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.

Does there exist a continuous bijection from $(0,1)$ to $[0,1]$? Of course the map should not be a proper map.

share|improve this question
    
@Asaf: I don't think that this really is a duplicate, even if the question is briefly addressed there. –  t.b. May 31 '11 at 11:33
    
@Theo: You are correct. :-) –  Asaf Karagila May 31 '11 at 11:41
    
What about such map from a non compact set to compact set in nice topologies? –  Alex May 31 '11 at 12:14
1  
what exactly is the reason for non existence? In the (0,1) case some sort of local compactness is the reason.Can the proof generalized to non existence of a map from open ball in R^n to a closed ball. –  Alex May 31 '11 at 12:27
4  
@Alex: By the way, since you're new here: you can accept an answer by clicking on the grey checkmark sign to the right of it (I'm not saying you should accept mine even though I wouldn't complain). –  t.b. May 31 '11 at 12:53
show 5 more comments

4 Answers

Since Theo gave an answer I am going to be nitpicking and add one remark. When speaking about continuity (especially when tagging under [topology]) it is best to mention the topology you are working with. In this case, you mean in the standard topology.

Otherwise, consider the discrete topology, i.e. every set is open:

Let $f\colon [0,1]\to (0,1)$ be any bijection, it is continuous since all sets are open, the preimage of an open set is an open set, thus $f$ is continuous.

share|improve this answer
3  
Oy, do you really want me not to downvote this? :) Of course, you're right, but come on! :), +1 for the effort –  t.b. May 31 '11 at 11:49
22  
On the contrary: when mentioning subsets of the reals, assume the standard topology unless otherwise stated. –  GEdgar May 31 '11 at 13:24
2  
@GEdgar: When taking a course in real analysis? Sure. When taking a course in point-set topology? Not if you want to be accurate. –  Asaf Karagila May 31 '11 at 14:00
4  
@Asaf: When answering a question on this board? YES. Or, if you want to be super-accurate, add "assuming the usual topology" to your answer. –  GEdgar Jun 1 '11 at 13:25
2  
@AsafKaragila: it would be complete to give an example of one such bijection (e.g. $0\mapsto\frac12$, $\frac1n\mapsto\frac1{n+2}$ for $n=1,2,3,\dots$, and $x\mapsto x$, otherwise). –  robjohn Nov 4 '12 at 15:28
show 2 more comments

No. If $f:(0,1) \to [0,1]$ were continuous and bijective, there would be a unique point $x \in (0,1)$ such that $f(x) = 1$. However, since $f$ is continuous, the intervals $[x - \varepsilon, x]$ and $[x, x + \varepsilon]$ would be mapped to intervals $[a,1]$ and $[b,1]$, say. By bijectivity we'd have $a, b \lt 1$. Thus every value strictly between $\max{\{a,b\}}$ and $1$ would be assumed at least twice, contradicting bijectivity.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Let $f:(0,1) \rightarrow [0,1]$ be continuous and surjective. (Actually, we just need to suppose that $0$ and $1$ are in the image of $f$.) Let $a,b \in (0,1)$ such that $f(a)=0$ and $f(b)=1$. Let $I=[a,b]$ if $a<b$ or $I=[b,a]$ if $b<a$. Then, by the intermediate value theorem, $f(I)$ is an interval that contains $0$ and $1$ and so $f(I)$ contains $[0,1]$, which implies $f(I)=[0,1]$. But then $f$ cannot be injective because there are lots of points in $(0,1)\setminus I$.

share|improve this answer
    
I like this answer a lot :) Very clever! –  Prism May 5 '13 at 22:10
    
+1 thanks dear friend –  B. S. Jun 30 '13 at 11:24
add comment

Suppose that $f:(0,1) \rightarrow [0,1]$ is 1-1 and continuous. By the intermediate value theorem, the image of any interval under $f$ is an interval. Since $f$ is 1-1, it is either (strictly) monotone increasing or decreasing. Hence, $f(0,1)$ is an interval. Without loss of generality, assume $f$ is increasing; were it not this analysis would apply to $1 - f$.

Suppose now that $f$ is onto; then we must have some $t\in(0,1)$ with $f(t) = 1$. Because $f$ is strictly monotone increasing, we would have to have $f(s) > 1$, for $t \le s < 1$. This violates the premise that $f(0,1) \subseteq [0,1]$. Hence, $f$ cannot be onto.

share|improve this answer
    
You need the continuity to get this. 1-1 alone does not imply monotone. –  ncmathsadist May 31 '11 at 12:20
    
I don't think a continuous 1-1 function should be monotone.There may be non differentiable kind of things with nowhere monotonocity –  Alex May 31 '11 at 12:20
5  
Yes, continuous 1-1 function defined on an interval is monotone. Interesting application of intermediate value theorem several times. –  GEdgar May 31 '11 at 13:22
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.