗ )−1 (N )

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

20

Summing up, we see that ( f∗ )−1 (N ) is a neighborhood of h. Further, this finite family
of neighborhoods controls the behavior of mappings only on a pre chosen compact set
C (which depends of course on h).
Step 3 Preimages of basic neighborhoods are open Let M = i∈N Ni be a basic neighborhood of f ◦ h ∈ C∞ (M,Y ) with {Ak }k∈N its the underlying compact family. We will
prove that for arbitrary g ∈ ( f∗ )−1 (M ) the preimage is a neighborhood of g. Choose
with Proposition 1.8 a basic neighborhood of f ◦ g which is contained in M . Replacing
M with this basic neighborhood, it suffices thus to consider the case g = h. Splitting
each Ak as in Step 1 we may assume without loss of generality that each Ni is of the
form considered in Step 2. Use [Čec66, 30.C.10] to construct for every Ak a compact
neighborhood Ck such that {Ck }k∈N is locally finite. Now we proceed for every elementary neighborhood Nk as above (replace C in Step 2 by Ck and shrink Ck if necessary!).
Since the family {Ck }k∈N is locally finite, we thus end up with a basic neighborhood Mh
around h which mapped by f∗ to M . We conclude that ( f∗ )−1 (M) is a neighborhood of
h, whence of every of its elements. Hence preimages of basic neighborhoods under f∗
∞ (M, X ), whence f is continuous.
are open in CvS

∗
T

As an application, we can now identify (as topological spaces) spaces of maps into a
product with products of spaces of mappings to the factors.
Theorem 2.8. Let M be a finite-dimensional manifold, and let X1 and X2 be smooth
manifolds modeled on locally convex vector spaces E1 and E2 , respectively. Then
∞
∞
∞
ι : CvS
(M, X1 × X2 ) → CvS
(M, X1) ×CvS
(M, X2),

f 7→ (pr1 ◦ f , pr2 ◦ f )

is a homeomorphism, where for i ∈ {1, 2} pri : X1 × X2 → Xi is the canonical projection.
Proof. Clearly ι is a bijection, and it is continuous by Proposition 2.7. We will prove
that ι −1 is continuous, i.e. that ι is open. By (3) in Proposition A.3, the set
P := {p ◦ pri : p is a continuous seminorm on Ei }
is a generating family of seminorms on E1 × E2 . Consider a basic neighborhood U =
∞
ri
i∈Λ Ni of f ∈ CvS (M, X1 × X2 ), where each Ni = N ( f ; Ai , (Ui, φi ), (Vi, ψi ), pi , εi ).
By Proposition 1.13 we may assume that each pi ∈ P. Take an arbitrary i ∈ Λ. If
pi = p ◦ pr1 for some continuous seminorm p on E1 , let

T

Mi = N ri (pr1 ◦ f ; Ai , (Ui, φi ), (Vi , ψi ), p, εi )

and

∞
Mi′ = CvS
(M, X2).

If pi = q ◦ pr2 for a continuous seminorm q on E2 , reverse the roles of Mi and Mi′ .
Now suppose without loss of generalization that pi = p ◦ pr1 for some continuous seminorm p on E1 . For g : Rm ⊇ φi (Ai ) → ψi (Vi ) ⊆ E1 × E2 , one has
d(k) g = d(k) (pr1 ◦g, pr2 ◦g) = (d(k) pr1 ◦g, d(k) pr2 ◦g),

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

21





so the condition pi d(k) g(a; α ) < εi is equivalent to p d(k) (pr1 ◦g)(a; α ) < εi . Hence

Mi × Mi′ = ι (Ni ). Since ι is bijective one has

ι (U ) =

\

ι (Ni ) =

i∈Λ

\

Mi ×

i∈Λ

So ι is open, and a homeomorphism.

\

Mi′ .

i∈Λ



Corollary 2.9. If Q is a compact smooth manifold, then following map is continuous
∞
∞
χ : CvS
(M, X ) → CvS
(Q × M, Q × X ),

f 7→ id × f .

Proof. By Theorem 2.8 it suffices to show that the maps
∞
∞
(M, X ) → CvS
(Q × M, Q)
χ1 : CvS
f 7→ pr1 ◦(id × f )

and

∞
∞
(M, X ) → CvS
(Q × M, X )
χ2 : CvS
f 7→ pr2 ◦(id × f )

are continuous. For (q, m) ∈ Q × M, one has

χ1 ( f )(q, m) = pr1 ◦(id × f )(q, m) = pr1 (q, f (m)) = q = pr1 (q, m),
χ2 ( f )(q, m) = pr2 ◦(id × f )(q, m) = pr2 (q, f (m)) = f (m)
= f ◦ pr2 (q, m) = pr∗2 ( f )(q, m).
The map χ1 is constant in f , hence continuous, and the map χ2 = pr∗2 . Since Q is
compact, pr2 is proper, so Proposition 2.6 implies that χ2 = pr∗2 is also continuous. 
3. T HE

FINE VERY STRONG TOPOLOGY

In the end, we would like a structure on C∞ (M, X ) as a locally convex manifold, where
M is a finite-dimensional smooth manifolds and X is a manifold modeled on a locally
convex vector space E, but for this purpose the very strong topology is not fine enough.
A first step in the direction of making C∞ (M, X ) into a locally convex manifold would be
∞ (M, E) itself with the
having a similar structure on C∞ (M, E). One might hope that CvS
vector space structure induced by pointwise operations would be a locally convex vector space. But as Corollary 3.3 points out, this is not the case when E is a (non-trivial)
locally convex vector space and M is a non-compact manifold. However, we will see
∞ (M, E) consisting of maps with compact
in the next section that the subspace of CvS
∞
support, denoted CvS,c (M, E), is a locally convex vector space. Following [Mic80], we
∞ (M, E) to obtain a structure on C ∞ (M, E) as a smooth manirefine the topology on CvS
∞
fold modeled on CvS,c (M, E). The resulting topology on C∞ (M, E), or more generally
C∞ (M, X ), is called the fine very strong topology on C∞ (M, X ). The space C∞ (M, X )
∞ (M, X ).
equipped with the fine very strong topology is denoted CfS
Fortunately, the results of the previous sections are easily extended to hold in the fine
very strong topology. This is done in Proposition 3.9.

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

22

It is a folklore fact (Proposition C.8) that in the finite-dimensional case, the very strong
topology is equivalent to the D-topology as described in [Mic80, 36].6 Consequently,
the fine very strong topology is equivalent to the F D-topology defined in [Mic80, 40].
Proposition 3.1. Let M be a finite-dimensional smooth manifold and E be a locally
∞ (M, E) which converges in the
convex vector space. Consider a sequence { fn }n∈N ⊆ CvS
very strong topology towards f ∈ C∞ (M, E). Then there exist a compact K ⊆ M and an
N ∈ N such that for all n ≥ N we have
dif( f , fn ) := {y ∈ M : fn (y) 6= f (y)} ⊆ K.
∞ (M, X ), we will show that f cannot be a limit of { f } if for all
Proof. For f ∈ CvS
n
compact K ⊆ M and all N ∈ N there exists n ≥ N such that dif( f , fn ) * K.

Let {An }n∈N be a locally finite exhaustion of MSby compact sets (exists by Lemma B.4
since M is σ -compact), and for n ∈ N set Kn = ni=1 Ai .

Construct a basic neighborhood of f recursively, using the following procedure. Let
n0 = 1, m0 = 1. For i ∈ N, choose ni > ni−1 such that dif( f , fni ) * Kmi−1 . By construction
/ Take any x in this
there exists mi > mi−1 such that dif( f , fni ) ∩ M \ Kmi−1 ∩ Ami 6= 0.
nonempty set. Since f (x) 6= fni (x), there exists a continuous seminorm pi on E such
that 2εi := pi ( fni (x) − f (x)) > 0, and then
fni ∈
/ Ni := N 0 ( f ; Ami , pi , εi ) .

Now U := i∈N Ni is a basic neighborhood of f such that for all N ∈ N there exists
n ≥ N such that fn ∈
/ U . So the sequence { fn }n∈N does not converge to f .

T

Remark 3.2. One can easily prove the proposition above for E a locally convex manifold rather than a locally convex vector space, by “hacking” the compact sets Ai in the
proof into smaller compact sets that are contained in charts.
Corollary 3.3. Let M be a finite-dimensional non-compact manifold and E 6= {0} a
∞ (M, E) with the vector space structure induced by
locally convex vector space. Then CvS
pointwise operations is not a topological vector space.
∞ (M, E) be a non-zero constant map. Then Proposition 3.1 shows that
Proof. Let f ∈ CvS
limλ →0 (λ f ) 6= 0 = (limλ →0 λ ) f , hence scalar multiplication is not continuous.

∞ (M, E) is not a topological vector space, it is a topological
Remark 3.4. Although CvS
∞ (M, R) is a topological ring
group under pointwise addition by Lemma 4.2. And CvS
under the pointwise operations induced by addition and multiplication in R.
6The D-topology was defined using jet bundles (also reviewed in Appendix C). Our treatment of

the topology has the advantage that only elementary arguments are needed. Further, only our approach
generalizes to arbitrary locally convex target manifolds.

