Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I ran into some trouble trying to prove this. Transgression lemma only got me so far and I'm kind of clueless. Hints?

Let $I$ be an interval and $(X,d)$ a metric space. For a map $\gamma : I\rightarrow X$ define the following equivalence relation on $I$: $y\simeq y\,'$ if and only if $\gamma |_{[y,\,y\,']}$ is constant. Prove that the quotient space $I/\simeq\,$ is homeomorphic to an interval.

share|cite|improve this question
Are you assuming that $\gamma$ is continuous? – Henning Makholm Feb 13 '12 at 21:57
If $\gamma$ is constant on $I$, this is not true. – Thomas Andrews Feb 13 '12 at 21:57
@HenningMakholm In general topology, a "map" is a continuous function, unless otherwise specified. – Thomas Andrews Feb 13 '12 at 21:58
@ThomasAndrews: Then $I/\simeq$ would be a point, which is often considered a closed interval, such as $3=[3,3]$. – Joe Johnson 126 Feb 13 '12 at 22:01
Ah, yes, was not treating a point as a closed interval. In any event, it is a point if and only if $\gamma$ is constant on $I$, so the main cases are the non-constant cases. @JoeJohnson126 – Thomas Andrews Feb 13 '12 at 22:05
up vote 2 down vote accepted

I'd like to propose a slightly different approach. We will assume that $I$ is nontrivial (obvious task) and finite (without loss of generality).

We will construct a continuous (nondecreasing) function $f$ from $I$ to some interval $J$ and $f$ will be constant exactly on the equivalence classes of $\simeq$. It will turn out that $\tilde{f}:\ I/\simeq \ \to \ J$ is a homeomorphism.

Let's define $i(x) = [a,b]$, where $[a,b]$ is the maximal interval such that $x\in [a,b]$ and $\gamma|_{[a,b]}$ is constant. The definition is correct, because $X$ is a metric space (that's the only place where we use any assumptions about $X$ - actually we use only the fact that $X$ is a $T_1$ space).

Edit: Nitpick: if $I\neq[k,l]$, then the first and/or the last (ordered by their beginnings) interval $i(x)$ may be of the form $(a,b]$ and/or $[a,b)$ respectively (or even $(a,b)$ if $\gamma$ is constant). From now on, I will just write $[^*a,b]^*$. End of edit.

Let $In$ be the set of all nontrivial intervals $i(x)$: $$In = \{i(x)\ |\ x\in I \} \setminus \{[a,a]\ |\ a\in I\}.$$ $In$ is of course a countable set and we can enumerate its elements with natural numbers $In = \{in_1, in_2, \ldots \}$.

Our function will be constructed almost like the Cantor function. Let's start with a linear homeomorphism $f_0: I \to [^*0,1]^*$ (the increasing one, $[^*0,1]^*$ interval is open/closed just like $I$). Now, take the first interval $in$ from $In$ and define $f_1$ in the same way as in the case of the Cantor function. From now on, interval $in$ is 'used' which will be informally denoted by $in\in Used$.

Here the technical part starts. I recommend skipping it and the 'excercise ($\heartsuit$)' requiring those technical details during the first reading. $I \setminus \bigcup Used$ is a sum of distinct open (in $I$) intervals. For each such interval $[^* a,b]^*$ we look for an interval $in \in In \setminus Used$ such that $in \cap (a+\frac{b-a}{4}, b - \frac{b-a}{4}) \neq \emptyset$. If such $in$ exists, then we use it to define the next $f_n$ and add to $Used$. Otherwise we take the maximal open interval $(a',b')\subseteq(a,b)\setminus \bigcup In$ and add $[a',b']$ to the $Used$ set.

After finishing the job for all intervals $[^*a,b]^*$ we use the next unused $in \in In$ (to ensure that all the intervals from $In$ will be used) like in the standard construction and repeat the previous step. More precisely - we take the maximal $[^*c,d]^* \subseteq I \setminus \bigcup Used$ containing $in$ and change the values of $f_n$ on $[^*c,d]^*$ in the standard way getting $f_{n+1}$.

Edit: It may be hard to prove that the above construction can always be continued - if $in$ happens to be the whole $[^* a,b]^*$, then we can't continue. So we want $in$ to be inside one of the intervals of $I\setminus Used$. To guarantee that, at the very beginning we use the first and the last interval (ordered by their beginnigs) if they exist (that's the moment responsible for ending up with a degenerated $J$). Later, when adding $[a',b']$ to the $Used$ set, we check if there is unused $in^1$ with its end in $a'$ or $in^2$ with its beginning in $b'$ and add to $Used$ the whole $in^1 \cup [a',b'] \cup in^2$ instead of just $[a',b']$ (and change $f_n$ appropriately). End of edit.

It is not hard to notice that $f_n$ is nondecreasing and $(f_n)$ is a Cauchy sequence in the supremum norm. Consequently it converges to a nondecreasing map $f: I \to [^*0,1]^*$.

$f$ is constant on all the equivalence classes of $\simeq$, so it can be interpreted as a surjective function $\tilde{f}:\ I/\simeq \ \to \ J$ for some interval $J \subseteq [0,1]$. We are almost there, but we don't know yet if $\tilde{f}$ is a homeomorphism.

What we need to finish the proof is that $f$ a) takes different values for arguments belonging to different equivalence classes and b) is open. From a) we know that $\tilde{f}$ is injective so there is $\tilde{f}^{-1}$. From b) we know that $\tilde{f}$ is open so $\tilde{f}^{-1}$ is continuous, so $\tilde{f}$ is homeo.

