I was working on problem 2-37(a) of Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds and I found that my approach to solving it was probably quite different from what was intended.
To be clear, I understand the argument Spivak probably intended the reader to make. Also, just to clarify, I'm not saying my approach is better. Indeed I think the intended approach is preferable as it utilizes the theorems of the section and anticipates some of the ideas used to prove the Implicit Function Theorem in the section ahead. I just wanted to see if there was something wrong with my approach, as it doesn't require the same assumptions that were given in the problem.
We are asked to show that if $f:\mathbb{R}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is continuously differentiable then $f$ is not injective. We argue that, assuming $f$ is continuously differentiable (though we could use a weaker assumption than this) and injective, it follows that $f(x,y)$ is differentiable on $\mathbb{R}^2$ and therefore continuous on $\mathbb{R}^2$. So $f(x,0)$ and $f(0,y)$ are continuous and injective on the interval $[-1,1]\subset \mathbb{R}$. By connectedness of $[-1,1]$ and continuity of $f(x,0)$ and $f(0,y)$, the images of $[-1,1]$ by $f(x,0)$ and $f(0,y)$ are both connected. $f(0,0)$ being a maximum or minimum of either function on $[-1,1]$ contradicts with $f$ being injective. If $f(0,0)$ is not a maximum or a minimum, then it follows by connectedness that both images contain some open interval about $f(0,0)$, which, again, contradicts with injectivity of $f$.
Thanks in advance.