MHB Analytic Isomorphism: Annulus vs. Punctured Unit Disc

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dustinsfl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Isomorphism
Click For Summary
An annulus cannot be analytically isomorphic to a punctured unit disc due to differing properties of their boundaries. The theorem states that two annuli $A_{r,R}$ and $A_{s,S}$ are analytically isomorphic if and only if the ratio of their radii is equal, specifically $R/r = S/s$. For example, the annulus $A_{1,2}$ has a ratio of 2, while the punctured unit disc approaches infinity as $s$ approaches 0. A counterexample illustrates that a function mapping from the unit disc to the annulus cannot cover the entire annulus, as small neighborhoods around the origin do not fit within the annulus. Therefore, the structural differences prevent any analytic isomorphism between the two.
Dustinsfl
Messages
2,217
Reaction score
5
Why can't an annulus be analytically isomorphic to the punctured unit disc?

$A_{r,R}$ is an annulus

Theorem: $A_{r,R}$ is analytically isomorphic to $A_{s,S}$ iff $R/r = S/s$.

If our annulus $A_{1,2}$, then $R/r = 2$ and the punctured disc would be $\lim\limits_{s\to 0}1/s = \infty$.

So here is a counter example.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Re: analytic ismoprhism

dwsmith said:
Why can't an annulus be analytically isomorphic to the punctured unit disc?

$A_{r,R}$ is an annulus

Theorem: $A_{r,R}$ is analytically isomorphic to $A_{s,S}$ iff $R/r = S/s$.

If our annulus $A_{1,2}$, then $R/r = 2$ and the punctured disc would be $\lim\limits_{s\to 0}1/s = \infty$.

So here is a counter example.

How can I do this without invoking this theorem?
 
Re: analytic ismoprhism

How about this?

Let $f:\mathbb{D}\to A_{1,2}$.
Let $U$ be an open neighborhood of 0 of radius $\epsilon > 0$.
Then $f(U)\subset A_{1,2}$.
Letting $\epsilon$ be small enough we would have that $f(U)$ is not in the annulus.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K