Elementary Differential Geometry Questions

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving homeomorphisms in the context of differential geometry, specifically focusing on the homeomorphism between \(\mathbb{R}^n\) and open balls in \(\mathbb{R}^n\), as well as the homeomorphism between a punctured sphere and \(\mathbb{R}^2\). Participants are exploring various methods and examples to establish these relationships, discussing continuity, bijectivity, and the construction of explicit mappings.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in proving the continuity of the map and its inverse for the homeomorphism between \(\mathbb{R}^n\) and an open ball in \(\mathbb{R}^n\).
  • Another suggests visualizing a function to demonstrate that \(\mathbb{R}\) is homeomorphic to an open interval.
  • A participant proposes using the tangent function on the interval \((- \frac{\pi}{2}, \frac{\pi}{2})\) as a homeomorphism and questions how to generalize this to \(\mathbb{R}^n\).
  • There is a discussion about the nature of the punctured sphere, with one participant clarifying that it is a shell rather than a solid ball with a point removed.
  • Several participants discuss the need for rigorous proofs, emphasizing the importance of explicitly showing that mappings are one-to-one and onto, and that the inverse image of open sets is open.
  • One participant shares a specific mapping function from \(\mathbb{R}^n\) to an open ball, but another expresses confusion about how this mapping applies to sets of n-tuples.
  • Participants are encouraged to construct explicit functions for their mappings and to prove continuity and bijectivity rigorously.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need for explicit mappings and rigorous proofs to establish homeomorphisms. However, there are multiple competing views on how to approach these proofs, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific methods and functions to use.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the continuity of mappings and the construction of explicit functions. There are also unresolved questions about the application of certain mappings to higher dimensions and the nature of the punctured sphere.

Saketh
Messages
258
Reaction score
2
I'm trying to teach myself differential geometry from the internet, and I've hit a snag in proving homeomorphisms.

First, show that \Re^n is homeomorphic to any open ball in \Re^n. (I'm not sure how to write the conventional "R" using Latex.)

I'm trying to prove this statement, but I am having issues proving the continuity of the map and its inverse. It's clear that there exists a bijective map because the cardinality of both the open ball and the space itself are the same, but how should I go about proving continuity?

The next problem is to prove that a sphere with a point removed is homeomorphic to \Re^2. I have absolutely no idea how to do this. If someone could show me how to do this without skipping any steps, I would appreciate it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you think of how to show \mathbb{R} is homeomorphic to an open ball in \mathbb{R}, i.e., an open interval? Hint: visualize a function that does this.

\mathbb{R} is written using \mathbb{R}.
 
The tangent function on the interval (-\frac{\pi}{2}, \frac{\pi}{2}) seems to be a homeomorphism because it is bijective, continuous, and its inverse (arctan) is continuous. I think I could use this to prove the first thing for \mathbb{R} , right?

But how do I generalize this to \mathbb{R}^n? And how am I supposed to come up with a specific example to prove that the punctured sphere is homeomorphic to \mathbb{R}^2?

Thank you for your help -- I think I am on the verge of having everything click.
 
I just read that the punctured sphere isn't a solid ball with a point removed, as I had thought, but a shell. This suddenly makes the second problem clear. I still don't know how to prove the first one though.

How can I make this intuitive explanation of the punctured sphere problem rigorous:

From point p, draw curves outward that pierce the sphere and map each point to a point on R^2. Thus, this map is bijective and continuous, whose inverse is continuous (how do I show this rigorously?), therefore it is a homeomorphism.
 
Saketh said:
How can I make this intuitive explanation of the punctured sphere problem rigorous:

From point p, draw curves outward that pierce the sphere and map each point to a point on R^2. Thus, this map is bijective and continuous, whose inverse is continuous (how do I show this rigorously?), therefore it is a homeomorphism.
How do you show it rigorously? Directly. Explicitly prove that it's one to one and onto. Explicitly show that the inverse image of an open set is open, both for your construction and the inverse of your construction.

Or, you could compute an explicit formula for the transformation.
 
The following map f from R^n to B^n gives homeomorphism:

f(x)=x/2 if |x|is less than or equal to 1,
f(x)={1 - (1/2|x|)}(x/|x|) if |x| is greater than 1.
 
How do you show it rigorously? Directly. Explicitly prove that it's one to one and onto. Explicitly show that the inverse image of an open set is open, both for your construction and the inverse of your construction.

