Homeomorphism through cutting and pasting of manifolds

In summary, the connected sum of a Torus and the Projective plane (T#P) is homeomorphic to the connected sum of a Klein Bottle and a Projective Plane (K#P). This conclusion is based off of a proof that uses multiple quotient maps.
  • #1
Mr-T
21
0
I am independently working through the topology book called, "Introduction to Topology: Pure and Applied." I am currently in a chapter regarding manifolds. They attempt to show that a connected sum of a Torus and the Projective plane (T#P) is homeomorphic to the connected sum of a Klein Bottle and a Projective Plane (K#P). I can go through the detail if someone would like but the conclusion is, "Therefore, T#P is topologically equivalent to K#P.

I am not having any trouble with the proof. I am having trouble with the conclusion. How can it be that through multiple quotient maps we can end up with a space that is topologically equivalent to what we started with?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I would like to see the details, do you know how to use latex, the site reads LaTeX all you have to do is [tex] write something[/tex/] *remove the last "/"*
 
  • #3
Mr-T said:
I am independently working through the topology book called, "Introduction to Topology: Pure and Applied." I am currently in a chapter regarding manifolds. They attempt to show that a connected sum of a Torus and the Projective plane (T#P) is homeomorphic to the connected sum of a Klein Bottle and a Projective Plane (K#P). I can go through the detail if someone would like but the conclusion is, "Therefore, T#P is topologically equivalent to K#P.

I am not having any trouble with the proof. I am having trouble with the conclusion. How can it be that through multiple quotient maps we can end up with a space that is topologically equivalent to what we started with?

Topologically equivalent just means homeomorphic
 
  • #4
lavinia said:
Topologically equivalent just means homeomorphic

Wait that is what he was asking?
 
  • #5
That is not what I was asking...

I posted the exact page here...
http://imgur.com/gallery/m6MhRjL/new

I am not sure if how they do their quotient map is standard in all of topology but if it is not i will be willing to elaborate further. just ask.
 
  • #6
have you tried writing them like words I hear that helps... I mean it did to me when I looked at those two and compared their equivalence classes. like call side 2 a and side 1 b of the torus and the one side of the the projective plane c so you have the connected sum of the word##[aba^{-1}b^{-1}] \# [cc]=[aba^{-1}b^{-1}cc]## note that the first word is the tourus T and the second is the projective plane P once you follow a few circulation rules you will be able to see it, so all you got to do is cut and paste to get ##ab[a^{-1}b^{-1}]c|c \implies abcbac##this move was 5 the next is 6 next we show that ##ab[c]b|ac \implies abbc^{-1}ac## okay now for 7 and the end product ##[a]bbc^{-1}a| \implies bbc^{-1}|a[c]a \implies bbc^{-1}c^{-1}aa## and that is it, do you get it? It is relativly difficult it took me three days and 4 nights to figure this out lol, I am pretty sure you are a faster learned then I... maybe equivalent classes isn't the right word for this... but you should note that you can write a klein bottle as the connected sum of two projective planes

Edit: Also these circulation rules, you have them in your book correct?
EDIT2: Also, writing them as words over some surface f will make the visualization easier :)
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Ahh yes. That seems to be a more efficient technique to handle these kinds of quotient maps.

I am still a bit concerned.

If we deal with the closed square [0,1] x [0,1] and want to use a quotient map to create a cylinder, it is fairly straight forward. It is obvious that the square is not homeomorphic to the cylinder.

In conclusion of this little "thought experiment" and the recalcitrant data (understanding that T#P is homeomorphic to K#P) we realize that after the surjective map a homeomorphism between the prior and the latter is not guaranteed.

After arriving at this conclusion, I am forced to ask, how can it be the case that the quotient mapping preserves the homeomorphism in our current underlying discussion?
 
  • #8
Okay, to deal with the closed square why not just identify two sides and leave the over two sides free? I mean it is kinda self evident that you can continuously deform a torus into a cylinder, even more so if you can change it into a coffee cup(but that involves homotopy or homology I believe. What do you mean that it isn't guaranteed? Of course you could take another transformations between T#P and produce a difference result how about a different object like M#M#M which is a 3 möbius strip without a torus after all P is homeomorphic to M ... but still I do not get your question.
 
  • #9
Mr-T said:
After arriving at this conclusion, I am forced to ask, how can it be the case that the quotient mapping preserves the homeomorphism in our current underlying discussion?

Every time they draw an arrow they claim that the two spaces are homeomorphic (so maybe a double arrow would be more appropriate). Obviously homeomorphic is a transitive property so the start and end result are homeomorphic.

The fact that each consecutive space is homeomorphic is something that needs to be checked individually (but the steps are laid out so the homeomorphisms are quite simple).

There's no claim that two different quotient topologies on, e.g. a hexagon, are always homeomorphic, it's just that the ones they propose happen to be and you should are supposed to be able to figure out why they give the same topology
 
  • #10
Thank you Tenshou and Shredder. The question has been resolved.
 

1. What is homeomorphism through cutting and pasting of manifolds?

Homeomorphism through cutting and pasting of manifolds is a mathematical concept that involves manipulating and rearranging the pieces of a manifold (a topological space that locally resembles Euclidean space) in order to show that it is equivalent to another manifold. This is accomplished by making precise cuts in the manifold, rearranging the pieces, and then pasting them back together in a way that preserves the topological structure.

2. How is homeomorphism through cutting and pasting of manifolds useful?

Homeomorphism through cutting and pasting of manifolds is useful in a variety of mathematical applications, particularly in the fields of topology and geometry. It allows mathematicians to prove that two seemingly different manifolds are actually topologically equivalent, meaning they have the same shape and structure despite potentially having different dimensions.

3. What are some examples of homeomorphism through cutting and pasting of manifolds?

One example of homeomorphism through cutting and pasting of manifolds is the proof of the Poincaré conjecture, a famous problem in topology. Another example is the classification of surfaces, in which all surfaces are shown to be homeomorphic to either a sphere, a torus, or a connected sum of tori. Additionally, the proof of the Brouwer fixed point theorem also utilizes homeomorphism through cutting and pasting of manifolds.

4. What are the key properties of homeomorphism through cutting and pasting of manifolds?

The key properties of homeomorphism through cutting and pasting of manifolds include preservation of topological structure, continuity, and orientation. This means that the resulting manifold will have the same number of holes, connected components, and dimensions as the original, and that any points that were originally close to each other will remain close after the cutting and pasting process.

5. What are some challenges in using homeomorphism through cutting and pasting of manifolds?

One challenge in using homeomorphism through cutting and pasting of manifolds is the complexity of the process, which often involves advanced mathematical techniques and rigorous proofs. Additionally, there may be cases where it is difficult to determine if two manifolds are truly homeomorphic or if there is an error in the cutting and pasting process. This requires a thorough understanding of topology and geometry to ensure accurate results.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
1
Views
724
  • Topology and Analysis
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
22
Views
6K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
4
Views
6K
Back
Top