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

23

Definition 3.5 (The fine very strong topology). Define an equivalence relation ∼ on
C∞ (M, X ) by declaring that f ∼ g whenever
supp( f , g) := {y ∈ M : f (y) 6= g(y)}
is compact. Now refine the very strong topology on C∞ (M, X ) by demanding that the
equivalence classes are open in C∞ (M, X ). In other words, equip C∞ (M, X ) with the
topology generated by the very strong topology and the equivalence classes. This is
∞ (M, X ) for C ∞ (M, X ) equipped
the fine very strong topology on C∞ (M, X ). We write CfS
with the fine very strong topology.
Remark 3.6. Here is another way to look at the fine very strong topology. Start with
∞ (M, X ) and equip the equivalence classes [ f ] with the subspace topology. Then
CvS
∞
CfS
(M, X ) =

G

[f]

[ f ]∈C∞ (M,X)/∼

as topological spaces. Taking the family of all sets of the form U ∩ [ f ], where U
runs through the basic neighborhoods in C∞ (M, X ) and [ f ] runs through the equivalence
classes, yields a basis for the fine very strong topology on C∞ (M, X ).
Remark 3.7. If f ∈ C∞ (M, X ) is a proper map and f ∼ fˆ, then fˆ is also proper. Indeed,
if K ⊆ X is compact, then fˆ−1 (K) ⊆ f −1 (K) ∪ supp( f , fˆ). Since closed subspaces of
compact spaces are compact, fˆ−1 (K) is compact.
We would obviously like the results of the previous sections to remain true in the fine
very strong topology. Fortunately, it is easy to extend the results to this case using the
following lemma.
Lemma 3.8. Let T be a topological space, and ζ : T → C∞ (M, X ) a function. If ζ is
∞ (M, X ) and ζ −1 ([ f ]) ⊆ T is open for all equivalence classes
continuous as a map to CvS
∞ (M, X ).
[ f ] ⊆ C∞ (M, X ), then ζ is continuous as a map to CfS
Proof. The map ζ is continuous if preimages of basis elements are open. Basis ele∞ (M, X ) are of the form U ∩ [ f ] for some basic neighborhood U and some
ments for CfS
equivalence class [ f ], and ζ −1 (U ∩ [ f ]) = ζ −1 (U ) ∩ ζ −1 ([ f ]).

Proposition 3.9. Theorem 2.5, Proposition 2.6, Proposition 2.7, Theorem 2.8, and
Corollary 2.9 still hold if we in every case replace the very strong topology with the
fine very strong topology.
In the cases that we consider PropvS (M, N), replace this with PropfS (M, N), by which
∞ (M, N) equipped with the subspace topology.
is meant the subset Prop(M, N) ⊆ CfS
Proof. The proof is case by case. In all cases except for the generalization of Theorem
2.8 and its corollary, it suffices by 3.8 to check that preimages of equivalence classes

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

24

are open. Unless otherwise stated, letters (such as f or N) are always assumed to have
the same role here as in the statement of the corresponding result.
Theorem 2.5 (the full composition map is continuous). Suppose that f ∼ fˆ and h ∼ ĥ. We
have supp(h ◦ f , ĥ ◦ fˆ) ⊆ supp( f , fˆ) ∪ f −1 supp(h, ĥ) . The right hand side is compact
since f is proper, so supp(h ◦ f , ĥ ◦ fˆ) is a closed subset of a compact space, hence
compact. By definition this means that h ◦ f ∼ ĥ ◦ fˆ.
∞ (M, X ). By what we just observed, if h ◦ f ∼ g
Consider an equivalence class [g] ⊆ CfS
and fˆ ∼ f and ĥ ∼ h, then ĥ ◦ fˆ ∼ g. Hence

Γ−1 ([g]) =

[

[ f ] × [h],

h◦ f ∼g

which is open.
Proposition 2.6 (precomposition is continuous). If h ∼ ĥ, then h ◦ f ∼ ĥ ◦ f by the same
argument as before. So for any equivalence class [g] ⊆ C∞ (M, X ), we have
( f ∗ )−1 ([g]) =

[

[h].

h◦ f ∼g

Proposition 2.7 (postcomposition is continuous). If h, ĥ ∈ C∞ (M, X ), then it is easy to
see that supp( f ◦ h, f ◦ ĥ) ⊆ supp(h, ĥ). So if h ∼ ĥ, then f ◦ h ∼ f ◦ ĥ, since closed
subsets of compact spaces are compact. It follows that for any equivalence class [g] ⊆
S
C∞ (M, X ), we have ( f∗ )−1 ([g]) = f ◦h∼g [h].

Theorem 2.8 (the product theorem). For the same reasons as in the proof of the very
strong version of the theorem, ι is clearly a bijective continuous map. So by Lemma 3.8
it suffices to show that images of equivalence classes are open.
Observe that for f , fˆ ∈ C∞ (M, X1 × X2 ), we have supp( f , fˆ) = supp(pr1 ◦ f , pr1 ◦ fˆ) ∪
supp(pr2 ◦ f , pr2 ◦ fˆ). Hence f ∼ fˆ if and only if pr1 ◦ f ∼ pr1 ◦ fˆ and pr2 ◦ f ∼ pr2 ◦ fˆ.
Another way of stating this fact is ι ([ f ]) = [pr1 ◦ f ] ×[pr2 ◦ f ] for all f ∈ C∞ (M, X1 ×X2 ).
Corollary 2.9. Same proof as in the very strong case.
4. T HE



MANIFOLD STRUCTURE ON SMOOTH VECTOR VALUED FUNCTIONS

Throughout this section, M is a finite-dimensional manifold, E is a locally convex vector
space, and X is a locally convex manifold.
∞ (M, E) with pointwise operations is not a locally conRecall from Corollary 3.3 that CvS
∞ (M, E).
vex vector space, in fact it is not even a topological vector space. Neither is CfS
∞
However, we will in this section make CfS (M, E) into a locally convex manifold. This

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

25

∞ (M, X ) into a locally convex manifold (but we will not
is a first step towards making CfS
∞ (M, E) as a locally convex manifold is C ∞ (M, E),
do this). The modeling space for CfS
vS,c
defined below.
∞ (M, E) to be the subspace of C ∞ (M, E) consisting of the
Definition 4.1. We define CvS,c
vS
functions with compact support, i.e.
∞
∞
CvS,c
(M, E) = { f ∈ CvS
(M, E) : supp( f , 0) is compact}
∞ (M, E). Note that C ∞ (M, E) = [0] in
equipped with the subspace topology from CvS
vS,c
∞ (M, E).
CfS
∞ (M, E) with pointwise operations is a locally
As a first step towards proving that CvS,c
∞
convex vector space, we show that C (M, E) with pointwise addition is a topological
group in the very strong and fine very strong topologies.

Lemma 4.2. Addition
Σ : C∞ (M, E) ×C∞ (M, E) → C∞ (M, E),

( f , g)

7→ f + h = [m 7→ f (m) + h(m)]

is continuous when C∞ (M, E) is equipped with the very strong topology or fine very
strong topology.
Proof. We prove the assertion only for the very strong topology as the proof carries
over verbatim to the fine very strong topology. By Theorem 2.8 there is a canonical
∞ (M, E) × C ∞ (M, E) ∼ C ∞ (M, E × E). Since addition S : E ×
homeomorphism ι : CvS
= vS
vS
∞ (M, E × E) → C ∞ (M, E) is
E → E in E is smooth, induced postcomposition S∗ : CvS
vS

continuous. Hence Σ = S∗ ◦ ι is continuous.
∞ (M, E)
Once we have established the following proposition, it will be easy to make CfS
∞
into a locally convex manifold modeled on CvS,c (M, E). The hard work lies here.
∞ (M, E) with vector space structure induced
Proposition 4.3. The topological space CvS,c
by pointwise operations in E is a locally convex vector space.

Proof. In Lemma 4.2 we showed that addition is continuous, and the topological space
∞ (M, E) is Hausdorff since the compact open C ∞ -topology on C ∞ (M, E) is Hausdorff
CvS,c
and the very strong topology is finer than the compact open C∞ -topology. It is therefore
only necessary to check that scalar multiplication is continuous in order to conclude that
∞ (M, E) is a topological vector space. Finally, we must verify that this topological
CvS,c
vector space is locally convex.
∞ (M, E) → C ∞ (M, E), (λ , f ) 7→ λ f is continuous.
Scalar multiplication µ : R × CvS,c
vS,c
∞ (M, E), and consider a basic neighborhood V = T
Let (λ , f ) ∈ R ×CvS,c
i∈Λ Ni of λ f ,
r
i
where each Ni = N (λ f ; Ai , (Ui , φi ), pi , εi ) is an elementary neighborhood of λ f . We
∞ (M, E) such that µ (I ×U ) ⊆ V .
will show that there exists open sets I ⊆ R and U ⊆ CvS

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

26

Since supp( f , 0) is compact, only finitely many Ai intersect supp( f , 0), say only for
i = i1 , . . ., in . Define ε := min(εi1 , . . . , εin ).
o
n
−1
Set m1 := max sup1≤ j≤n k f ◦ φi j k(ri j , φi j (Ai j ), pi j ), 1 and


ε
ε
1
I := B ε (λ ) = λ −
,λ +
.
2m1
2m1
2m1
Define m2 := sup{|t| : t ∈ I}, and set U :=

T

i∈Λ N

ri




εi
f ; Ai , (Ui, φi ), pi , 2m
. Suppose
2

(λ ′ , f ′ ) ∈ I × U . For all i ∈ Λ, x ∈ Ai , 1 ≤ k ≤ ri , and α ∈ {e1 , . . . , edim M }k , we have


−1
−1
(k) ′ ′
pi d (λ f ◦ φi − λ f ◦ φi )(φi (x); α )




≤|λ ′ |pi d(k) ( f ′ ◦ φi−1 − f ◦ φi−1 )(φi (x); α ) + |λ ′ − λ |pi d(k) ( f ◦ φi−1 )(φi (x); α )


εi
ε
(k)
−1
pi d ( f ◦ φi )(φi (x); α ) =: C.
< +
2 2m1


If i ∈
/ {i1 , . . ., in }, then pi d(k) ( f ◦ φi−1 )(φi (x); α ) = 0, in which case C ≤ εi . And if


i ∈ {i1 , . . . , in }, then ε ≤ εi and pi d(k) ( f ◦ φi−1 )(φi (x); α ) ≤ m1 , in which case we still

have C ≤ εi . Hence λ ′ f ′ ∈ V , and µ (I × U ) ⊆ V . Consequently, µ is continuous.

