Is a Full-Cone in E^3 a Topological Manifold?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the topological properties of a full cone embedded in ##E^3##, specifically whether it qualifies as a topological manifold. Participants explore the implications of the cone's structure, particularly at the vertex, and the nature of local homeomorphisms in relation to the cone and Euclidean spaces.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the full cone has a topological space structure induced by the topology of ##E^3##, defined through intersections with open sets of ##E^3##.
  • Others argue that the cone is not a topological manifold because neighborhoods around the vertex cannot be homeomorphic to ##E^3## or its open subsets.
  • It is noted that the cone is locally homeomorphic to ##E^2## everywhere except at the apex, where it fails to be homeomorphic to either ##E^2## or ##E^3##.
  • Some participants assert that the inner points of the cone are locally homeomorphic to ##E^3##, while boundary points are homeomorphic to ##E^2##.
  • There is a suggestion that the cone is a compact subset of ##E^3##, and while it is not an analytic manifold, it may still be considered a topological manifold.
  • A later reply introduces the concept of a double cone and discusses the implications of removing the apex from such a structure, indicating that the resulting set is not connected.
  • Another participant mentions that an n-manifold must have an n- or (n-1)-dimensional cutset, providing a perspective on the dimensionality requirements for manifold classification.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the full cone qualifies as a topological manifold, with some supporting the idea that it is a topological manifold and others contesting this based on the properties at the vertex. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing views present.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the cone's structure and the definitions of topological properties. The discussion does not resolve the mathematical steps necessary to classify the cone definitively.

cianfa72
Messages
3,011
Reaction score
313
TL;DR
Full-cone topological space but not topological manifold
Hello,

consider a full-cone (let me say a cone including bottom half, upper half and the vertex) embedded in ##E^3##. We can endow it with the topology induced by ##E^3## defining its open sets as the intersections between ##E^3## open sets (euclidean topology) and the full-cone thought itself as subset of ##E^3##. This way it has topological space structure.

Nevertheless I believe it is not a topological manifold because any neighborhood of the vertex cannot be homeomorphic to ##E^3## or one of its open subset.

Is that correct ? Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The space that the cone embedded in ##E^3## is locally homeomorphic to everywhere but at the apex is ##E^2##, not ##E^3##.

It is true that the cone is not locally homeomorphic to either ##E^2## or ##E^3## at the apex.
 
Orodruin said:
The space that the cone embedded in ##E^3## is locally homeomorphic to everywhere but at the apex is ##E^2##, not ##E^3##.
yes, sure.
 
cianfa72 said:
Summary: Full-cone topological space but not topological manifold

Hello,

consider a full-cone (let me say a cone including bottom half, upper half and the vertex) embedded in ##E^3##. We can endow it with the topology induced by ##E^3## defining its open sets as the intersections between ##E^3## open sets (euclidean topology) and the full-cone thought itself as subset of ##E^3##. This way it has topological space structure.

Nevertheless I believe it is not a topological manifold because any neighborhood of the vertex cannot be homeomorphic to ##E^3## or one of its open subset.

Is that correct ? Thanks
The cone (one half) is homeomorphic to a ball or a cube. It is topologically a compact subset of ##\mathbf{E}^3##. Inner points are locally homeomorphic to ##\mathbf{E}^3##, boundary points to ##\mathbf{E}^2##.

The vertex is no specific point from a topological point of view, except that it is on the boundary.

The cone is no analytic manifold, but it is a topological manifold, or a compact, connected subset of one to be precise.
 
fresh_42 said:
The cone (one half) is homeomorphic to a ball or a cube. It is topologically a compact subset of ##\mathbf{E}^3##. Inner points are locally homeomorphic to ##\mathbf{E}^3##, boundary points to ##\mathbf{E}^2##.

The vertex is no specific point from a topological point of view, except that it is on the boundary.

The cone is no analytic manifold, but it is a topological manifold, or a compact, connected subset of one to be precise.
He is considering a double cone, joined at the apex. I.e., style light-cone:
243947
 
cianfa72 said:
Summary: Full-cone topological space but not topological manifold

Hello,

consider a full-cone (let me say a cone including bottom half, upper half and the vertex) embedded in ##E^3##. We can endow it with the topology induced by ##E^3## defining its open sets as the intersections between ##E^3## open sets (euclidean topology) and the full-cone thought itself as subset of ##E^3##. This way it has topological space structure.

Nevertheless I believe it is not a topological manifold because any neighborhood of the vertex cannot be homeomorphic to ##E^3## or one of its open subset.

Is that correct ? Thanks

Have you come up with a proof?
 
lavinia said:
Have you come up with a proof?
Basically removing a point from an ##\mathbb R^2## disk we get a connected set. Yet the set attained removing the apex from a double cone is not.
 
Yes, I think in general an n-manifold must have an n- or (n-1)-dimensional cutset. A 1-ball ( interval) can be separated by a single point., a 2-ball must be separated by a line(segment), etc.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K