Is an open map also a homeomorphism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1MileCrash
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between open maps and homeomorphisms in topology. It is established that while a homeomorphism is indeed an open map, the reverse implication does not hold without additional conditions, such as bijectivity and continuity. Participants argue that a bijective continuous map is a homeomorphism if and only if it is an open map, and they also explore the conditions under which a closed map can imply a homeomorphism. Examples are provided to illustrate cases where an open map fails to be a homeomorphism. The conversation emphasizes the necessity of specific hypotheses for the implications to be valid.
1MileCrash
Messages
1,338
Reaction score
41
I was told to prove that

f: X -> Y is a homeomorphism iff it is an open map

While I see that if f is a homeomorphism, it is certainly an open map, but is the implication in the other direction even true? Because I see no reason to believe it is.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That is false. I suspect they meant a bijective continuous map ##f## is a homeomorphism iff it is open iff it is closed.
 
1MileCrash said:
I was told to prove that

f: X -> Y is a homeomorphism iff it is an open map

While I see that if f is a homeomorphism, it is certainly an open map, but is the implication in the other direction even true? Because I see no reason to believe it is.

I think it should be "A bijective, continuous map ##f:X\to Y## is a homeomorphism iff it is an open map."

For fun, prove "A bijective, continuous map ##f:X\to Y## is a homeomorphism iff it is a closed map." :-p

Edit: WN got there first. Why you type so fast? :smile:
 
this false without some hypotheses. if X is an open subset of Y, the inclusion map is open but not a homeomorphism.

if f is projection of the plane X onto the y - axis Y, this map is open but not a homeomorphism.

If X and Y are the same set equipped with different topologies so that Y has more open sets than X, then the identity map is open but not a homeomorphism.

etc...
 
1MileCrash said:
I was told to prove that

f: X -> Y is a homeomorphism iff it is an open map

While I see that if f is a homeomorphism, it is certainly an open map, but is the implication in the other direction even true? Because I see no reason to believe it is.

take a look at the open mapping theorem for complex analysis.

Let X be any space and Y a point. Map X to Y.
 
Mandelbroth said:
I think it should be "A bijective, continuous map ##f:X\to Y## is a homeomorphism iff it is an open map."

For fun, prove "A bijective, continuous map ##f:X\to Y## is a homeomorphism iff it is a closed map." :-p

Edit: WN got there first. Why you type so fast? :smile:

Oh, ok. But isn't that kind of trivial? If it is an open map then that is exactly the same (from what I can see) as saying that f-inverse is continuous. So basically that means I'm asked to show that f is a homeomorphism if f is continuous, f-inverse is continuous, and f is a bijection, but that's just what a homeomorphism is.
 
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 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
927
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K