∞
The space is locally convex. We have now established that CvS,c
(M, E) is a topological
vector space. It remains to see that this topological vector space is locally convex. For
r ∈ N0 , (U, φ ) a chart on M, A ⊆ U compact, and p a continuous seminorm on E, define
∞
(M, E) → [0, ∞),
k · k(r, A, (U, φ ), p) : CvS,c

f 7→ k f ◦ φ −1 k(r, φi (Ai ), p)

∞
This is a seminorm on CvS,c
(M, E). Consider a family {k · k(ri , Ai , (Ui , φi ), pi )}i∈Λ
of such seminorms, where {Ai }i∈Λ is locally finite. For some family {εi }i∈Λ define
∞
q : CvS,c
(M, E) → [0, ∞) by

q( f ) = sup εi k f k(ri , Ai , (Ui , φi ), pi ).
i∈Λ

∈ C∞

Every f
vS,c (M, E) has compact support, so supp( f , 0) intersects only finitely many
of the Ai , from which it follows that k f k(ri , Ai , (Ui, φi ), pi ) 6= 0 for only finitely many
i ∈ Λ. Hence q( f ) < ∞, so q is well-defined. Clearly q is a seminorm. Also q is
continuous as for all λ > 0, the preimage q−1 [0, λ ) is a basic neighborhood of 0, e.g.
!
q−1 [0, 1) =

\

∞
(M, E).
N ri (0; Ai , (Ui , φi ), pi , εi ) ∩CvS,c

i∈Λ

So every basic neighborhood of 0 arises as a preimage of a continuous seminorm. Con∞ (M, E) is locally convex (see [Köt69, §18]).
sequently, CvS,c


STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

27

∞ (M, E) as an
We will now provide an alternative description of the topology on CvS,c
inductive limit of certain locally convex spaces. This characterization also implies that
∞ (M, E) is a locally convex space (thus providing an elegant proof of Proposition
CvS,c
4.3). Note however: Though the proof of Proposition 4.3 is a bit cumbersome, it is also
completely elementary and does not use auxiliary results on inductive limits.

Definition 4.4. Let K ⊆ M be a compact subset and E be a locally convex space. Then
we define
CK∞ (M, E) := { f ∈ C∞ (M, E) | supp( f , 0) ⊆ K}
and topologize this space with the compact open C∞ -topology, i.e. the topology generated by the subbase N ∩CK∞ (M, E) where N runs through all elementary neighbor∞ (M, E). Recall from [Glö04, Proposition 4.19] that C ∞ (M, E) is a locally
hoods of CvS
K
convex vector space.
Remark 4.5. Since all functions CK∞ (M, E) have compact support contained in K one
can prove that the compact open C∞ -topology coincides with the subspace topologies
∞ (M, E) and C ∞ (M, E). However, we will not need this.
induced by CvS
fS
∞ (M, E) =
Denote by K (M) the set of compact subsets of M. Observe that as sets CvS,c
S
∞
K∈K (M) CK (M, E). We claim that the topology on the compactly supported functions
is determined by the smaller locally convex spaces: To see this, recall that with respect to
inclusion, K (M) is a directed set. Further, for K, L ∈ K (M) with K ⊆ L the canonical
inclusion ιKL : CK∞ (M, E) → CL∞ (M, E) is continuous linear by definition of the topology.
Hence we can form the locally convex inductive limit lim CK∞ (M, E) (cf. [Köt69, §19 3.])
→

of the family {CK∞ (M, E)}K (M) (with respect to the canonical inclusions).
Lemma 4.6. Let E be a locally convex space, then as locally convex spaces
∞
CvS,c
(M, E) = lim CK∞ (M, E).
→

∞ (M, E) = lim C ∞ (M, E), we only have to prove that the topoloProof. Since as sets CvS,c
→ K
gies coincide. However, since M is σ -compact, [Glö04, Proposition 8.13 (d)] implies
∞ (M, E) = lim C ∞ (M, E) is given by
that a basis for the inductive limit topology on CvS,c
→ K
the basic neighborhoods of the very strong topology.

∞ (M, E) define φ : [ f ] → C ∞ (M, E) by
Proposition 4.7. For each class [ f ] in CfS
[f]
vS,c
∞ (M, E). Hence
φ[ f ] (g) = g − f . Then A = {(φ[ f ] , [ f ])} f ∈C∞(M,E) is a smooth atlas for CfS
∞ (M, E) is a smooth manifold modeled on C ∞ (M, E).
CfS
vS,c

Proof. We will first show that every chart φ[ f ] is a homeomorphism. First of all, note
that φ[ f ] is well-defined since g − f is smooth and compactly supported for g ∈ [ f ]. It is
−1
bijective with inverse φ[−1
f ] (h) = h + f . Both φ[ f ] and φ[ f ] are continuous by Lemma 4.2.

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

28

∞ , whence we have to check that chart transformations
The chart domains of A cover CfS
/ Then [ f ] = [g] and
are smooth. Let (φ[ f ] , [ f ]) and (φ[g] , [g]) be charts with [ f ] ∩ [g] 6= 0.
−1
∞ (M, E) is so. 
φ[g] ◦ φ[ f ] (h) = h + f − g, whence it is smooth in h as addition in CvS,c
∞ (M, E) is just a collection of (affine) copies of C ∞ (M, E).
Structurally, the manifold CfS
vS,c
For this reason, it is also called in [Mic80] a local topological affine space.
∞ (M, X ) for an arbitrary locally convex manifold
To construct a manifold structure on CfS
X one needs a so called local addition on X (cf. [Mic80, KM97]). A local addition
replaces the vector space addition. It allows to “smoothly choose” charts on X (see
[Sta13] for more information). The details are similar to [Mic80, Section 10] but require
certain analytical tools (e.g. a suitable version of the Ω-Lemma, [Glö04, Appendix F])7.

5. A PPLICATION

TO BISECTION GROUPS

In this section we use our results on the very strong and the fine very strong topology to
turn certain groups into topological groups. The groups envisaged here are the bisection
groups associated to certain Lie groupoids. A reference on (finite-dimensional) Lie
groupoids is [Mac05], see [SW15a, SW15b] for infinite-dimensional Lie groupoids.
Definition 5.1 (Lie groupoid). Let M be a finite-dimensional smooth manifold and
G a smooth manifold modeled on a locally convex vector space. Then a groupoid
G = (G ⇒ M) with source projection α : G → M and target projection β : G → M is a
(locally convex) Lie groupoid if α and β are smooth submersions (i.e. locally projections), partial multiplication m : G ×α ,β G → G is smooth, object inclusion 1 : M → G
is smooth, and inversion i : G → G is smooth.
Definition 5.2 (Bisection group). The group of bisections Bis(G ) of a Lie groupoid
G = (G ⇒ M) is the set of sections σ : M → G of α such that β ◦ σ is a diffeomorphism
of M. The group operation ⋆ is given by
(σ ⋆ τ )(x) := σ ((β ◦ τ )(x))τ (x).
With this operation, the object inclusion 1 : M → G becomes the neutral element and
the inverse of a section σ is σ −1 (x) = i(σ ((β ◦ σ )−1 (x))).
Example 5.3.
(1) For a finite-dimensional manifold M, the unit Lie groupoid is the
groupoid (M ⇒ M) with both source and target projection idM . The bisection
group of this groupoid is trivial.
7To apply the Ω-Lemma as stated in [Glö04], one needs a topology on spaces of compactly supported

sections in vector bundles. In ibid. the compact open C∞ -topology is used, however by arguments similar
to Lemma 4.6 one proves that this topology coincides with the very strong topology.

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

29

(2) Let M be a finite-dimensional smooth manifold. Then P(M) := (M × M ⇒ M)
with source projection α = pr2 and target projection β = pr1 is a Lie groupoid.
Multiplication in the groupoid is given by (x, y)(y, z) = (x, z). Postcomposition
β∗ induces an isomorphism Bis(P(M)) ∼
= Diff(M) of groups, where Diff(M) is
the group of smooth diffeomorphisms of M.
(3) Suppose G is a locally convex Lie group, and ∗ is the one-point space. Then
(G ⇒ ∗) is a Lie groupoid with bisection group G.
To prepare the construction of a topological group structure on bisection groups, recall
the following facts on diffeomorphism groups of finite-dimensional manifolds.
Remark 5.4. Let M be a finite-dimensional manifold and Diff(M) be the group of
smooth diffeomorphisms of M. As Diff(M) ⊆ C∞ (M, M), we can endow Diff(M) either with the subspace topology induced by the very strong topology (write DiffvS (M))
or with respect to the fine very strong topology (we write DifffS (M)). Now as a consequence of [Mic80, Corollary 7.7] and Proposition C.8, both DiffvS (M) and DifffS (M)
are topological groups. Note that DifffS (M) is even a locally convex Lie group by
[Mic80, Theorem 11.11]. In particular, we remark that the (subspace topology induced
by the) fine very strong topology is the Lie group topology of Diff(M).
Proposition 5.5. If Bis(G ) is equipped with the subspace topology with respect to
∞ (M, G) or C ∞ (M, G), then Bis(G ) becomes a topological group.
CvS
fS
Proof. We will prove that Bis(G ) becomes a topological group when equipped with
∞ (M, G). The case where we consider the
the subspace topology with respect to CvS
∞ (M, G) can be proven identically, since we only
subspace topology with respect to CfS
use results that hold in both topologies. Let Ω : Bis(G ) × Bis(G ) → Bis(G ) be the
multiplication map defined by Ω(σ , τ ) = σ ⋆ τ , and let ι be the inclusion Bis(G ) →
∞ (M, G). Observe that we can write
CvS
Ω(σ , τ )(x) = σ ((β ◦ τ )(x))τ (x) = m(Γ(β ◦ τ , σ )(x), τ (x)).
So ι ◦ Ω can be written as a composition of continuous maps; the diagram
Bis(G ) × Bis(G )

ι ◦Ω

(β∗ ◦pr2 ,ι ×ι )

/ C ∞ (M, G)
vS O



∞ (M, G) ×C ∞ (M, G)
PropvS (M, M) ×CvS
vS

m∗

Γ×id



∞ (M, G) ×C ∞ (M, G)
CvS
vS

∼
=

/ C ∞ (M, G × G)
vS

commutes. Here we have used that β∗ (Bis(G )) ⊆ Diff(M) ⊆ Prop(M, M) by definition of bisections. All of the maps represented by normal arrows in the diagram are
continuous by results in the previous sections. Since ι ◦ Ω is continuous, so is Ω.

