Topology Question: Continuous Functions and Simply Connected Subsets

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jimisrv
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Topology
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of continuous functions and their inverse images, particularly in relation to simply connected subsets. Participants explore whether the inverse image of a simply connected subset under a continuous function must also be connected or simply connected, examining various examples and counterexamples.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the inverse image of a simply connected subset B under a continuous function f must be connected or simply connected, noting that the spaces are not necessarily homeomorphic.
  • Another participant provides a counterexample using the mapping from [0,2pi) to the circle S^1, demonstrating that the inverse image of a small neighborhood is not connected.
  • A further counterexample is presented with the function f:R->R defined by f(x)=x^2, where the inverse image of the singleton set {1} consists of two points, thus not connected.
  • One participant suggests considering the real line as a covering space of the circle S^1, discussing the implications of one-to-one mappings and the conditions under which continuous bijections are homeomorphisms.
  • Another participant mentions trivial counterexamples for zero-dimensional B but encourages exploration of higher-dimensional cases and algebraic maps, specifically referencing the behavior of inverse images of irreducible curves.
  • A theorem by Fulton and collaborators is introduced, stating that under certain conditions, the inverse image of a linear subspace in projective space is connected, adding a layer of complexity to the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants present multiple competing views and counterexamples regarding the connectivity of inverse images under continuous functions. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus reached on the original question.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their examples, such as the dependence on the dimensionality of the subset B and the specific properties of the mappings discussed. The implications of various theorems and conditions are also noted but not fully resolved.

jimisrv
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I have a question that I'm not sure about.
If f:A->C is continuous and B is a subset of C that is simply connected, is f(^-1)(B) necessarily connected or simply connected for that matter? Since the spaces are not necessarily homeomorphic I cannot consider it a topological invariant.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Consider the old canonical mapping from [0,2pi) to the circle S^1 in the complex plane (f(t)=e^it). Then for r small enough, f^-1(B(1,r)) is clearly not connected (and hence not simply connected either) since it consist of a little neighborhoods of 0 and a little neighborhoods of 2pi.
 
Actually, we can be even simpler than that: let f:R->R be given by f(x)=x^2, and let B={1}. Then f^-1(B)={1,-1}.
 
Thanks for the help! The last one is a very simple counterexample.
 
Maybe for a more extreme counterexample re connectedness, consider the case of

IR as a covering space of S^1 . Maybe if you had 1-1 -ness. (tho not in this case,

since continuous bijection bet. compact and hausdorff is a homeo., which is sufficient,

tho I don't know if it is necessary).


For a trivial counterexample re simple-connectedness, consider a constant map

defined on an annulus.
 
trivial counterexamples do exist for zero dimensional B, but try higher dimensional B's.

and try it for algebraic maps.

i.e. if you map an algebraic variety X to an algebraic variety Y, what does the inverse image of an irreducible curve in Y look like?

more specifically, project a surface onto P^2, and ask what the inverse image of a general line looks like?

see the fulton - hansen connectedness theorem, and various versions of bertini's thoerem.
 
Last edited:
here is a nice theorem of fulton and collaborators:

if L is a linear subspace of a projective space P, having codimension d,

and if X-->P is any morphism from a projective variety X,

having image in P of dimension larger than d,

then the inverse image in X of L is connected.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
6K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K