Need help in some inter-dimensional isomorphisms

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter alexbennie
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of inter-dimensional isomorphisms, specifically examining the set M = {e^(i*arctan(x)) in C | x in R}. It is established that M is isomorphic to the real line, indicating a mapping from a two-dimensional subset to a one-dimensional structure. The participants explore the isomorphism of M x M to R^2, identifying it as a hollow torus in R^4 or C^2 when allowing x to approach infinity. The conversation emphasizes the importance of rigor in defining M and its implications on isomorphic relationships.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of complex numbers and their properties
  • Familiarity with isomorphisms in mathematical structures
  • Knowledge of topology, specifically toroidal structures
  • Basic concepts of limits and infinity in mathematical definitions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of complex functions, particularly e^(i*arctan(x))
  • Research the concept of isomorphisms in higher-dimensional spaces
  • Explore the topology of toroidal structures and their mathematical implications
  • Learn about the mapping properties of the arctan function and its image under exponential transformations
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of advanced calculus, and anyone interested in the study of isomorphisms and topology in complex analysis.

alexbennie
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Need help in some "inter-dimensional isomorphisms"

consider the set
M = {e^(i*arctan(x)) in C | x in R }

now it is obvious that M is isomorphic to the real line, so we have an isomorphism from a subset of 2D to 1D.
ok, now we should have M x M isomorphic to R^2, but somehow I cannot do this rigorously (excuse the spelling? :)
what I do know (if there is no mistake in my working :) is that M x M is a hollow torus (doughnut :) in R^4 or C^2 if one allows x to be infinity in the definition

if there are anyone willing to help - i will nbe greatly indebted
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you change the definition of M (by "allowing x to go to infinity"), then why would you think M is still isomorphic to R?

(And P.S. it won't be a donut)
 
if f is an iso from X to Y then fxf is an iso from XxX to YxY sending (a,b) to (f(a),f(b))

in this case yuo can be even more specific since the image of R under arctan is the open interval (-pi/2,pi/2), and you know what that maps to under exp, right?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
14K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K