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

30

Let Φ : Bis(G ) → Bis(G ) be the inversion map. Inversion Inv : DiffvS (M) → DiffvS (M)
is continuous by [Mic80, Theorem 7.6] and Proposition C.8. The diagram
ι ◦Φ

Bis(G )

/ C ∞ (M, G)
vS O

β∗



DiffvS (M)

i∗
Inv /

DiffvS (M)

σ∗

/ C ∞ (M, G)
vS

commutes as Φ(σ )(x) = i(σ ((β ◦ σ )−1 (x))) = (i∗ (σ∗ (Inv(β∗ (σ ))))(x). All maps represented by normal arrows are continuous. Thus ι ◦ Φ and also Φ are continuous.

As noted in Remark 5.4, Diff(M) is a topological group with respect to the subspace
topologies induced by the (fine) very strong topology on C∞ (M, M). Thus we obtain the
following morphisms of topological groups.
Corollary 5.6. The target projection β : G → M of a locally convex Lie groupoid G =
(G ⇒ M) induces a map β∗ : Bis(G ) → Diff(M) given by postcomposition. This is a
homomorphism of topological groups with respect to the very strong and fine very strong
topologies on both groups.
∞ (M, G) → C ∞ (M, M) is continuous, so is the (co)restriction of β
Proof. Since β∗ : CvS
∗
vS
to Bis(G ) and Diff(M). The same argument holds in the fine very strong topology. The
map β∗ is also a group homomorphism, since

(β∗ (σ ⋆ τ )) (x) = β (σ ((β ◦ τ )(x))τ (x)) = β (σ (β ◦ τ )(x)) = (β∗ (σ ) ◦ β∗(τ )) (x). 
The results of this section enable the construction of a Lie group structure on Bis(G ).
It is worth noting that the key step in constructing the Lie group structure is sorting
∞ (M, G)
out the topology of the function spaces. Using the manifold structure on CfS
(see comments in Section 4) one establishes the smoothness of joint composition and
postcomposition with respect to these structures. Since Theorem A and the Ω-Lemma
[Glö04, Appendix F] are at our disposal, one can copy exactly the arguments from the
finite-dimensional case outlined in [Mic80, §10 and §11]. After that one can proceed
as in [SW15a] and establish smoothness of the group operations following the proof of
Proposition 5.5. Again, results of this type are beyond the scope of the present paper.

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

A PPENDIX A. C ALCULUS

31

IN THE LOCALLY CONVEX SETTING

In this appendix we lay down the definitions, notation and conventions used throughout
this article regarding locally convex vector spaces, infinite-dimensional manifolds, and
smooth maps between such objects.
Locally convex vector spaces.
Definition A.1.
(1) A real vector space E is a topological vector space if E is
equipped with a Hausdorff topology turning both addition and scalar multiplication into continuous maps.
(2) A topological vector space E is called locally convex if every 0-neighborhood
contains a convex 0-neighborhood.
Particularly useful for our purposes (constructing the very strong topology on a space
of smooth functions into a locally convex vector space) is the perspective of a locally
convex vector topology as generated by a suitable family of seminorms on the space.
Definition A.2. Let E be a locally convex vector space.
(1) A seminorm on E is a map p : E → [0, ∞) such that p(x + y) ≤ p(x) + p(y) and
p(λ x) = |λ |p(x) for all x, y ∈ E and all λ ∈ R.
(2) A family P of continuous seminorms on E is called generating if E has the
initial topology with respect to P.
p
(3) For a seminorm p on a vector space E, x ∈ E and ε > 0, we write Bε (x) := {y ∈
p
E : p(y − x) < ε } and Bε (x) := {y ∈ E : p(y − x) ≤ ε }, called open and closed
seminorm balls, respectively.
We list some properties of seminorms and families of such that are particularly useful
for us.
Proposition A.3 (§18 in [Köt69]). Let E be a locally convex vector space.
(1) The family of all continuous seminorms on E is generating.
(2) A family P of continuous seminorms on E is generating if and only if for any
continuous seminorm p on E there exist p1 , . . . , pn ∈ P and a c ∈ R such that
p ≤ c sup pi .
1≤i≤n

(3) Let {Ei }i∈I be a family of locally convex vector spaces. The product ∏i∈I Ei of
vector spaces is a locally convex
vector space when equipped with the product
S
topology. Moreover, the set i∈I {p ◦ pri : p is a continuous seminorm on Ei } is
a generating family of seminorms for ∏i∈I Ei .

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

32

Smooth maps between locally convex vector spaces. Differential calculus in the
locally convex setting (in our sense) is sometimes known as Bastiani calculus (see
[Bas64]) or Keller Cr -theory (see [Kel74]). The idea is to define the derivative of a
map between locally convex vector spaces using directional derivatives.
Definition A.4. Let E and F be locally convex vector spaces, U ⊆ E open, and f : U →
F a map. If it exists, we define for (x, h) ∈ U × E the directional derivative
d f (x, h) := Dh f (x) := lim

t→0

For r ∈ N ∪ {∞} we say that f

is Cr

f (x + th) − f (x)
.
t

if

d(k) f (x; y1 , . . . , yk ) := Dyk Dyk−1 · · · Dy1 f (x)
exists for all k with 1 ≤ k ≤ r and all yi ∈ E, the d(k) f : U × E k → F define continuous
maps, and f is continuous. We say f is smooth if it is C∞ .
Elsewhere, d(k) f (x; y1 , . . ., yn ) is often denoted

∂k
f (x)
∂ yk · · · ∂ y1

∂
f (x), where y = (y1 , . . ., yk ).
∂y

or

Here is an alternative, but equivalent condition for when a map is Cr for r ≥ 2.
Lemma A.5 (Lemma 1.14 in [Glö02]). Suppose f is C1 in the sense of Definition A.4.
Then f is a Cr -map if and only if d f : U × E → F is Cr−1 . In this case, we define dk f
for k ≤ r recursively by
k −1

dk f := dk−1 (d f ) : U × E 2

→ F.

By convention d0 f = d(0) f = f . Note that whereas d(k) f is obtained by taking iterated
directional derivatives of f with respect to the first variable, dk f is the derivative of
dk−1 f with respect to all variables. The dk f and d(k) f determine each other:
Proposition A.6 (Proof of Lemma 1.14 in [Glö02]). Let k ∈ N. Then
(1) For each j ∈ {1, . . ., k} and each integer j-tuple α with 1 ≤ α1 < · · · α j ≤ 2k − 1
there exists nα ∈ N0 such that for every Ck -map f : E ⊇ U → F, we have
dk f (x; y1 , . . . , y2k −1 ) =

k

∑ ∑

j=1 α1 <···<α j

nα d( j) f (x; yα1 , . . ., yα j )

for all x ∈ U and all y1 , . . . , y2k −1 ∈ E.
(2) There exist numbers α1 < · · · < αk in {1, . . ., 2k − 1} such that for every Ck -map
f : E ⊇ U → F, we have
d(k) f (x; y1 , . . . , yk ) = dk f (x; ια (y1 , . . ., yk ))

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

33
k

for all x ∈ U and all y1 , . . ., yk ∈ E k . Here, ια : E k → E 2 −1 is the inclusion
sending yi to position αi , i.e. pr j ια (y1 , . . . , yk ) = yi if j = αi for some i and 0
otherwise.
Proposition A.7 (1.12, 1.13, and 1.15 in [Glö02]). Let E, F and G be locally convex
vector spaces, U ⊆ E and V ⊆ F open, f : U → F and g : V → G maps such that
f (U ) ⊆ V , and r ∈ N ∪ {∞}.
(1) If f and g are Cr -maps, then g ◦ f : U → G is Cr .
(2) If f and g are C1 -maps, then d(g ◦ f )(x, y) = d g( f (x), d f (x, y)) for all x ∈ U
and all y ∈ E.
(3) If f is Cr and x ∈ U , then d(k) f (x; ·) : E k → F is a symmetric k-linear map for
every k ≤ r.
The chain rule (2) is difficult to work with directly for higher order derivatives. But
there is a way to circumvent this problem, by defining a map T j f in such a way that we
have the identity d j (g ◦ f ) = d j g ◦ T j f .
Definition A.8. If f : E ⊇ U → F is Ck , we define
T f : U × E → F × F,

(x, y) 7→ ( f (x), d f (x, y))
j

j

Note that T f is Ck−1 . For j ≤ k define T j f := T(T j−1 f ) : U × E 2 −1 → F 2 . We also
j
define T̃ f as the projection of T j f onto the last 2 j − 1 coordinates, so that
j

T j f (x; y1 , . . . , y2 j −1 ) = ( f (x), T̃ f (x; y1 , . . ., y2 j −1 ).
Manifolds modeled on locally convex vector spaces.
Definition A.9. A C0 -manifold modeled on a locally convex vector space E is a Hausdorff topological space X which is locally homeomorphic to E.
By locally homeomorphic to E it is meant that any point x ∈ X has an open neighborhood
that is homeomorphic to an open set in E.
Remark A.10. As opposed to the standard definition of finite-dimensional manifolds,
we don’t require that manifolds are σ -compact. However, we always assume that finitedimensional manifolds are σ -compact. For locally compact and locally metrizable
Hausdorff spaces (which includes finite-dimensional manifolds), being σ -compact is
equivalent to being second countable.
Just like in the finite-dimensional case, a Cr structure on an infinite-dimensional manifold X is given by a choice of a Cr -atlas, or more precisely an equivalence class of
such.

