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

Let $f : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ be continuous, everywhere-differentiable, and bounded above by $u$. Let $S_k = \{x | f(x) \le k \}$ (thus, $S_u = \mathbb{R}^n$). Imagine sliding $k$ down continuously from $u$. Then $S_k$ would lose path-connectedness right at the moment that the line $f(x) = k$ becomes tangent to the global maximum $g$ of $f(x)$, since any further decrease in $k$ will cause $g \notin S_k$, and poking a hole in $\mathbb{R}$ causes it to lose path-connectedness.

What is the equivalent condition if we change the domain of $f$ from $\mathbb{R}$ to $\mathbb{R}^n$?

share|cite|improve this question
If you consider a real-valued function like $arctan(x)$ that is increasing but bounded, the sets $S_k$ remain path-connected for all $k$. – hardmath Oct 9 '12 at 23:55

While there's no nice equivalent condition for the set losing path connectedness, there is a nice equivalent statement:

If $f\colon \mathbb{R}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ has a unique global maximum $g$, then the set $S_k$ will lose simple connectedness right at $k=g$.

In many ways, simple connectedness is the one-dimension-higher analogue of path-connectedness. This generalizes to $n$-connectedness, which lets you take the above statement to even higher dimensions.

share|cite|improve this answer

I don't think there's an equivalent condition. Consider $f:{\Bbb R}^2\to{\Bbb R}:(x,y)\mapsto -x^2-y^2$, which is bounded above, but for which the corresponding $S_k$ would be connected for any $k$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Sure, but that doesn't mean that no condition exists - it just means that the condition we find should be unmeetable in your example function. – GMB Oct 9 '12 at 23:59
Then you may want to clarify what you meant by "equivalent condition". We're a very precise bunch of people around here. – user22805 Oct 10 '12 at 0:11

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.