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.

Let $f:\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ be such that $\left\| f(x)-f(y)\right\| =\left\| x-y\right\|$. Is $f$ necessarily surjective?

If this is so, you can prove (Mazur-Ulam Theorem) that $f$ is affine, and hence you could classify all isometries of $\mathbb{R}^n$. However, at the moment, I can't think of any good ideas to prove that $f$ is surjective. For that matter, is it even the case that $f$ must be surjective?

Any ideas would be most welcomed.

Thanks much!

share|improve this question
2  
In the Euclidean case it easily follows from polarization that $f$ is of the form $f(x) = f(0) + Ux$ where $U$ is orthogonal. Do you want more general norms? –  t.b. May 2 '11 at 20:20
1  
One can prove that $T(x):=f(x)-f(0)$ defines an orthogonal linear map (i.e. $T$ is an isomorphism and $\|Tx\|=\|x\|$). See e.g. page 148 of math.brown.edu/~treil/papers/LADW/LADW.pdf –  wildildildlife May 2 '11 at 20:22
    
If $f$ is an isometry it is not so hard, let $T_v$ be the translation over $v$, then set $g:= T_{-v} \circ f$, then $g$ is an isometry with $g(0) = 0$ Hence, $g$ is an orthogonal map. Hence $f$ is surjective. –  Jonas Teuwen May 2 '11 at 20:25
    
Just to make my point more clear (which was repeated by wildildildlife and Jonas). If you're dealing with Euclidean $\mathbb{R}^n$ polarization is sufficient and you don't need Mazur-Ulam at all. By the way: For a neat proof of Mazur-Ulam I'd recommend Väisälä's recent paper. –  t.b. May 2 '11 at 20:32
    
@Theo,@Jonas It seems as if you are both using what I am trying to prove. How do you know $U$ is orthogonal (in this case, orthogonal=linear isometry). Of course $U$ is an isometry, but how is it linear? This requires an application of Mazur-Ulam, which requires surjectivity, hence, the reason I posed the question. A proof that $U$ is linear without using surjectivity would be an solution to my problem, however. –  Jonathan Gleason May 2 '11 at 20:34

3 Answers 3

up vote 14 down vote accepted

Let's assume WLOG that $f(0) = 0$. For every $r$, it follows that $f$ defines an isometry from the sphere of radius $r$ to the sphere of radius $r$.

Proposition: Any isometry $f : X \to X$ of a compact metric space is bijective.

Proof. $f$ is clearly injective. Suppose $f$ is not bijective. Then $f(X)$ is compact, so given $x \in X \setminus f(X)$ the distance $\text{dist}(x, f(X))$ is positive. Pick $\epsilon < \text{dist}(x, f(X))$. Let $N$ be the smallest positive integer for which $X$ admits a cover by $N$ open sets of diameter less than $\epsilon$. No such set containing $x$ can intersect $f(X)$, but by pulling back along $f$ it follows that we can find a cover of $X$ by $N-1$ open sets of diameter less than $\epsilon$; contradiction.

(In fact any isometry of a compact metric space is a homeomorphism, since a continuous bijection from a compact space to a Hausdorff space is necessarily closed.)

Apparently there are counterexamples to the above when $X$ is not compact, but I don't know any nice ones off the top of my head.

share|improve this answer
8  
Re: Last comment: simply take the unilateral shift $e_{n} \mapsto e_{n+1}$ on $\ell^2{(\mathbb{N})}$ (and restrict it to the unit sphere, if you want). –  t.b. May 2 '11 at 21:04
    
@Theo: yes, I just thought of a similar example (shifting the right half of a function to the right on $L^2(\mathbb{R})$). Do you know of a counterexample which is locally compact? –  Qiaochu Yuan May 2 '11 at 21:06
    
Once you have that $f$ is bijective, you don't need to work so hard to prove it is a homeomorphism. $f^{-1}$ is also clearly an isometry and isometries are continuous, therefore $f$ is a homeomorphism. In fact, without surjectivity, you still have that it is a homeomorphism onto its image. Really nice argument BTW. –  Jonathan Gleason May 2 '11 at 21:10
3  
I don't think so, it seems that the linear structure (or some unique geodesic extension property from a base point arbitrarily far in all directions of a sphere around some base point) is essential. The silliest counterexample I can think of is to take the positive reals and to push them in the positive direction. –  t.b. May 2 '11 at 21:12
    
@Theo: right. That's a pretty easy counterexample; thanks. –  Qiaochu Yuan May 2 '11 at 21:14

First assume $f$ fixes the origin. Show that $f$ preserves the inner product. Then you can show that $f$ is linear. Since you can translate a general isometry $f$ to obtain a new isometry that fixes the origin, $f$ must be surjective, and in fact given by $Ax+b$, where $A$ is an orthogonal matrix and $b$ is a vector.

share|improve this answer
    
Sure, but the point was that, in showing that $f$ is linear, I needed to know a priori that $f$ was surjective. –  Jonathan Gleason Nov 22 '12 at 16:04

Jonathan,

Yeah I thought that too at first, but you can show an isometry of $\mathbb{R}^n$ fixing the origin is linear without assuming that it's surjective. The key is the inner product, which, of course, you don't have in a general normed vector space. Preserving the inner product and fixing the origin implies that the map is linear (a great exercise). Then since it's injective and we're in finite and equal dimensions, it's also surjective. I found this thread because I had the exact same question as you. There are geometric proofs of surjectivity in $\mathbb{R}^2$ involving triangles or circles as well.

share|improve this answer

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.