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.

I am currently practicing with a few problems in Lee's Introduction to Topological Manifold, and I decided the complete the following problem:

Prove that a nonempty topological space cannot be both a $1$-manifold and an $n$-manifold for $n>1$.

The idea of proof seems pretty obvious: Assume $X$ is both a $1$-manifold and an $n$-manifold for $n>1$. Given some $p \in X$, let $(U,\varphi)$ and $(V,\tau)$ be coordinate charts around $p$ where $\varphi:U \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ and $\tau:V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$. Note that both $U$ and $V$ are connected. Since $U$ and $V$ are both open, $W=U\cap V$ is an open, connected and nonempty subset of $X$. The restriction of $\varphi$ and $\tau$ to $W$ is a continuous map into $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{R}^n$, respectively. In particular, $\varphi(W)$ is a connected, open subspace of $\mathbb{R}$, hence $\varphi(W)=(a,b)$ for some $a,b \in \mathbb{R}$. As such, there exists some homeomorphism $f:(a,b)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. Using this we can construct the homeomorphism $f \circ \varphi|_W: W \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. Similarly, we can construct a homeomorphism $g \circ \tau|_W: W \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$. Composing both of these maps in the right way gives a homeomorphism between $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{R}^n$, which is impossible since $\mathbb{R}$ minus a point is disconnected while $\mathbb{R}^n$ minus a point is connected for $n>1$.

My question is:

Is this line of reasoning correct?

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 4 down vote accepted

You could remark that there is no homeomorphism between $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{R}^n$ because $\mathbb{R}$ minus a point is disconnected, but $\mathbb{R}^n$ minus a point is connected. For other cases, comparing $n$ and $m$ dimensional manifolds, you need a generalization of this, Brouwers invariance of domain.

share|improve this answer
    
I suppose I left it out because the problem just before this one (which I also completed) was to show there was no homeomorphism between any open subset of $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{R}^n$ for any $n>1$. For the sake of completeness I will add it. –  Holdsworth88 Aug 15 '12 at 10:11
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.