Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

My question is about the following claim:

For $n \geq 2$, let $A\subset \mathbb R^n$ a non-empty, open, bounded set. Assume $A$ and its complement are connected and $\text{int}(\text{cl}(A)) = A$. Then $\partial A$ is connected.

Without the assumption $\text{int}(\text{cl}(A)) = A$, the statement is false (just take any open set and remove an interior point). This condition is not necessary but I think it is sufficient to get the claim.

This seems a trivial matter, but I cant's find a proof using only basic topological tools. Does anyone know something about this ? Thank you very much.

share|improve this question
8  
Your counterexample is already excluded by the requirement that the complement of $A$ be connected. –  Chris Eagle Jul 13 '12 at 14:05
add comment

2 Answers

I have thought some more about this question and managed to complete the proof (assuming I haven't made any mistakes of course; comments welcome). Because of this, I have decided to reorganize my answer. (Note that the comment at the end of andrzejczarnecki's answer is referring to an earlier version of my answer. I've kept the notation $f$ for the map he is referring to.)

First, a word or two about the topological tools used. I have tried to use only basic topological tools, as the question asks. As suggested in the motivation below (see the example with the torus), the facts that $\mathbb R^n$ is simply connected while $S^1$ isn't, seem to be crucial. To treat simple connectedness in a reasonable way, I have decided to use the fundamental group.

Motivation

Let us consider some examples first.

First example. Let's examine the analogous problem for path-connectedness. The following example shows that the boundary might not be path-connected even if $A$ and $X\setminus A$ are (here $X = \Bbb R^n$): let $$A=\{(x,y)\in\Bbb R^2|\;y^2< 2+\sin\frac1{1-x^2}, x^2<1\}.$$ The boundary of this set is a bit similar to the topologist's sine curve and looks as follows:

enter image description here

As we can see, both $A$ and $X\setminus A$ are path-connected, but $\partial A$ isn't (by the same argument as for the topologist's sine curve).

Second example. Now, examine the analogous problem for the torus, i.e. instead of $X=\Bbb R^n$, let $X = S^1\times D^2$, where $S^1\subseteq\Bbb R^2$ is the unit circle and $D^2\subseteq\Bbb R^2$ is the closed unit disk. Let $S^1_+ = S^1\cap\Bbb R\times(0,\infty)$, i.e. the open upper half of the circle. Let $A=S^1_+\times D^2$. We notice that $A$ is connected, $X\setminus A$ is connected, but the boundary consists of two connected components, $\{(-1,0)\}\times D^2$ and $\{(1,0)\}\times D^2$.

Since the torus has very similar topological properties to $\Bbb R^n$ but is not simply connected, this leads us to the idea that a proof in the $X = \Bbb R^n$ case will probably have to use simple connectedness. This motivates the proof that follows.

Proof

Let $A\subseteq X = \Bbb R^n$, as in the question. Let $q:[0,1]\to S^1\subseteq\mathbb C$, $$q(t)=e^{2\pi it},$$ be the usual quotient map. Define $B=X\setminus(A\cup\partial A)$. Suppose $\partial A$ is disconnected. Then $\partial A = U\cup V$, where $U$ and $V$ are non-empty disjoint clopen sets in $\partial A$. Since $\partial A$ is closed in $X$, and $A$ is bounded, this implies $U$ and $V$ are compact. Therefore, we may define a continuous mapping $k:X\to[0,1]$ by $$k(x)=\frac12\frac{d(x,U)}{d(x,U)+d(x,V)}.$$ This enables us to define $f:X\to S^1$: $$f(x)=\begin{cases}q(k(x));&x\in A,\\q(1-k(x));&x\in X\setminus A.\end{cases}$$ Note that $$\begin{align}f(U)&=\{1\},\\f(V)&=\{-1\},\\f(A)&=S^1_+,\\f(B)&=S^1_-\end{align}$$ and that $f$ is continuous. ($S^1_+:=S^1\cap\{z\in\Bbb C|\; \Im{(z)}>0\}$ and $S^1_-:=S^1\cap\{z\in\Bbb C|\; \Im{(z)}<0\}$).

Next, we define a map $g:S^1\to X$. Let $a\in A$ and $b\in B$. Note that $A\cup B\cup U$ and $A\cup B\cup V$ are path-connected. Therefore there exist paths $$\gamma:[0,1]\to A\cup B\cup V,\\\gamma(0)=a,\\\gamma(1)=b\\$$ and $$\delta:[0,1]\to A\cup B\cup U,\\\delta(0)=a,\\\delta(1)=b.$$ Define $g$ as follows: $$g(q(t))=\begin{cases}\gamma(2t);&t\in[0,\frac12]\\\delta(2-2t);&t\in[\frac12,1]\end{cases}$$ This is again continuous.