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

34

Definition A.11. Let X be a C0 -manifolds modeled on E. A Cr -atlas for X is a collection
A = {(φ ,U ) : U ⊆ X open, U ′ ⊆ E open, and φ : U → U ′ a homeomorphism}
/
such that for any two elements (φ ,U ), (ψ ,V ) ∈ A (called charts) for which U ∩V 6= 0,
−1
′
r
the transition map ψ ◦ φ|φ (U∩V ) : φ (U ∩V ) → V is a C -map.
We define an equivalence class on the set of Cr -atlases of X by declaring that A ∼ A ′ if
A ∪ A ′ is a Cr -atlas for X . Using (1) and (2) in Proposition A.7 one may check that this
is indeed an equivalence relation. Given a specified equivalence class [A ] of Cr -atlases
for X , a chart in [A ] (or simply a chart for X ) is a chart in A ′ for some A ′ ∈ [A ].
Definition A.12. A Cr -manifold X modeled on a locally convex vector space E (or just
a locally convex Cr manifold) is a C0 -manifold modeled on E together with a chosen
equivalence class of Cr -atlases for X .
Definition A.13 ( Cr -map). Let f : X → Y be a map. Then f is a Cr -map if for all x ∈ X
and all pairs of charts (U, φ ) and (V, ψ ) on X and Y , respectively, such that x ∈ U and
f (x) ∈ V , the composition ψ ◦ f ◦ φ|−1
: φ ( f −1 (V )) → ψ (V ) is a Cr -map. Denote
φ ( f −1 (V ))
the set of all Cr -maps X → Y by Cr (X ,Y ).
Products of manifolds, tangent spaces etc. can be defined for manifolds modeled on
locally convex spaces as in the finite-dimensional setting. More information on this and
on locally convex Lie groups (see below) can be found in [Nee06].
Definition A.14 (Locally convex Lie group). Let G be a smooth manifold modeled on a
locally convex vector space which is also a group. If these structures are compatible in
the sense that group multiplication G × G → G and inversion G → G are smooth, then
G is a locally convex Lie group.
A PPENDIX B. AUXILIARY

RESULTS FOR

S ECTIONS 1

AND

2

In this appendix we provide details and auxiliary results for the first two sections.
Lemma B.1. Let m, n ∈ N, r ∈ N0 , A ⊆ Rm compact, E a locally convex vector space,
p a continuous seminorm on E, and R > 0.
Then there exists K > 0 such that for all smooth maps f : Rm → Rn and g : Rn → E for
which k f k(r, A) ≤ R, one has kg ◦ f k(r, A, p) ≤ Kkgk(r, f (A), p)k f k(r, A).
Proof. The proof is naturally divided into two parts.
Part 1. Our first goal is to control the size of Tk f (see Definition A.8). Let m, n and r
be given. The precise statement we want to show is that for all k with 0 ≤ k ≤ r and all

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

35

a ∈ A, and for all z1 , z2 , . . ., z2k −1 ∈ {0, e1 , . . . , em } one has
k Tk f (a; z1 , z2 , . . ., z2k −1 )k∞ ≤ ck f k(r, A) =: C,
where c ≥ 1 is a constant (depending only on r, m and n ) such that
k dk f (a; z1, . . . , z2k −1 )k∞ ≤ ck f k(r, A).
Such a constant c exists by Proposition A.6. We prove the seemingly more general
statement that for all non-negative integers i and j such that 0 ≤ i + j ≤ r one has
k di T j f (a; z1 , . . . , z2i+ j −1 )k∞ ≤ C,

(5)

by induction on i + j. When i + j = 0, both i = 0 and j = 0, so the left hand side in
inequality (5) is k f (a)k∞ ≤ C, by the choice of c.
Now let k be a positive integer with 0 ≤ k ≤ r − 1 and assume that inequality (5) holds
for all non-negative integers i and j with i + j ≤ k. If i + j = k + 1 and 1 ≤ j, then
k di T j f (a; z1 , . . . , z2i+ j −1 )k∞

=k di (T j−1 f (a; z1 , . . ., z2i+ j−1 −1 ), d T j−1 f (a; z1 , . . ., z2i+ j −1 ) k∞

= di T j−1 f (a; z1, . . . , z2i+ j−1 −1 ), di+1 T j−1 f (a; z1 , . . . , z2i+ j −1 )
i

≤ max k d T

j−1

i+1

f (a; z1 , . . ., z2i+ j−1 −1 )k∞ , k d

T

j−1

∞


f (a; z1, . . . , z2i+ j −1 )k∞ ,

by definition of T and the formula d(h1, h2 ) = (d h1 , d h2 ). By the induction hypothesis,
k di T j−1 f k∞ ≤ C, so it remains to check that k di+1 T j−1 f k∞ ≤ C. This last inequality is
just what we started with, but with i increased by one and j decreased by one. Iterating
the argument above, we are left with the case i = k + 1 ≤ r and j = 0. This case holds
by the choice of c.
Part 2. Given 0 ≤ k ≤ r, a ∈ A, and y1 , . . ., yk ∈ {e1 , . . . , em } ⊂ Rm , we would like to
control the size of d(k) (g ◦ f )(a; y1, . . ., yk ). By Proposition A.6 there exist z1 , . . . , z2k −1 ∈
{0, y1 , . . . , yk } such that
d(k) (g ◦ f )(a; y1, . . ., yk ) = dk (g ◦ f )(a; z1, . . ., z2k −1 )
k

= dk g ◦ Tk f (a; z1, . . . , z2k −1 ) = dk g( f (a); T̃ f (a; z1 , . . ., z2k −1 )
k

=∑

∑

j=1 1≤α1 <···<α j ≤2k −1

k

nα d( j) g( f (a); prα (T̃ f (a; z1, . . . , z2k −1 ))),

where the second sum is taken over all increasing j-tuples α = (α1 , . . ., α j ), each of the
nα are fixed numbers as in Proposition A.6, prα (t1 , . . .,t2k −1 ) = (tα1 , . . . ,tα j ), and T̃ is
as in Definition A.8. There exist λ j,i ∈ R such that
!
k

T̃ f (a; z1, . . . , z2k −1 ) =

n

n

i=1

i=1

∑ λ1,iei, . . . , ∑ λ2k −1,iei .

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

36

Note that every |λi, j | ≤ C by part 1 of the proof and our choice of norm k · k∞ ! We have
k

d( j) g( f (a); prα T̃ f (a; z1 , . . . , z2k −1 )

∑

=

λα1 ,i1 λα2 ,i2 · · · λα j ,i j d( j) g( f (a); ei1 , . . ., ei j )

(i1 ,...,i j )∈[n] j

by (3) in Proposition A.7. Recall that p is a seminorm on E. From the preceding
paragraphs we have


p d(k) (g ◦ f )(a; y1, . . . , yk )


k

=p  ∑

∑

j=1 1≤α1 <···<α j ≤2k −1

≤

≤

∑

j,α ,i

nα

∑

(i1 ,...,i j )∈[n] j

λα1 ,i1 λα2 ,i2 · · · λα j ,i j d( j) g( f (a); ei1 , . . . , ei j )



|nα ||λα1,i1 | · · · |λα j ,i j |p d( j) g( f (a); ei1 , . . ., ei j )

∑ |nα |C j

j,α ,i

!

kgk(r, f (A), p) ≤

∑ |nα |c j R j−1

j,α ,i

!

k f k(r, A)kgk(r, f (A), p),

where the last inequality holds since C = ck f k(r, A) ≤ cR (recall that k f k(r, A) ≤ R by
assumption). Setting K = ∑ |nα |c j R j−1 , we obtain


(k)
p d (g ◦ f )(a; y1, . . . , yk ) ≤ Kk f k(r, A)kgk(r, f (A), p).
By definition of kg ◦ f k(r, A, p) the assertion follows.



We now prove that for spaces of smooth functions to locally convex spaces it suffices to
consider basic neighborhoods with respect to the identity charts.
Lemma B.2. Let M be a finite-dimensional manifold and E be a locally convex space.
Consider the topology T on C∞ (M, E) generated by basic neighborhoods which arise
from elementary neighborhoods of the form N r ( f ; A, (U, φ ), (E, idE ), q, ε ). Then T
coincides with the very strong topology on C∞ (M, E).
Proof. Restricting our choice of charts on E to the canonical chart clearly generates a
topology which is coarser than the very strong topology.
To see that it is also finer, consider first an arbitrary elementary neighborhood N =
∞ (M, E). Recall that the compact open C ∞ -topology
N r ( f ; A, (U, φ ), (V, ψ ), q, ε ) in CvS
(see [Nee06, Defintion I.5.1]) allows us to control the derivatives of functions on compact sets. We denote by C∞ (M, E)co the vector space with this topology and note that the
elementary neighborhoods of the very strong topology form a subbase of the compact
open C∞ -topology.

