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 trying to prove that a wedge sum of two circles is not a topological manifold, to do so I am showing that the wedge sum without the gluing point is not path connected while the $\mathbb R^2$ without a point is path connected, this implies that the wedge sum is not a manifold since it is not homeomorphic to $\mathbb R^2$.

However, my question is how to prove formally that a wedge sum of circles without the gluing point is not path connected, I can see that intuitively, but it seems very difficult to prove formally. I've tried so hard, but I do not know even how to begin to solve the problem. I think if I can solve this question, I can use it as model to solve the similar ones, Anyone can help me please?

share|improve this question
2  
This doesn't show that the wedge sum is not a manifold. –  Qiaochu Yuan Oct 14 '12 at 8:44
    
When you say circle, do you mean $S^1$ (which is a circle), or do you mean a closed ball in $\Bbb R^2$, which is actually a disk? –  Brian M. Scott Oct 14 '12 at 8:44
    
@BrianM.Scott The $S^1$ –  user42912 Oct 14 '12 at 9:03
1  
The neighbourhood of $S^1\lor S^1$ around any point other than the glueing point looks like $\mathbb R^1$, so it is of no use to show that no neighbourhood of the glueing point loooks like $\mathbb R^2$. But you can still tke this path: Every neighbourhood of a point in $\mathbb R^1$ has a subneighbourhood such that it deleting one point produces exactly two connected components (not four). –  Hagen von Eitzen Oct 14 '12 at 9:10
    
@HagenvonEitzen yes, I understood, thank you, your comment clarifies me a lot. However my problem remains unsolvable for me, how can I prove formally that the wedge sum of the two cicles has 4 components? –  user42912 Oct 14 '12 at 9:18
show 1 more comment

1 Answer

up vote 4 down vote accepted

The wedge sum of two copies of $S^1$ is not homeomorphic to $\Bbb R^2$ with or without the gluing point. With the gluing point it has a point, the gluing point, whose removal disconnects it, while $\Bbb R^2$ has no such point. Without it it’s disconnected, while $\Bbb R^2$ is connected. In any case, as Qiaochu said, this doesn’t show that the wedge sum of two circles is not a manifold.

HINT: Does the gluing point have a neighborhood homeomorphic to $R^n$ for any $n$? Note that if $p$ is the gluing point, $p$ has arbitrarily small neighborhoods that look like $+$; is this true of any point in any $\Bbb R^n$? Think about connectedness and numbers of connected components.

Added: We can realize $S^1\lor S^1$ as $$X=\Big\{\langle x,y\rangle\in\Bbb R^2:(x+1)^2+y^2=1\text{ or }(x-1)^2+y^2=1\Big\}\;,$$ with $p=\langle 0,0\rangle$ as the gluing point. (You shouldn’t have too much trouble writing down a homeomorphism between the formal description of $S^1\lor S^1$ and this $X$.) A typical small open neighborhood of $p$ in $X$ is $N_\epsilon=X\cap B(p,\epsilon)$, where $\epsilon>0$, and $B(p,\epsilon)=\{q\in\Bbb R^2:\|q\|<\epsilon\}$, the open $\epsilon$-ball centred at $p$. If $\epsilon\le2$, $N_\epsilon\setminus\{p\}$ has the following four components:

  • $\{\langle x,y\rangle:(x-1)^2+y^2=1\text{ and }x^2+y^2<\epsilon^2\text{ and }x,y>0\}$
  • $\{\langle x,y\rangle:(x-1)^2+y^2=1\text{ and }x^2+y^2<\epsilon^2\text{ and }x>0\text{ and }y<0\}$
  • $\{\langle x,y\rangle:(x+1)^2+y^2=1\text{ and }x^2+y^2<\epsilon^2\text{ and }x<0\text{ and }y>0\}$
  • $\{\langle x,y\rangle:(x+1)^2+y^2=1\text{ and }x^2+y^2<\epsilon^2\text{ and }x,y<0\}$

Each is homeomorphic to $(0,1)$.

share|improve this answer
1  
@user42912: It could actually be $2,3$, or $4$, depending on what nbhd of $p$ you look at. $(S^1\lor S^1)\setminus\{p\}$ has two components; removing $p$ from a nbhd that includes all of one $S^1$ and an arc of the other leaves three components. Give me a few minutes, and I’ll add something about this to my answer. –  Brian M. Scott Oct 14 '12 at 9:31
1  
@user42912: You’re welcome; good luck! –  Brian M. Scott Oct 14 '12 at 10:02
1  
@user42912: Yes, that’s exactly what I intended. And those circles are tangent at the origin, so the origin acts as the gluing point. –  Brian M. Scott Oct 14 '12 at 10:36
1  
@user42912: It doesn’t fail: $t\mapsto\langle\cos 2\pi t,\sin 2\pi t\rangle$ maps $(0,1)$ homeomorphically onto all of the unit circle except the point $\langle 1,0\rangle$, so by choosing the right open subinterval of $(0,1)$, you can get any open arc of the unit circle. –  Brian M. Scott Oct 15 '12 at 8:33
1  
@user42912: That’s the hard way. Just show that its inverse is continuous; the inverse maps the point with polar coordinates $\langle 1,\theta\rangle$ to $\frac{\theta}{2\pi}\in(0,1)$, and that’s clearly a continuous map. (I’m about to go to bed, so it’ll be a few hours before I’m back.) –  Brian M. Scott Oct 15 '12 at 12:47
show 14 more comments

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.