I would really appreciate it if someone could show me how to start such a proof. I am unable to find examples of any proofs of homeomorphism on the internet, which is why I'm struggling.

The following map f from R^n to B^n gives homeomorphism:

f(x)=x/2 if |x|is less than or equal to 1,
f(x)={1 - (1/2|x|)}(x/|x|) if |x| is greater than 1.
I don't understand how this map maps R^n to B^n. Isn't it mapping R to B? I'm sorry for not understanding, but it's not clear to me how this map applies to sets of n-tuples.
 
Saketh said:
I would really appreciate it if someone could show me how to start such a proof. I am unable to find examples of any proofs of homeomorphism on the internet, which is why I'm struggling.

Let P be any point on the punctured sphere. {insert stuff here} Therefore, we have constructed a unique point on the plane. Call it f(P).

Let P be any point on the plane. {insert stuff here} Therefore, we have constructed a unique point on the punctured sphere. Call it g(P).

Let P be any point on the plane. {insert stuff here} Therefore, g(f(P)) = P.

Let P be any point on the punctured sphere. {insert stuff here} Therefore, f(g(P)) = P.

Let U be any open set in the plane. Let V be the set of points on the punctured sphere with f(P) lying in U. {insert stuff here} Therefore, V is open in the punctured sphere.

Let U be any open set in the punctured sphere. Let V be the set of points on the plane with f(P) lying in U. {insert stuff here} Therefore, V is open in the plane.
 
Saketh said:
I don't understand how this map maps R^n to B^n. Isn't it mapping R to B? I'm sorry for not understanding, but it's not clear to me how this map applies to sets of n-tuples.
He is using x to denote an element of Rn.
 
  • #10
I'm going to try to fill in the blanks.

Let p be a point on the punctured sphere. Draw a curve from P to a unique point f(P) on the plane.

Let q be a point on the plane. Draw a curve from q to a unique point g(Q) on the punctured sphere.

Given p and q, f maps p to q, and g maps q to p. Therefore, f(g(q))=q, and g(f(p))=p.

Let U be an open set on the plane. For each point q in U, g(q) is open (is this true? I feel like my logic here is wrong). Thus, from the definition of a topological space, the union of all g(q), termed as V, is also open. Similar logic will prove that the image of an open set on the plane is open as well.

Thus f is continuous and bijective with a continuous inverse (g) , and thus the punctured sphere is homeomorphic to the plane.

(If I made any logical errors, I think I'd learn better at this point if someone simply corrected them.)
 
  • #11
Yes, I used x to denote a point in R^n. So, x means (x_1, x_2, ... , x_n).

By the way, it is essentially the same thing, but let me give you the intuition with which I constructed the map proposed.

Saketh, you agree that R and I:=[-1,1] are homeomorphic, right? you said so yourself by introducing tangent function.

Then, by taking cartesian product with product topology, you can say, R^n is homeomorphic to I^n.

Then, it is clear, or at worse with computation, I^n is homeomorphic to B^n.
 
  • #12
Saketh said:
Let p be a point on the punctured sphere. Draw a curve from P to a unique point f(P) on the plane.

(If I made any logical errors, I think I'd learn better at this point if someone simply corrected them.)

Saketh,
Your logic here is fine; you definitely have the right mental image in your head, and that's where the proof has to start. But, just like when proving that R is homeomorphic to (-1,1), you have to have an explicit function
to take it to the level of rigor that you want. In proving that R is homeomorphic to (-1,1) you found the explicit mapping in the form of the tangent function, and then you used it's known properties (bijectivity, continuity, etc) to prove that it was a homeomorphism. So now to show that the punctured sphere is homeomorphic to the plane, you need to find another explicit[\i] mapping (what you're calling 'f'). In other words, if I parameterize the punctured sphere with the coordinates (u,v), then you need to find a formula for f(u,v): A -> R^2, where A is the domain of your parameterization of the punctured sphere. Then you can set about showing that f is a homeomorphism by showing that it's a continuous bijection with a continuous inverse. You can use that intuition about drawing lines through points on the sphere to construct f(u,v).

Saketh said:
Let U be an open set on the plane. For each point q in U, g(q) is open (is this true? I feel like my logic here is wrong).
Once you have an explicit formula for g (the inverse of f), then you have to prove that it's true (which it will be, but that's where the fun comes in!).

I hope that makes some sense. These kind of proofs take a while to get used to, but keep at it!

- Jason
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K