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

37

Now choose a compact neighborhood C ⊆ U of A such that f (C) ⊆ V . We endow the
subset ⌊C, ψ (V )⌋ := {g ∈ C∞ (M, E) | g(C) ⊆ ψ (V )} with the subspace topology induced
by the compact open C∞ -topology. As ψ (V ) ⊆ E is open, we note that ⌊C, ψ (V )⌋ is open
in C∞ (M, E)co. Now [Glö04, Proposition 4.23 (a)] shows that
(ψ −1 )∗ : ⌊C, ψ (V )⌋ → C∞ (intC, E)co ,

h 7→ ψ −1 ◦ h

is continuous. Moreover, the set NC := N r (ψ ◦ f |intC ; A, (U ∩ intC, φ ), (E, idE ), q, ε ) is
open in C∞ (intC, E)co . Using the description of subbasic neighborhoods of the compact
open C∞ -topology in [Glö02], we obtain elementary neighborhoods
(6)

N
\

N r ( f ; Ak , (Uk , φk ), (E, idE ), qk , ε ) ⊆ ((ψ −1 )∗ )−1 (NC ) = N ∩ ⌊C,V ⌋ ⊆ N .

k=1

Observe that the compact sets Ak are contained by construction in intC.8 Summing up,
(6) together with Lemma 1.7 shows that every elementary neighborhood in C∞ (M, E) is
open in T .
It is now
easy to prove that every basic neighborhood is open in T . To this end let
T
M = k∈N Nk be a basic neighborhood around f ∈ C∞ (M, E) with {Ak }k∈N its the underlying compact family. Use [Čec66, 30.C.10] to construct for every Ak a compact
neighborhood Ck such that {Ck }k∈N is locally finite. Now we proceed for every elementary neighborhood Nk as above (working with Ck !). Since the family {Ck }k∈N is locally
finite, we thus end up with a basic neighborhood around f which is contained in T . As
all basic neighborhoods of the very strong topology are open in T , the topology T is
finer as the very strong topology. This proves the assertion.

Lemma B.3. Let n ∈ N and E be a locally convex space. Consider the topology T on
C∞ (Rn , E) generated by basic neighborhoods which arise from elementary neighborhoods of the form N r ( f ; A, (Rn , idRn ), (E, idE ), q, ε ). Then T coincides with the very
strong topology on C∞ (M, E).
Proof. Clearly restricting our choice of charts to idRn generates a topology coarser than
the very strong topology. To see that T is also finer, consider an elementary neighbor∞ (Rn , E).
hood N = N r ( f ; A, (U, φ ), (E, idE ), q, ε ) in CvS
Now g ∈ N if and only if k f ◦ φ −1 − g ◦ φ −1 k(r, φ (A), q) < ε . Using Lemma B.1, we
obtain a constant K > 0 with
k f ◦ φ −1 − g ◦ φ −1 k(r, φ (A), q) = k( f − g) ◦ φ −1 k(r, φ (A), q)
≤ Kk f − gk(r, A, q)kφ −1k(r, φ (A))
Together with Lemma 1.7 this implies that for every h ∈ N there is δ > 0 with Nh :=
N r (h; A, (Rn, idRn ), (E, idE ), q, δ ) ⊆ N . Hence N is also open in T . As Nh controls
8We invite the reader to verify this in the proof of [Glö04, Proposition 4.23 (a)].

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

38

functions on the same compact set as N , the argument generalizes to basic neighborhoods. Summing up, basic neighborhoods are open in T which is thus finer as the very
strong topology.

Finally, we provide a standard fact about σ -compact topological spaces.
Lemma B.4. Let M be a σ -compact topological space. Then M admits a locally finite
exhaustion by compactSsets, i.e. there exists a locally finite family {Ai }i∈N of compact
subsets of M such that i∈N Ai = M.
Proof. By [Dug78][Theorem XI.7.2] there exists aSfamily {Ki }i∈N of compact subspaces of M such that Ki ⊆ int Ki+1 for all i ∈ N and Ki = M. Now define A′1 = K1 and
A′i = Ki \ int Ki−1 for i ≥ 2. The resulting family {A′i }i∈N is a locally finite exhaustion of
M by compact sets.

A PPENDIX C. A LTERNATIVE

DESCRIPTION OF THE TOPOLOGY VIA JET BUNDLES

In this section we give a proof of the “folklore” fact that Michor’s D-topology on
C∞ (M, N) (cf. [Mic80, Section 1]) coincides with the very strong topology when the
target N is finite-dimensional. This is claimed in many places in the literature, e.g.
[Hir94] (where the D-topology is called strong Whitney topology), but the authors of
this paper have been unable to locate a proof. The D-topology is constructed using jet
bundles (cf. [Mic80, Section 1] and [KM97, Section 41]). We will briefly recall this
construction here.
Definition C.1. Let U ⊆ Rm and V ⊆ Rn be open. For 0 ≤ r ≤ ∞ we define the space
of r-jets from U to V by
r

J r (U,V ) := U ×V × ∏ Lisym (Rm , Rn ),
i=1

where Lisym (Rm , Rn ) is the space of symmetric linear maps (Rm )i → Rn . We topologize
∏ri=1 Lisym (Rm , Rn ) with respect to the operator norm for multilinear maps.
For a smooth map f : U → V we define


1 (2)
1 (r)
r
(1)
j f (x) := x, f (x), d f (x; ·), d f (x; ·), . . . , d f (x; ·) ,
2!
r!
called the r-jet of f at x.
Definition C.2. Let M and N be finite-dimensional smooth manifolds. We define an rjet from M to N to be an equivalence class of pairs ( f , x), where f : M → N is a smooth
map and x ∈ M. Two pairs ( f , x) and ( f ′ , x′ ) are equivalent if x = x′ and Txr f = Txr f ′ ,
where T r is the r-th tangent mapping. We write jr f (x) for the equivalence class of
( f , x). The set of all r-jets from M to N is denoted J r (M, N).

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

39

In the case M = Rm and N = Rn , the r-jet of a smooth map f : M → N is represented by
the Taylor polynomial of f . So the different definitions above coincide.
If f : M → M ′ is smooth, then there is an induced map J r (N, f ) : J r (N, M) → J r (N, M ′ )
given by J r (N, f )( jr g(x)) = jr ( f ◦ g)(x). For a diffeomorphism f we obtain in addition
the map J r ( f , N) : J r (M ′ , N) → J r (M, N) given by J r ( f , N)( jr g(x)) = jr (g◦ f )( f −1 (x)).
The set of all r-jets J r (M, N) form a smooth manifold. Suppose (U, φ ) is a chart for M
and (V, ψ ) is a chart for N. The map
J r (φ −1 , ψ ) : J r (U,V ) →J r (φ (U ), ψ (V )) ,
J r (φ −1 , ψ ) := J r (φ −1 , ψ (V )) ◦ J r (U, ψ ) = J r (φ (U ), ψ ) ◦ J r(φ −1 ,V )
is bijective. Note that J r (U,V ) can be identified with a subset of J r (M, N), namely
J r (U,V ) = { f ∈ J r (M, N) : f (U ) ⊆ V }
since ateach point there existsa smooth map with a given Taylor expansion. The collection J r (U,V ), J r (φ −1 , ψ ) , where (U, φ ) and (V, ψ ) runs through the charts for
M and N, respectively, is a smooth atlas for J r (M, N). See [Mic80, 1.8] for details.
Via jet bundles one can define a topology on the space of smooth functions. Using the
embedding j∞ : C∞ (M, N) → C(M, J ∞(M, N)) for M, N finite-dimensional, one pulls
back a certain topology to obtain Michor’s D-topology on C∞ (M, N). We will not describe this construction in detail and refer to [Mic80, 4.7.2] for the following alternative
description of the topology
Definition C.3. Let M and N be finite-dimensional smooth manifolds. We define
Ω(L, U) := { f ∈ C∞ (M, N) | jn f (Ln ) ⊆ Un for all n ∈ N}
where L = {Ln }n∈N is a locally finite family of closed subsets of M, and U = {Un}n∈N
is a family of open subsets Un ⊆ J n (M, N).
Then the family of sets Ω(L, U) where L runs through all locally finite families of
closed sets and U runs through all families of open subsets Un ⊆ J n (M, N) is a basis for
a topology on C∞ (M, N). Following Michor, we call this topology the D-topology and
∞ (M, N) the smooth functions with this topology.
denote by CD
Remark C.4. Let L = {Ln }n∈N be a locally finite family of closed subsets of M, r =
{rn }n∈N be a sequence of natural numbers, U = {Un }n∈N be a family of open subsets
Un ⊆ J rn (M, N), and set
Ω(r, L, U) := { f ∈ C∞ (M, N) : jrn f (Ln ) ⊆ Un for all n ∈ N}.
Taking the family of all sets Ω(r, L, U) as L, r, and U vary also forms a basis for the
D-topology on C∞ (M, N). To see this, note that if Un ⊆ J n (M, N) is open, k ≥ 0, and
π : J n+k (M, N) → J n (M, N) is the “truncation map”, then for all f : M → N smooth and
x ∈ M, we have jn f (x) ∈ Un if and only if jn+k f (x) ∈ π −1Un .

