A fundamental question on homeomorphism

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the possibility of constructing a homeomorphism between R^m and a subset of R^n when m > n. Participants explore theoretical implications and specific cases, including the use of Brouwer's Invariance of Domain theorem to address the question.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that there does not exist a homeomorphism between R^m and R^n if m > n, questioning if a homeomorphism can exist between R^m and a subset of R^n.
  • Another participant points out that any subspace of R^n is R^k for k < n < m, reinforcing the original claim about homeomorphisms.
  • A different participant proposes considering subsets of R^n that are not the whole R^k, such as ill-behaved sets like space-filling lines, suggesting a potential exception to the general rule.
  • One participant discusses Brouwer's Invariance of Domain theorem as a tool to prove the non-existence of a homeomorphism, outlining a specific argument involving the mapping of R^m to a subset S of R^n and the implications of this mapping.
  • A later reply expresses gratitude for the explanation provided regarding the use of Brouwer's theorem, indicating that the proof was appreciated.
  • Another participant suggests checking a related thread for additional context or information.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the foundational claim regarding homeomorphisms between R^m and R^n when m > n, but there is contention regarding the possibility of homeomorphisms involving subsets of R^n, particularly with ill-behaved sets. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple viewpoints presented.

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves assumptions about the nature of subsets and the application of Brouwer's theorem, which may not cover all cases or definitions of homeomorphism.

krete
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
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!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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").
 
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)?
 
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.
 
quasar987 said:
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K