Prove that a function from [0,1] to [0,1] is a homeomorphism

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving that a function h from [0,1] to [0,1] is a homeomorphism. It establishes that h is continuous, onto, and one-to-one by examining discrete topologies and constructing linear mappings between intervals. The participants emphasize the need to either construct the function or apply an existence theorem to demonstrate h's existence. They detail the construction of h using concatenations of linear mappings and verify that it meets the required conditions for any n. Ultimately, they conclude that h is indeed a homeomorphism based on the continuity and properties of the mappings.
docnet
Messages
796
Reaction score
488
Homework Statement
prove that a function from [0,1] to [0,1] is a homeomorphism
Relevant Equations
prove that a function from [0,1] to [0,1] is a homeomorphism
Screen Shot 2021-10-20 at 5.01.20 PM.png


let ##X=\{0,p1,p_2,...,p_n,1\}## and ##Y=\{0,p1,p_2,...,p_n,1\}## be sets equipped with the discrete topology.

for each ##q_i## in ##Y##, the inverse image ##h^{-1}(q_i)=p_i## is open in ##X## w.r.t. to the discrete topology, so h is continuous.

every element y in Y has a preimage x in X, so h is onto.

every element y in Y has a unique preimage x in X. so ##h## is one-to one.

h is continuous, onto, and one to one so it is a homeomorphism from X to Y.

(unsure about this step)
in the limit as n goes to infinity, ##X=Y=[0,1] ## are sets equipped with the finest topology on [0,1] and all the previous claims hold. so ##h## is a homeomorphism from [0,1] to [0,1].
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think that you are proving the wrong thing. The problem asks for you to prove that such a function,h, exists. You should either construct such a function or you should use some existence theorem to show that there is such a function.
 
FactChecker said:
I think that you are proving the wrong thing. The problem asks for you to prove that such a function,h, exists. You should either construct such a function or you should use some existence theorem to show that there is such a function.
okay, i think I was supposed to construct a quotient space that is equal to [0,1] and show that h is continuous on [0,1] ?
 
I would construct an example for ##n=1##. Say ##p_1\leq q_1.## Then you can linearly stretch ##[0,p_1]## to ##[0,q_1]## and linearly compress ##[p_1,1]## to ##[q_1,1].## Since both functions have the same value ##y=q_1## at ##x=p_1## you can concatenate them. The rest goes on by induction.
 
docnet said:
okay, i think I was supposed to construct a quotient space that is equal to [0,1] and show that h is continuous on [0,1] ?
It says to "Prove ... there is a homeomorphism, h". So you need to either construct h or use some other existence theorem to show that h exists.
 
Let ##h(t)=q_{i−1}+(\frac{q_i−q_{i−1}}{p_i−p_{i−1}})(t−p_{i−1})##, a linear mapping between the intervals ##[p_i, p_{i+1}]##

required conditions: ##h(0)=0, h(1)=1##, and ##h(p_i)=q_i##/

claim: h satisfies the required conditions for any n.

let n=1, then ##h(p_1)=q_1##. suppose h satisfies the condition for n=k, i.e., ##h(p_i)=q_i## for values of i in ##\{0,1,...,k\}##.Then for ##n=k+1##, ##h(p_i)=q_i## for values of ## i \in \{0,1,...,k,k+1\}## so h satisfies the conditions for any n.

construct concatenations using the natural maps

##f:X/(p_i\sim p_i)\rightarrow [0,1]##
##g:Y/(q_i\sim q_i)\rightarrow [0,1]##

h is continuous because for all open sets in ##Y/(q_i\sim q_i)##, the inverse image is an open set in ##X/(p_i\sim p_i)##.
the inverse of h is continuous because for all open sets in ##X/(p_i\sim p_i)##, there is an open set in ##Y/(q_i\sim q_i)##.
h is onto and one-to one because ##Y/(q_i\sim q_i)## is covered once by the image of ##X/(p_i\sim p_i)##.

so h is a homeomorphism.
 
Last edited:
First, I tried to show that ##f_n## converges uniformly on ##[0,2\pi]##, which is true since ##f_n \rightarrow 0## for ##n \rightarrow \infty## and ##\sigma_n=\mathrm{sup}\left| \frac{\sin\left(\frac{n^2}{n+\frac 15}x\right)}{n^{x^2-3x+3}} \right| \leq \frac{1}{|n^{x^2-3x+3}|} \leq \frac{1}{n^{\frac 34}}\rightarrow 0##. I can't use neither Leibnitz's test nor Abel's test. For Dirichlet's test I would need to show, that ##\sin\left(\frac{n^2}{n+\frac 15}x \right)## has partialy bounded sums...