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

40

∞ (M, N)
Lemma C.5. The family of all sets Ω(r, L, U) is a basis for the D-topology CD
if we require that: r = {rn }n∈N runs through all sequences of natural numbers, L =
{Ln }n∈N runs through all locally finite families of compact subsets of M such that each
Ln is contained in some chart (Vn , ψn ) for M, and U = {Un }n∈N runs through all families
of open subsets Un ⊆ J rn (Vn ,Wn ) where (Wn , φn ) is a chart of N,

Proof. It suffices to show the following: Given a locally finite family L = {Ln }n∈N of
closed subsets of M and a family U = {Un}n∈N of open subsets Un ⊆ J n (M, N), there
exist a sequence r = {rn }n∈N of natural numbers, a locally finite family A = {An }n∈N
of compact subsets of M, a family {(Vn , ψn )}n∈N of charts for M such that An ⊆ Vn for
all n ∈ N, a family {(Wn , φn )}n∈N of charts for N, and a family U′ = {Un′ }n∈N of open
subsets Un′ ⊆ J rn (Vn ,Wn ) such that Ω(r, A, U′) = Ω(L, U).
Since M is σ -compact there exists a compact exhaustion K = {Kn }n∈N of M, and by
dividing each Kn into finitely many compact subsets each contained in some manifold
chart, we may assume that each Kn ⊆ Vn for some chart (Vn , ψn ) for M. We may further
require that there is a chart (Wn , φn ) such that f (Kn ) ⊆ Wn . The family {Ki ∩Lk }(i,k)∈N×N
is a locally finite family of compact sets since the Ki are compact and L is a locally finite
family of closed sets. Note that Ki ∩Lk ⊆ Vi for all (i, k) ∈ N ×N. Moreover, for all k ∈ N
we have jk f (Ki ∩ Lk ) ⊆ Uk ∩ J rk (Vi ,Wi ) for all i ∈ N if and only if jk f (Lk ) ⊆ Uk .
′
Take a bijection b : N × N → N, set Ab(i,k) = Ki ∩ Lk , and rb(i,k) = k, and Ub(i,k)
= Uk ∩
r
k
J (Vi ,Wi ). Then

Ω(r, A, U′)
={ f ∈ C∞ (M, N) : jrn f (An ) ⊆ Un′ for all n ∈ N}
={ f ∈ C∞ (M, N) : jk f (Ki ∩ Lk ) ⊆ Uk ∩ J rk (Vi ,Wi ) for all i ∈ N and all k ∈ N}
={ f ∈ C∞ (M, N) : jk f (Lk ) ⊆ Uk for all k ∈ N}
=Ω(L, U).



Definition C.6. Let M and N be finite-dimensional smooth manifolds. If r ∈ N, A ⊆ M
a compact subset, and O ⊆ J r (M, N) open, then
M r (A, O) := { f ∈ C∞ (M, N) : jr f (A) ⊆ O}
is an elementary D-neighborhood.
These neighborhoods play the same role for the D-topology as the elementary (vS)neighborhoods play in the very strong topology. If r is a sequence of natural numbers,
A is a locally finite family of compact subsets of M, and O is a family of open subsets
On ⊆ J rn (M, N), then
\
Ω(r, A, O) =
M rn (An , On ).
n∈N

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

41

Lemma C.7. Let M and N be finite-dimensional smooth manifolds. Suppose U ⊆ M
∞
and V ⊆ N are open. Consider the subspace CD,sub
(U,V ) = { f ∈ C∞ (M, N) : f (U ) ⊆
∞ (M, N).
V } ⊆ CD
∞
(1) CD,sub
(U,V ) is an open subset of CD (M, N).
∞
∞ (U,V ) is continuous.
(2) The restriction resD : CD,sub
(U,V ) → CD
(3) For an elementary D-neighborhood M r (A, O) = { f ∈ C∞ (U,V ) : jr f (A) ⊆ O}
∞ (U,V ), we have res−1 (M r (A, O)) = M r (A, O) ⊆ C ∞ (M, N).
in CD
D
D

Proof.

(1) By Lemma B.4 there exists a locally finite exhaustion {An }n∈N of U by
compact sets. Observe that

∞
CD,sub
(U,V ) = f ∈ C∞ (M, N) : j0 f (An ) ⊆ U ×V for all n ∈ N .

(2) The inclusions ιU : U → M and ιV : V → N are continuous embeddings. Con∞
∞ (U, N) : f (U ) ⊆ V }, and the coresider the subspace ĈD,sub
(U,V ) := { f ∈ CD
∞
∞ (U,V ),
striction R : ĈD,sub
(U,V ) → CD
f 7→ f |V .
Then resD = R ◦ (ιU )∗ . The map (ιU )∗ is continuous with respect to the Dtopology by [Mic80, Proposition 7.4]. Recall from [Mic80, Proposition 10.8]
∞ (U,V ) → C ∞ (U, N) is an embedding of topological
that the mapping (ιV )∗ : CD
D
∞
(U,V ) is open by
spaces. Further (ιV )∗ ◦ R = idC∞ (U,N) |Ĉ∞ (U,V ) . Since ĈD,sub
D,sub
(1) and the identity is continuous, we deduce that R is continuous. In conclusion
resD is continuous.
(3) Clear from the definition as we can identify O ⊆ J r (U,V ) via the identification
J r (U,V ) ⊆ J r (M, N) with an open subset in J r (M, N).

Our aim is now to prove the following folklore theorem.
Proposition C.8. If M and N are finite-dimensional smooth manifolds, then the very
strong and the D-topology coincide.
To prove the Proposition we need to prove the following special case first.
∞ (U,V ) = C ∞ (U,V )
Proposition C.9. Let U ⊆ Rm and V ⊆ Rn be open subsets, then CvS
D

Proof. Comparing the bases of the D-topology and vS-topology, it is clearly sufficient to show the following: For each elementary D-neighborhood M = M r (A, O)
and f ∈ M , there exists an ε > 0 such that N r ( f ; A, ε ) ⊆ M , and conversely that
for every elementary vS-neighborhood N = N r ( f ; A, ε ) and g ∈ N there exists a
finite
cover of A by compact sets Kk and open subsets Ok ⊆ J r (U,V ) such that g ∈
T
r
1≤k≤n M (Kk , Ok ) ⊆ N .

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

42

To this end, we fix r ∈ N, A ⊆ V a compact subset, and O ⊆ J r (U,V ) open. Let us
prove that M r (A, O) is open in the vS-topology. To this end consider f ∈ M r (A, O).
For all x ∈ A we have jr f (x) ∈ O, whence there exist Ox,U ⊆ U open, an open ball
′ ( f (x)) ⊆ V and for every i ∈ {1, . . ., r} open balls
Bx,0 := Bεx,0
)
(
(i)
d
f
(x;
y
,
.
.
.
,
y
)
i
1
′
< εx,i
T (y1 , . . . , yi ) −
Bx,i := T ∈ Lisym (Rm , Rn ) :
sup
i!
k(y1 ,...,yi )k≤1
such that we have

r

j f (x) ∈ Ox,U × ∏ Bx,i ⊆ O ⊆ J r (U,V ).
r

i=0

Recall that a map which is smooth in the sense that all partial derivatives of arbitrarily
high order exist, is also smooth in the sense of Fréchet differentiability (see [Die69,
8.12.8]). Hence jr f : U → J r (U,V ) is continuous and we can thus find for each x a
compact x-neighborhood Kx,U ⊆ Ox,U such that
r

jr f (y) ∈ Ox,U × ∏ Bx,i ⊆ O ⊆ J r (U,V )

for all y ∈ Kx,U .

i=0

Since A is compact there exist x1 , . . . , xn ∈ A with
!
(7)

jr f (A) ⊆

n
[

k=1

r

Kxk ,U × ∏ Bxk ,i

⊆

i=0

n
[

k=1

Set ε ′ = min{εx′ k ,i : 1 ≤ k ≤ n, 0 ≤ i ≤ r}.

r

Oxk ,U × ∏ Bxk ,i
i=0

!

⊆O

Exploiting the triangle inequality and multilinearity of the Fréchet derivative, one constructs constants εk,i > 0 such that: If g : U → V is smooth and k d(i) g(x; α1 , . . . , αi ) −
d(i) f (x; α1 , . . . , αi )k < εk,i for all α1 , . . . , αi ∈ {e1 , . . ., em } and x ∈ Kxk ,U , then
(8)

d(i) g(x; y1 , . . . , yi ) d(i) f (x; y1 , . . . , yi )
< ε′
−
i!
i!

for x ∈ A, y1 , . . ., yi ∈ Rm with k(y1 , . . . , yi )k ≤ 1. Set ε = min{εk,i : 1 ≤ k ≤ n, 0 ≤ i ≤ r}.
If g ∈ N r ( f ; A, ε ), then for 1 ≤ k ≤ n and 0 ≤ i ≤ r, we have for x ∈ A
k d(i) g(x; α1 , . . . , αi ) − d(i) f (x; α1 , . . ., αi )k ≤ kg − f k(r, A) < ε ≤ εk,i ,
which implies (8). By construction of the neighborhoods, we derive from (7) that g ∈
M r (A, O). Hence N r ( f ; A, ε ) ⊆ M r (A, O) and M r (A, O) is open in the vS-Topology.
For the converse, fix g ∈ N r ( f ; A, ε ). Set δ =
x ∈ A the open sets
(
Bi,x :=

T ∈ Lisym (Rm , Rn ) :

sup

k(y1 ,...,yi )k≤1

ε −kg− f k(r,A)
2

and define for 1 ≤ i ≤ r and

d (i) g(x; (y1 , . . . , yi ))
<δ
T (y1 , . . . , yi ) −
i!

