Register to reply

A fundamental question on homeomorphism

by krete
Tags: fundamental, homeomorphism
Share this thread:
krete
#1
Jan15-13, 06:35 AM
P: 15
It is well known that there does NOT exist a homeomorphism between R^m and R^n if m>n. My question is whether it is possible to construct a homeomorphism between R^m (as a whole) and a subset of R^n (note that we also suppose that m>n)?

Intuitively, it is impossible. Is my intuition right? Thank you for your replying in advance!
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Bees able to spot which flowers offer best rewards before landing
Classic Lewis Carroll character inspires new ecological model
When cooperation counts: Researchers find sperm benefit from grouping together in mice
HallsofIvy
#2
Jan15-13, 07:14 AM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 39,353
Any subspace of Rn is Rk for k< n< m. And you have already said "there does NOT exist a homeomorphism between R^m and R^k if m>k" (where I have replaced your "n" with "k").
krete
#3
Jan15-13, 07:26 AM
P: 15
Hi, HallsofIvy,

How about if the subset of R^n is not the whole R^k (k<n) but some ill-behaved set (e.g., a space filling line)?

quasar987
#4
Jan15-13, 08:04 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
quasar987's Avatar
P: 4,771
A fundamental question on homeomorphism

The usual tool for proving the "no homeo thm" is Brouwer's Invariance of Domain theorem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariance_of_domain

It can in the same way be used to answer your question: Assume a homeo btw S (subset of R^n) and R^m exists. Consider R^n as a subset of R^m (say as R^n x {0,...,0}). Then we have a map

R^m --> S --> R^m

which is the homeomorphism of R^m with S composed with the inclusion of R^n in R^m. This map is not open since the inclusion of R^n in R^m maps any subset of R^n to a non open subset of R^m. This contradicts Brouwer's invariance of domain theorem.
krete
#5
Jan15-13, 12:46 PM
P: 15
Quote Quote by quasar987 View Post
The usual tool for proving the "no homeo thm" is Brouwer's Invariance of Domain theorem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariance_of_domain

It can in the same way be used to answer your question: Assume a homeo btw S (subset of R^n) and R^m exists. Consider R^n as a subset of R^m (say as R^n x {0,...,0}). Then we have a map

R^m --> S --> R^m

which is the homeomorphism of R^m with S composed with the inclusion of R^n in R^m. This map is not open since the inclusion of R^n in R^m maps any subset of R^n to a non open subset of R^m. This contradicts Brouwer's invariance of domain theorem.
Dear quasar987,

Thank you very much for your helpful answer. It is really a nice proof.
Bacle2
#6
Jan19-13, 03:11 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,169
You may want to check this thread too:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...60#post3650960


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Fundamental question General Physics 2
Fundamental question Special & General Relativity 2
Local homeomorphism question Calculus 0
Fundamental Question Quantum Physics 2
The Fundamental Question General Discussion 28