Are R^2 and R^n Homeomorphic If n is Not Equal to 2?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gop
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

R^2 and R^n are not homeomorphic for n ≠ 2, as established through topological properties. The proof relies on the fact that the removal of a point from R^2 results in a space that is not simply connected, while the removal of a point from R^n (for n > 2) yields a space that is simply connected. This contradiction demonstrates the non-homeomorphic nature of these spaces. The discussion highlights the importance of considering the complement of a point in both R^2 and R^n to understand their topological differences.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of topological spaces and homeomorphisms
  • Familiarity with concepts of connectedness and fundamental groups
  • Knowledge of R^n spaces and their properties
  • Experience with continuous functions and bijections
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of simply connected spaces in topology
  • Explore the properties of R^n for various dimensions
  • Learn about the role of topological invariants in homeomorphism
  • Investigate the implications of removing points from different topological spaces
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, topology students, and anyone interested in understanding the properties of homeomorphisms and the distinctions between different dimensional spaces.

gop
Messages
55
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Prove that [tex]R^2[/tex] and [tex]R^n[/tex] are not homeomorphic if [tex]n\neq2[/tex] (Hint: Consider the complement of a point in [tex]R^2[/tex] or [tex]R^n[/tex]).

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution




The proof that [tex]R^n[/tex] is not homeomorphic to [tex]R[/tex] is done by considering that if they are homeomorphic i.e. there exists a continuous bijection with continuous inverse [tex]f:R\rightarrow R^n[/tex]. Then the restriction [tex]f:R\backslash {0} \rightarrow R^n\backslash f(0)[/tex] is also a continuous bijection. Since [tex]R\backslash {0}[/tex] is not connected but [tex]R^n\backslash f(0)[/tex] is if [tex]n\neq 1[/tex] we have a contradiction.

However, to show that [tex]R^2[/tex] is not homeomorphic to [tex]R^n[/tex] this doesn't work. There is also no other topological invariant I could detect. Both [tex]R^2[/tex] and [tex]R^n[/tex] are contractible to a point and thus have the same fundamental group, for example.

I would appreciate any idea
thx
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Instead of taking out a point, try taking out something bigger :)
 
gop said:

Homework Statement



Prove that [tex]R^2[/tex] and [tex]R^n[/tex] are not homeomorphic if [tex]n\neq2[/tex] (Hint: Consider the complement of a point in [tex]R^2[/tex] or [tex]R^n[/tex]).

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution




The proof that [tex]R^n[/tex] is not homeomorphic to [tex]R[/tex] is done by considering that if they are homeomorphic i.e. there exists a continuous bijection with continuous inverse [tex]f:R\rightarrow R^n[/tex]. Then the restriction [tex]f:R\backslash {0} \rightarrow R^n\backslash f(0)[/tex] is also a continuous bijection. Since [tex]R\backslash {0}[/tex] is not connected but [tex]R^n\backslash f(0)[/tex] is if [tex]n\neq 1[/tex] we have a contradiction.

However, to show that [tex]R^2[/tex] is not homeomorphic to [tex]R^n[/tex] this doesn't work. There is also no other topological invariant I could detect. Both [tex]R^2[/tex] and [tex]R^n[/tex] are contractible to a point and thus have the same fundamental group, for example.

I would appreciate any idea
thx
You can continue that idea. In R2\{0}, a closed loop containing a point p cannot be contracted to a point. In Rn, for n larger than 2, it can.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K