)

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

43

Since d (i) g : U → Lisym (Rm , Rn ) is continuous (cf. [Die69, 8.12.8]), there are finitely
many xk ∈ A, 1 ≤ k ≤ n and compact xk -neighborhoods Kk such that d (i) g(Kk ) ⊆ Bi,xk
for each 1 ≤ i ≤ r. Dividing the compact sets Kk into smaller parts, we may assume that
there are open sets B0,xk such that g(Kk ) ⊆ B0,xk and z ∈ B0,xk implies kz − g(x)k < δ for
all x ∈ Kk . Now define Ok := U × ∏ri=0 Bi,xk and observeTthat this set is open in J r (U,V ).
Further we have jr g(Kk ) ⊆ Ok for each kTand thus g ∈ 1≤k≤n M r (Kk , Ok ). Exploiting
the triangle inequality, we derive for h ∈ 1≤k≤n M r (Kk , Ok ) the estimate
k f − hk(r, A) ≤ k f − gk(r, A) + kg − hk(r, A) ≤ k f − gk(r, A) + sup kg − hk(r, Kk )
1≤k≤n

= k f − gk(r, A) + sup sup sup kd g(x; α ) − d (i) h(x, α )k
(i)

1≤k≤n x∈Kk 0≤|α |≤r

≤ k f − gk(r, A) + sup sup sup kd (i) g(x; ·) − d (i) h(x, ·)kop
1≤k≤n x∈Kk 0≤i≤r

< k f − gk(r, A) + sup δ = ε .
1≤k≤n

The last inequality is derived from the definition of Ok (or Bi,xk , respectively). Summing

up, h ∈ N r ( f ; A, ε ) and we see that N r ( f ; A, ε ) is open in the D-topology.
Proof of Proposition C.8. Observe that by definition of the very strong topology and
the definition of the D-topology it suffices to prove
that every elementary neighborT
r
hood N ( f ; A, (U, φ ), (V, ψ ), p, ε ) is the union of 1≤k≤n M r (Kk , O), where the Kk are
a finite family of compact sets which cover A (cf. proof of Proposition C.9). Then
N r ( f ; A, (U, φ ), (V, ψ ), p, ε ) is open and we can write each basic neighborhood in
∞ (M, N) as a (possibly infinite) union of sets of the form Ω(L, U) (cf. Definition C.3).
CvS
Hence we fix N r ( f ; A, (U, φ ), (V, ψ ), p, ε ). If necessary we shrink U to achieve f (U ) ⊆
V (while still A ⊆ U ). Thus we obtain a corresponding elementary neighborhood
∞
N r ( f |VU ; A, (U, φ ), (V, ψ ), p, ε ) ⊆ CvS
(U,V ).
r
r
V
Clearly res−1
vS (N ( f |U ; A, (U, φ ), (V, ψ ), p, ε )) = N ( f ; A, (U, φ ), (V, ψ ), p, ε ). Now
consider the commutative diagram:
∞
CvS,sub
(U,V )

resvS

/ C ∞ (U,V )
vS

(9)

(φ −1 )∗ ◦ψ∗ ∞
/ C (φ (U ), ψ (V ))
vS
∼
=
∼
=

∞
CD,sub
(U,V )

resD

/ C ∞ (U,V )
D

(φ −1 )∗ ◦ψ∗ ∞
/ C (φ (U ), ψ (V ))
∼
D
=

Since both instances of (φ −1 )∗ ◦ ψ∗ are homeomorphisms, and the rightmost identity map is a homeomorphism by Proposition C.8, the middle identity map is also
a homeomorphism. From the second part of the proof of Proposition C.8 we derive that N r ( f |VU ; A, (U, φ ), (V, ψ ), p, ε ) indeed is a union of open sets of the form

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

44

∞ (U,V ). Now Lemma C.7 (3) implies together with the comin CD
mutativity
of (9) that also N r ( f ; A, (U, φ ), (V, ψ ), p, ε ) is a union of neighborhoods
T
r
∞
1≤k≤n M (Kk , O) in CD (M, N). We conclude that the very strong topology is coarser
than the D-topology.

T

1≤k≤n M

r (K , O )
k
k

For the converse observe again, that by the definitions of the topologies it suffices to
prove that every elementary D-neighborhood M r (A, O) is the union of elementary
neighborhoods N r ( f ; A, (U, φ ), (V, ψ ), p, ε ). Here we have invoked Lemma C.5 to see
that it is indeed enough to consider the case A ⊆ (U, φ ) and O ⊆ J r (U,V ) for some charts
(U, φ ) and (V, ψ ). Hence, one can argue as in the first case, if one replaces Lemma C.7
(3) with Lemma 1.15 (3).
Summing up, the D-topology is also coarser than the very strong topology, whence they
coincide on C∞ (M, N).


Note that we have not used in any essential way in this Appendix that the target manifold N is a finite-dimensional manifold. Indeed, all arguments readily generalize without changes to the case where N is a Banach manifold (and the source M is finitedimensional). In [Mic80] only finite-dimensional manifolds are considered as target.
As the definition of jet bundles (and their topology) generalizes verbatim to the realm of
Banach manifolds, one could also define a D-topology for the space C∞ (M, N) where
N is a Banach manifold. We conclude that the statement of Proposition C.8 remains
true even if N is a Banach manifold (and M finite-dimensional). Hence we can copy the
following results from [Mic80] by appealing to Proposition C.8:
Corollary C.10. Let M be a finite-dimensional manifold and N be a Banach manifold.
∞ (M, N) is a Baire space.
Then the topological space CvS

Proof. Combine [Mic80, 4.7.6] with Proposition C.8. Note that the proof in [Mic80]
carries over verbatim to the case of N being an infinite-dimensional Banach manifold.

Remark C.11. In [Mic80] a refinement of the D-topology, the so called F D-topology
is constructed. The construction is similar to the construction of the fine very strong
topology, whence Proposition C.8 implies that the fine very strong topology and the
F D-topology on C∞ (M, N) coincide for finite-dimensional manifolds M and N.
∞ (M, N) will in general not be
In particular, [Mic80, Remark 4.11] thus implies that CfS
a Baire space. However by loc.cit., we then derive that for M and N finite-dimensional
∞ (M, N) is paracompact and normal.
the topological space CfS

STRONG TOPOLOGIES FOR SMOOTH MAPS

45

R EFERENCES
[Bas64]

Bastiani, A. Applications différentiables et variétés différentiables de dimension infinie. J.
Analyse Math. 13 (1964):1–114
[Čec66]
Čech, E. Topological spaces. Revised edition (Wiley, London-New York-Sydney, 1966)
[Die69]
Dieudonné, J. Foundations of modern analysis (Academic Press, New York-London, 1969).
Enlarged and corrected printing, Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 10-I
[Dug78]
Dugundji, J. Topology (Allyn and Bacon, 1978). Reprinting of the 1966 original, Allyn and
Bacon Series in Advanced Mathematics
[Eng89]
Engelking, R. General topology, Sigma Series in Pure Mathematics, vol. 6 (Heldermann
Verlag, Berlin, 1989), second edn.
[Glö02]
Glöckner, H. Infinite-dimensional Lie groups without completeness restrictions. In Geometry
and analysis on finite- and infinite-dimensional Lie groups (Bedlewo, 2000), Banach Center
‘
Publ., vol. 55, pp. 43–59 (Polish Acad. Sci., Warsaw, 2002)
[Glö04]
Glöckner,
H. Lie groups over non-discrete topological fields 2004.
arxiv:math/0408008v1
[Glö06]
Glöckner, H. Discontinuous non-linear mappings on locally convex direct limits. Publ. Math.
Debrecen 68 (2006)(1-2):1–13
[Hir94]
Hirsch, M. W. Differential topology, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 33 (SpringerVerlag, New York, 1994). Corrected reprint of the 1976 original
[Ill03]
Illman, S. The very-strong C∞ topology on C∞ (M, N) and K-equivariant maps. Osaka J.
Math. 40 (2003)(2):409–428
[Kel74]
Keller, H. H. Differential calculus in locally convex spaces. Lecture Notes in Mathematics,
Vol. 417 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1974)
[KM97]
Kriegl, A. and Michor, P. The convenient setting of global analysis, Mathematical Surveys
and Monographs, vol. 53 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1997)
[Köt69]
Köthe, G. Topological vector spaces. I (Springer-Verlag New York Inc., New York, 1969)
[Mac05]
Mackenzie, K. C. H. General theory of Lie groupoids and Lie algebroids, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol. 213 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
2005)
[Mic80]
Michor, P. W. Manifolds of differentiable mappings, Shiva Mathematics Series, vol. 3 (Shiva
Publishing Ltd., Nantwich, 1980)
[Mil83]
Milnor, J. Remarks on infinite-dimensional Lie groups. In B. DeWitt and R. Stora (Eds.),
Relativity, Groups and Topology II, pp. 1007–1057 (North Holland, New York, 1983)
[MROD92] Margalef Roig, J. and Outerelo Domı́nguez, E. Differential topology, North-Holland Mathematics Studies, vol. 173 (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1992)
[Nee06]
Neeb, K.-H. Towards a Lie theory of locally convex groups. Jpn. J. Math. 1 (2006)(2):291–
468
[Sta13]
Stacey, A. Yet More Smooth Mapping Spaces and Their Smoothly Local Properties 2013.
arXiv:1301.5493v1
[SW15a]
Schmeding, A. and Wockel, C. The lie group of bisections of a lie groupoid. Annals of Global
Analysis and Geometry 48 (2015)(1):87–123
[SW15b] Schmeding, A. and Wockel, C. (Re)constructing Lie groupoids from their bisections and
applications to prequantisation 2015. arXiv:1506.05415

