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 $\Omega$ be an open, bounded from $\mathbb{R}^n$ and $f: \overline{\Omega} \rightarrow \overline{\Omega}$ a contiuous function such that $f(x)=x, \forall x \in \partial \Omega$.

Prove that $f(\overline{\Omega})=\overline{\Omega}$.

how to solve it ? any idea please ?

share|cite|improve this question
Did you mean that $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}$? – Marra Feb 23 '13 at 14:44
$\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ sorry – Vrouvrou Feb 23 '13 at 14:57
If we divide $\overline{\Omega}$ in it's connected components, I think we just have to show that if $U$ is an component, then $f(int(U))= U$ where $int$ is interior. Is this true? – Tomás Feb 23 '13 at 15:18
@Tomás Yes, but you probably want to look at the components of $\Omega$. Otherwise $int(U)$ doesn't need to be connected. I think one can show fairly easily that it suffices to prove the result for a connected set. – JSchlather Feb 23 '13 at 15:50
For the sufficiency it is enough to prove that $f(int (U))\subset U$. – Tomás Feb 23 '13 at 15:59
up vote 11 down vote accepted

The problem can be solved using degree theory.

Suppose otherwise, that $f(\overline{\Omega})\subset\overline{\Omega}$ is strict. Since $f(\partial\Omega)=\partial{\Omega}\subset f(\overline{\Omega})$, then there is some $p\in\Omega$ such that $p\notin f(\Omega)$.

Since $p\notin\partial\Omega=f(\partial\Omega)=\mathbb{I}(\partial\Omega)$, then $\text{deg}(f,\Omega,p)=\text{deg}(\mathbb{I},\Omega,p)=1$ by the Poincare-Bohl theorem.

But the basic properties of degree give that $\text{deg}(f,\Omega,p)\neq0\Longrightarrow\exists x\in\Omega$ such that $f(x)=p$, so we get a contradiction.

share|cite|improve this answer
What happens if $p\in f(\bar\Omega)\setminus\bar\Omega$ instead? – Asaf Karagila Mar 2 '13 at 2:41
$f(\overline{\Omega})\backslash\overline{\Omega}=\emptyset$ since $f:\overline{\Omega}\longrightarrow\overline{\Omega}$. – mdg Mar 2 '13 at 2:48
D'oh, thanks! :-) – Asaf Karagila Mar 2 '13 at 2:51
+1. Degree theory is so impressive! – Tomás Mar 2 '13 at 11:20
The various techniques which constitute the area of nonlinear (functional) analysis are all equally impressive and useful, and I believe deserve more attention and study than they get...! – mdg Mar 2 '13 at 20:09

Note that $\Omega$ can be written as a countable union of disjoint open intervals, i.e. $\Omega=\cup I_n$, where $I_n=(a_n,b_n)$. Then $f(a_n)=a_n$ and $f(b_n)=b_n$ and because $f$ is continous, $f$ satisfies the intermediate value property, hence, for each $u\in [a_n,b_n]$ with $f(a_n)\leq u\leq f(b_n)$, you can find $v\in [a_n,b_n]$ such that $f(v)=u$. This implies that $\overline{\Omega}\subset f(\overline{\Omega})$

Edit: As Ayman pointed out, I just proved that $\overline{\Omega}\subset f(\overline{\Omega})$ and because I think this might be helpful to someone, I will not delete the answer.

Remark: When I answered the question, $\Omega$ was a subset of $\mathbb{R}$.

share|cite|improve this answer
The question says $f : \overline{\Omega} \to \overline{\Omega}$. So equality holds after all. – Ayman Hourieh Feb 23 '13 at 15:00
All you needed to prove was that $\overline{\Omega}\subseteq f\left(\overline{\Omega}\right),$ since we have $f:\overline{\Omega}\to\overline{\Omega}.$ However, the question has been edited so that $\Omega\subseteq\Bbb R^n$, so you'll need to take a different approach. – Cameron Buie Feb 23 '13 at 15:02
It is true, but now I have to change it. – Tomás Feb 23 '13 at 15:04
so you say that we have only $\overline{\Omega}\subset f(\overline{\Omega})$ ? – Vrouvrou Feb 23 '13 at 16:15
@KarimaMht You have $f(\overline{\Omega})\subseteq \overline{\Omega}$ by assumption. – 1015 Feb 23 '13 at 16:21

Wrong Solution

If $\Omega = \emptyset$, then we are done.

The plan for nonempty $\Omega$ (as hinted at by JSchlather and Tomás) is to show that $f(\overline{U}) = \overline{U}$ for any connected component $U$ of $\Omega$. The result follows from this, since the connected components exhaust $\Omega$.

We already know $f(\overline{U}) \subset \overline{\Omega}$.

Now, $\overline{U}$ is connected (since $U$ is connected), so $f(\overline{U})$ is connected, since the continuous image of a connected set is connected.

Consequently, $f(\overline{U})$ lies entirely within one connected component of $\Omega$.

Since $f(x) = x$ on $\partial U \subset \overline{U}$, it must be that $f(\overline{U}) \subseteq \overline{U}$.

Therefore, all we need to show now is that $f(\overline{U}) \supseteq \overline{U}$.

Let $B \supset \overline{U}$ be a closed ball neighborhood of $\overline{U}$. Extend $f$ to a function $F: B \to B$ by the identity map on $B\smallsetminus\overline{U}$. Then $F$ fixes the boundary of $B$ (in addition to lots of other elements of $B$), and is continuous. Also $F$ takes $B\smallsetminus\overline{U}$ to itself, and $\overline{U}$ to itself. So it will suffice to show that $F$ is surjective for any map $F: B \to B$ from a ball to itself fixing the boundary.

Let $N_1 \supseteq N_2 \supseteq \cdots$ be a decreasing sequence of closed balls whose intersection is $x$. Let $K_i = F^{-1}(N_i)$. Then $K_1 \supseteq K_2 \supseteq \cdots$ is a decreasing sequence of closed sets such that $F^{-1}(\mbox{int }N_i) \subset K_i$; in particular, $K_i$ is nonempty. (The statement in bold is wrong, as pointed out by @G. Smith.)

Since $B$ is compact, the intersection of all the $K_i$ is nonempty; call it $\mathcal{K}$. Then $f(\mathcal{K}) \subseteq N_i$ for all $N_i$. Therefore $f(\mathcal{K}) = x$.

Now, $x$ was arbitrary, so $f$ is surjective, and we are done.

share|cite|improve this answer
This is not correct because $K_i$ may be empty. Since $U$ is open and you are assuming $x\in U$, then eventually $\text{int}N_i\subset U$. But there is no guarantee that $F^{-1}(\text{int}N_i)\neq\emptyset$, which is exactly what we are trying to prove, i.e. there may be no points in $U$ that map to $\text{int}N_i$. – mdg Mar 2 '13 at 7:36
-blush- Well, I suppose I ought to leave this nonanswer up as a warning to those attempting a solution without using more heavy machinery. It's so tempting. – Robert Haraway Mar 6 '13 at 20:17
It would be nice to be able to prove such a simple statement directly. Using degree theory seems to be shooting an ant with an atom bomb... – mdg Mar 6 '13 at 23:18

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.