Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Two spaces are not homeomorphic

  1. Jun 3, 2010 #1
    Prove that no continuous surjective function [itex]f : ]0; 1] \rightarrow R [/itex]can be injective.


    My questions is can I use a proof by contradiction and assume that there is a injection

    Then I can use the fact that if there was an injection ie theres a bijective function then the two spaces would be homeomorphic to each other.

    And then show the the two spaces are not homeomorphic so impossible?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 3, 2010 #2
    Re: Homeomorphism

    If there's a bijection, they would be isomorphic as far as I can tell. I think that it has something to do with the continuity and that the segment is closed.
     
  4. Jun 3, 2010 #3

    quasar987

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Re: Homeomorphism

    Of course.
     
  5. Jun 3, 2010 #4

    lavinia

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Re: Homeomorphism

    the inverse image of the positive integers has a limit point
     
  6. Jun 3, 2010 #5
    Re: Homeomorphism

    Then I will try and show that both spaces are homeomorhic.
     
  7. Jun 3, 2010 #6
    Re: Homeomorphism

    Suppose that f is continuous and injective. Maybe it's easiest to prove that it cannot be a surjection, i.e. there is at least one real number which is not the image of any point on the segment [0, 1].
     
  8. Jun 3, 2010 #7
    Re: Homeomorphism

    But the segment is (0.1]
     
  9. Jun 3, 2010 #8
    Re: Homeomorphism

    You only need one boundary point contained in the finite region, so i think you can still do it.
     
  10. Jun 3, 2010 #9
    Re: Homeomorphism

    So If I assume that f is continuous and injective:

    take
    [itex] a \in X a = 1 [/itex]such that [itex]f(a) \in Y[/itex]
    And as [itex]f[/itex]is continuous and injective I can find for any [itex]\epsilon > 0[/itex]
    a real element [itex] y \in Y [/itex] such that the inverse [itex]f^{-1}(y+ \epsilon) - f^{-1}(y) + f^{-1}(y) - f^{-1}(y-\epsilon)[/itex] is in [itex]X[/itex]
    How ever since [itex]f^{-1}f(a)[/itex] is a boundary point this is impossible

    showing there is at leat one real number which is not the image of any point on the segment (0, 1].
     
  11. Jun 4, 2010 #10

    quasar987

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Re: Homeomorphism

    I'm sorry, I read your post a little too fast. Your second sentence contains a false statement: the existence of a continuous bijective function does not imply the existence of a homeomorphism.

    To solve this problem, try supposing that there is a continuous injective and surjective function f:]0,1]-->R. Then f([½,1])=[a,b] for some real numbers a and b. Suppose that f(1)=b (the case f(1)=a is similar). Show that no x>b is hit by f. In other words, [itex]f^{-1}(]b,\infty[)=\emptyset[/itex] and thus f is not surjective: a contradiction.
     
  12. Jun 4, 2010 #11
    Re: Homeomorphism

    I appreciate all your help guys.
     
  13. Jun 5, 2010 #12
    Re: Homeomorphism

    Your map can't exist in the first place; the image of a compact subset under a continuous map is compact, and the reals are not compact.

    Other than that, I suppose you could also say that if your map was injective, then since bijective maps from compact spaces to Hausdorff spaces are homeomorphisms, then you would have a contradiction since [0,1] is not homeomorphic to the reals, since for example [0,1] is compact; although this is the point I made in the first paragraph.
     
  14. Jun 6, 2010 #13
    Re: Homeomorphism

    Prove it.
     
  15. Jun 6, 2010 #14

    Office_Shredder

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Homeomorphism

    The domain isn't compact anyway (it doesn't contain 0). As for proving the reals are NOT compact, that's easy since all you need to do is come up with a counterexample to the definition.

    quasar has the right idea.... basically, for there to be a continuous bijection it has to be monotone (increasing or decreasing). Then f(1) taking a finite value causes serious problems
     
  16. Jun 6, 2010 #15

    Landau

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Re: Homeomorphism

    A subset of R^n is compact iff it is closed and bounded. ]0,1] is not compact because it is not closed. R is not compact because it is not bounded.
     
  17. Jun 7, 2010 #16

    lavinia

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Re: Homeomorphism

    the negative integers -m map to an infinite decreasing or increasing sequence in (0,1] that either has a limit point or converges to 0. If there is a limit point the inverse can not be a homeomorphism. but then the positive integers must have a limit point.
     
  18. Jun 14, 2010 #17
    Re: Homeomorphism

    Maybe you can use the fact that a continuous bijection between [0,1] and R
    would be (is) a homeo. (cont. bijection, compact, Hausd. , yada yada)

    Then, if h is that homeo., the restriction:

    h<sup>^</sup>:(0,1]-->R-{f(0)} is also a homeo.

    but R-{f(0)} is disconnected, and (0,1] (as a subspace) is not.
     
  19. Jun 14, 2010 #18

    quasar987

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Re: Homeomorphism

    This looks like an argument against the existence of a homeomorphism between R and [0,1] (which is direct by compactness by the way). The OP was trying to find an argument against the existence of a homeo between R and (0,1].
     
  20. Jun 14, 2010 #19
    Re: Homeomorphism

    I was not claiming this is a solution; just mentioning
    a result that seemed closed to what the OP was asking
    for; I thought it may help give him an idea.
     
  21. Jun 19, 2010 #20
    Re: Homeomorphism

    Sorry, I thought that the ]0,1] was a typo to mean [0,1], in which case I'd obviously have been correct. I've never seen this (very weird) notation, and would use (0,1].

    Looking at it though, it does make a bit of sense, its like the brackets are indicating visually where the boundaries lie on the real line, and it can be annoying having things like (0,1) around when there are also 2-tuples.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Two spaces are not homeomorphic
Loading...