Note the following properties of $f\circ g:S^1\to S^1$: $$\begin{align}(f\circ g)(\overline{S^1_+})&\subseteq S^1\setminus\{1\},\\(f\circ g)(\overline{S^1_-})&\subseteq S^1\setminus\{-1\},\\ (f\circ g)(1)&=f(a),\\ (f\circ g)(-1)&=f(b).\end{align}$$

Define homeomorphisms $h_+:S^1\setminus\{1\}\to(0,1)$ and $h_-:S^1\setminus\{-1\}\to(0,1)$ by $$h_+(q(t))=t$$ and $$h_-(q(t))=\begin{cases}t-\frac12;&t\in(\frac12,1],\\t+\frac12;&t\in[0,\frac12).\end{cases}$$

Using these, we construct a basepoint-preserving homotopy $H:(S^1,1)\times I\to (S^1,f(a))$. Define it as follows: $$H(z,s)=\begin{cases}h_+^{-1}\big((1-s)(h_+\circ f\circ g)(z)+s\cdot h_+(z\cdot f(a))\big);&z\in\overline{S^1_+},\\h_-^{-1}\big((1-s)(h_-\circ f\circ g)(z)+s\cdot h_-(z\cdot f(a))\big);&z\in\overline{S^1_-}.\end{cases}$$

(Most properties are easy to see. Observe that $h_-(z)=h_+(z)-\frac12$ for $z\in S^1_-$ to prove that this is well-defined for $z=-1$.)

This shows that the maps $f\circ g:S^1\to S^1$ and $z\mapsto f(a)\cdot z$ are homotopic relative to $1$, so they induce the same homomorphism $\varphi:\pi_1(S^1,1)\to\pi_1(S^1,f(a))$. But the second of these maps induces a nontrivial homomorphism, since multiplying by $f(a)^{-1}$ would take us back to the identity. So $\phi=(f\circ g)_*$ is nontrivial. Therefore, $f_*:\pi_1(\mathbb R^n,a)\to \pi_1(S^1,f(a))$ is also nontrivial. This contradiction completes the proof. $\square$

share|improve this answer
    
I removed my comments. –  user20266 Jul 26 '12 at 15:23
    
It seems that if there is a loop like in the answer of @andrzejczarnecki, then composed with your $f$ it establishes a non-trivial loop in $S^1$, which explains why it cannot be homotoped to a constant loop. However, it is not clear for me wheather this loop really exists. I asked a question about that: math.stackexchange.com/questions/170337/…, could you look at it? –  savick01 Nov 27 '13 at 12:15
    
@savick01: You are referring to math.stackexchange.com/questions/582617/…, right? I believe I might have a complete proof now. I'm a bit busy at the moment but I'll try to post it as soon as possible. –  Dejan Govc Nov 27 '13 at 14:16
    
Of course, sorry. I'm looking forward to seeing your proof, thanks! –  savick01 Nov 27 '13 at 15:19
1  
This time I must apologise for the delay. I've finally read your proof and it looks absolutely correct. Thank you very much! Another possible way to finish it could be the observation that $f\circ g$ is a nontrivial map (in fact a generator of $\pi_1(S^1,f(a))$ which follows from the four properties of $f\circ g$ that you wrote down) which goes through a contractible space. A reader advanced enough can notice this fact and omit the formal arguments with $h_-,h_+,H$. P.S. Can not upvote twice:) –  savick01 Mar 8 at 22:55
add comment

This is true in general: a connected open set $A$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$ has disconnected complement if and only if it has disconnected boundary.

The "only if" follows from $\mathbb{R}^n$ being normal.

As for the "if", consider that $\partial A$ has two components, $X$ and $Y$. Neither of them can lie in the interior of closure of $A$ (it is then a clopen set in the complement of $A$, and we assumed it to be connected). So assume to the contrary, and this actually means that both $X$ and $Y$ have points from the closure of interior of complement of $A$ (don't worry, that was the longest:), say $x$ and $y$. Now you can connect $x$ to $y$ by a curve through $A$ (we can do such things in $\mathbb{R}^n$), and then connect $y$ to $x$ with a curve through the complement of $A$ (we need that nonempty interior of complement for that). This gives a loop that cannot be homotoped to constant, yet $\mathbb{R}^n$ is simply connected, a contradiction.

This cannot be done non-homotopically. The equivalence as I stated it characterises (is equivalent) to the ambient space having trivial first cohomology. The map $f$ from Deian Govc's answer cannot exist precisely because it would give a nontrivial cohomology class.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.