What is the Homeomorphism Proof for Non-Empty Convex Open Subsets of R^2?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that a non-empty, convex, open subset U of R^2 is homeomorphic to R^2. The initial step involves demonstrating that the intersection of a line in R^2 with U is homeomorphic to an open interval in R^1. The proof utilizes radial projections from an interior point of U, leveraging the properties of convexity and openness to establish a bijection between projected lines in U and the entirety of R^2. The user seeks further insights on proving the continuity of the function R(theta), which represents the distance from the origin to the boundary of U along a given direction.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of homeomorphism and its definitions
  • Familiarity with convex sets and their properties
  • Knowledge of polar coordinates and radial projections
  • Basic concepts of continuity in mathematical functions
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of homeomorphisms in topology
  • Study the completeness axiom for R and its implications
  • Explore the concept of continuous functions and their proofs
  • Investigate bijections and their applications in topology
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying topology, geometry, or real analysis, as well as educators seeking to deepen their understanding of homeomorphism proofs in convex spaces.

SpaceTag
Messages
12
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Let U be a non-empty, convex, open subset of R^2. Prove that U is homeomorphic to R^2.
Hint: First prove that the intersection of a line in R^2 with U (if non-empty) is homeomorphic to an open interval in R^1. Then use radial projections.

Homework Equations



We just have the basic definition of homeomorphism and some standard results about open/closed sets to work with. And of course the completeness axiom for R.

The Attempt at a Solution



Ok well, I have proven that the intersection of a line in R^2 with U (if non-empty) is homeomorphic to an open interval of R^1. I see the idea of the proof is to translate U homeomorphically so that the origin is at an interior point of U, and then radiate lines outward from the origin in all directions (think: polar coordinates). Since U is convex, the lines from the origin to the "boundary" of U are fully contained in U and comprise all of U; Since U is open, such lines to the "boundary" can be mapped to the FULL lines extending forever outward in the corresponding direction in R^2.

So I can make a bijection from such projected "lines" in U to all of R^2; in fact for the case where U is bounded I've made an explicit bijection which I suspect is both-ways continuous but I'm having trouble proving it.

The notation I'm using is

R(theta) = supremum of the distances of points of the "line" in U which points in the direction of theta. (ie, R(theta) is the distance from the origin to the "boundary" of U along the direction of theta)

I believe the following bijection sends a "line" in U in the direction of theta to the full line in R^2 in the direction of theta:

f(r) = r/ [R(Theta)- r]

where r is interpreted as distances along the direction of theta in U.

If I could prove that R(theta) is a continuous function of theta then I think I would know how to proceed. It seems obviously true because a jump discontinuity in the boundary of a convex space would seem to produce a contradiction to convexity. But that's just for the bounded case!

In any case, I am stumped, and I'm thinking there must be a better way to do this. Is there a better approach? Thanks guys.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
any ideas?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K