Both a) and b) follow from the fact that $f(x)\lt f(y)$, whenever $x \lt y$ and not $x \simeq y$ - I left it as an easy excercise ($\heartsuit$).

a) follows easily from the above, for b) we need to notice what the quotient topology $\tau_{I / \simeq}$ is. $$\tau_{I / \simeq} \ = \ \{ U/\simeq \ | \ U\in\tau_I \} \ = \ \{ U/\simeq \ | \ U\in\tau_I, \bigcup_{x\in U} i(x) \subseteq U \}$$ It is generated by $$B=\{ [^*a,b]^*/\simeq \ | \ [^*a,b]^*\in\tau_I, \bigcup_{x\in [^*a,b]^*} i(x) \subseteq [^*a,b]^* \}$$ It can be easily checked that $f(b)$ is an open (in $J$) interval for $b\in B$, which guarantees that $f$ is open and finishes the whole proof.

share|cite|improve this answer
What an awesome solution. I've yet to complete the details but this seems right. Is there a way to accept two answers? Both answers that I've been provided with work wonderfully. – Sak Feb 15 '12 at 6:16
@Chu: I don't know if you've corrected this small gap yourself, but when I realised it, I thought that it is worth explaining it here. I mean the second edit, the first is just pedantry. – savick01 Feb 20 '12 at 18:16
@savicko1: Thanks for the update. – Sak Feb 27 '12 at 16:04

Here’s an argument mostly from first principles. There are undoubtedly easier ways to arrive at the result, depending on how big a hammer you want to use, but working through this argument should give you a pretty good understanding of what’s really going on.

Clearly the $\simeq$-classes are order-convex, meaning that if $a\le b\le c$, and $a\simeq c$, then $a\simeq b\simeq c$. Let $C$ be one of these $\simeq$-classes, let $a=\inf C$, and let $b=\sup C$; the continuity of $\gamma$ implies that $a,b\in C$, so $C=[a,b]$. Thus, every $\simeq$-class is a closed interval. This implies that $I/\simeq\,$ inherits a linear order from $I$: if $C_1$ and $C_2$ are distinct members of $I/\simeq\,$, then $C_1<C_2$ iff there are $c_1\in C_1$ and $c_2\in C_2$ such that $c_1<c_2$. (No confusion should arise from using $<$ and $\le$ for this induced order.)

For convenience let $J=I/\simeq\,$, and for $x\in I$ let $\bar x\in J$ be the $\simeq$-class of $x$; $\bar 0$ and $\bar 1$ are clearly endpoints of the order $\langle J,\le\rangle$. (Here I am assuming without loss of generality that $I=[0,1]$.) If $\bar 0=\bar 1$, then $J$ is a single point, which is of course homeomorphic to a (degenerate) interval, so assume henceforth that $\bar 0<\bar 1$. If two members of $J$ were adjacent in the order $\le$, as intervals in $I$ they would share an endpoint and therefore be part of a single $\simeq$-class, i.e., a single member of $J$, which is a contradiction, so $J$ must be densely ordered by $\le$.

To see that the order topology induced on $J$ by this linear order is the same as the quotient topology, note first that $U\subseteq J$ is open in the quotient topology iff $\bigcup\limits_{u\in U}u$ is open in $I$ iff $\bigcup\limits_{u\in U}u$ is a union of pairwise disjoint open intervals in $I$. Suppose that $\bigcup\limits_{u\in U}u$ is a single open interval, say $(a,b)$, in $I$; then it’s easy to see that $U=(\bar a,\bar b)$ in $J$. Conversely, if $U=(\bar a,\bar b)$, then $\bigcup\limits_{u\in U}u=$ $(\max\bar a,\min\bar b)$. I’ll leave the cases $[0,b)$ and $(a,1]$ to you, as well as the extension of the argument from a single open interval to a union of pairwise disjoint open intervals.

Now let $Q=\{\bar q:q\in\mathbb{Q}\}$; I claim that $Q$ is dense in $J$. To see this, let $\bar x,\bar y\in J$ with $\bar x<\bar y$. There are $a,b,c,d\in I$ such that $\bar x=[a,b],\bar y=[c,d]$, and $b<c$. Clearly $b<c$, so there is a rational $q\in(b,c)$, and evidently $\bar x<\bar q<\bar y$. Thus, $J$ is a separable, densely ordered space with endpoints.

It’s well-known that up to isomorphism there is only one countable dense linear order with endpoints, $\mathbb{Q}\cap I$. (If you’ve not seen this before, it’s proved by this standard back-and-forth argument.) Let $f:Q\to\mathbb{Q}\cap I$ be an order-isomorphism, and extend $f$ to a function $h:J\to I$ as follows. Of course $h\upharpoonright Q=f$. If $\bar x\in J\setminus Q$, let $\langle\bar q_n:n\in\mathbb{N}\rangle$ be a monotonically increasing sequence in $Q$ converging to $\bar x$. Then $\langle f(\bar q_n):n\in\mathbb{N}\rangle$ is a monotonically increasing sequence in $\mathbb{Q}\cap I$, so it converges to some $y\in I$, and we set $h(\bar x)=y$. Of course one has to check that $f(\bar x)$ does not depend on the choice of sequence $\langle\bar q_n:n\in\mathbb{N}\rangle$; this is fairly straightforward $-$ just assume that two different sequences yield different results and get a contradiction $-$ and I leave it to you.

And if you’ve reached this point, you should have little trouble verifying that $h$ is a homeomorphism.

share|cite|improve this answer
This is an amazing approach. I've had very little contact with all the order-related concepts but this works very fine. Thank you. – Sak Feb 15 '12 at 5:53

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.