Jianphys17
- 66
- 2
On chapter over regular surfaces, In definition 1 point 2. He says that x: U → V∩S is a homeomorphisms, but U⊂ℝ^2 onto V∩S⊂ℝ^3. I am confused, how can it be so!
The discussion revolves around the definition of regular surfaces as presented in Do Carmo's book, specifically focusing on the implications of a homeomorphism between sets of different dimensions. Participants express confusion regarding the dimensionality of the sets involved and the validity of the homeomorphism in this context.
Participants generally disagree on the dimensionality of V ∩ S and its implications for the homeomorphism, with no consensus reached on the validity of the claims regarding dimensions and homeomorphic relationships.
There are unresolved questions regarding the definitions and assumptions related to homeomorphisms and dimensionality, which may affect the clarity of the discussion.
The fact that U ⊆ℝ^2 but V∩S⊆ℝ^3. How can there be a homomorphism between these two spaces, the dimensions are different !micromass said:What's wrong with that?
Jianphys17 said:The fact that U ⊆ℝ^2 but V∩S⊆ℝ^3. How can there be a homomorphism between these two spaces, the dimensions are different !![]()
Sorry, but U⊂ℝ^2 and p∈S⊂ℝ^3, with neighborhood V⊂ℝ^3. But for homeomorphism definition, |U| ≠ |V∩S| as can be ?micromass said:##\mathbb{R}^3## has dimension 3, but ##V\cap S## has dimension 2##.
I had realized that dim(V∩S) = 3.micromass said:##U## and ##V\cap S## have the same number of elements and the same dimension.
Jianphys17 said:I had realized that dim(V∩S) = 3.
Anyway thanks for the help.