Proving R^n\{x} is Connected for n>1

  • Thread starter Thread starter R.P.F.
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving that R^n\{x} is connected for n>1, where x is any point in R^n. A participant suggests that demonstrating path-connectedness is a simpler approach, as it guarantees connectedness. They propose constructing a continuous map and using a proof by contradiction involving open sets in R^n. Ultimately, the participant successfully formulates a proof using the definition and plans to further explore the path-connectedness argument.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of topological concepts such as connectedness and path-connectedness.
  • Familiarity with R^n and its properties in topology.
  • Knowledge of continuous mappings in mathematical analysis.
  • Experience with proof techniques, including proof by contradiction.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of path-connectedness in topology.
  • Learn about continuous mappings and their properties in R^n.
  • Explore proof techniques in topology, particularly proof by contradiction.
  • Investigate the implications of connectedness in higher-dimensional spaces.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying topology and analysis, as well as educators looking for insights on teaching connectedness in R^n.

R.P.F.
Messages
210
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I am trying to show that R^n\{x} where x could be any point in R^n is connected for n>1. I have been thinking about this for a while but haven't had any luck. Seems like that I'm missing something simple. I tried to construct a continuous map from R^n to R^n\{x}. All I came up was to send x to some other point y, but that map did not seem to be continuous. Any help is appreciated!

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
Isn't it easier to show that it is path-connected, which implies connected? You can easily find a path between any two points (take a straight line, if it crosses x then make a wobble around it) - I'll leave it up to you to formalise that argument.

If you insist on using the definition, maybe a proof by contradiction would work. I'm thinking along the lines of "let A and B be open disjoint sets in X = Rn \ {x} whose union is X. Let A be the one containing an open neighbourhood of x, and consider A' = (A \cup \{ x \}) and B. Then A' and B are open sets in Rn and their union is Rn, proving that Rn is disconnected.
 
CompuChip said:
Isn't it easier to show that it is path-connected, which implies connected? You can easily find a path between any two points (take a straight line, if it crosses x then make a wobble around it) - I'll leave it up to you to formalise that argument.

If you insist on using the definition, maybe a proof by contradiction would work. I'm thinking along the lines of "let A and B be open disjoint sets in X = Rn \ {x} whose union is X. Let A be the one containing an open neighbourhood of x, and consider A' = (A \cup \{ x \}) and B. Then A' and B are open sets in Rn and their union is Rn, proving that Rn is disconnected.

Hey,

Thanks for your ideas! Using the second idea you mentioned, I was able to write up a proof using the definition. The proof was not as simple I expected. So yeah, now I'm going to do the path-connected business. :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
983
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K