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.

Is $[0,1]^\omega$, i.e. $\prod_{n=0}^\infty [0,1]$ with the product topology, a continuous image of $[0,1]$? What if $[0,1]$ is replaced by $\mathbb{R}$?

Edit: It appears that the answer is yes, and follows from the Hahn-Mazurkiewicz Theorem ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-filling_curve#The_Hahn.E2.80.93Mazurkiewicz_theorem ). However, I am still interested in the related question: is $\mathbb{R}^\omega$ a continuous image of $\mathbb{R}$?

share|improve this question
1  
Are cutpoints preserved by continuity alone? I don't think so; the map fromI= [0,1] to $S^1$ seems to be a counter. Otherwise, one could maybe use the fact that compact metric spaces are the continuous image of the Cantor space C , and try to make the triangle f:C-->X and f: C-->Y commute. –  gary Oct 22 '11 at 4:51
    
You are right, cut points won't help, and in fact, the result is actually true (see my edit). –  Iian Smythe Oct 22 '11 at 6:02
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted

For the first question, this case is easier than the generic Hahn-Mazurkiewicz theorem. Begin with a Peano curve, or space-filling curve, continuous $f : [0,1] \to [0,1]^2$ onto. Once we have this, we can get a space-filling curve $f_3 : [0,1] \to [0,1]^3$ by fiddling with this: if $f(t) = (u(t),v(t))$ are the components of $f$, write $$ f_3(t) = \big(u(t),u(v(t)),v(v(t))\big) . $$ Check that it is continuous and onto. Now to do $f_4 : [0,1] \to [0,1]^4$ try this: $$ f_4(t) = \big(u(t),u(v(t)),u(v(v(t))),v(v(v(t)))\big) . $$ Once you understand why these work, it is natural to go on to $f_\infty : [0,1] \to [0,1]^\infty$ by: $$ f_\infty(t) = \big(u(t),u(v(t)),u(v(v(t))),u(v(v(v(t)))),\dots\big) . $$

share|improve this answer
    
I may be just missing something, but could you explain why that $f_3$ maps onto $[0,1]^3$? –  Iian Smythe Oct 22 '11 at 14:10
    
Let $(x,y,z)$ in $[0,1]^3$. There is $p \in [0,1]$ with $u(p)=y, v(p)=z$. There is $t \in [0,1]$ with $u(t)=x, v(t)=p$. Compute $f_3(t)$. –  GEdgar Oct 22 '11 at 17:39
    
Thanks, I see it now. –  Iian Smythe Oct 22 '11 at 17:52
add comment

So if I'm reading correctly you want to find out if there is a continuous (with respect product topology) surjective map $f: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{\omega}$?

No, there is not. Note that $\mathbb{R}$ is $\sigma$-compact, so write:

$$\mathbb{R} = \bigcup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} [-n,n]$$

Then using the fact that $f$ is surjective we get:

$$\mathbb{R}^{\omega} = \bigcup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} f([-n,n])$$

By continuity of $f$ each $D_n=f([-n,n])$ is a compact subset of $\mathbb{R}^{\omega}$. So the question boils down to whether is possible that $\mathbb{R}^{\omega}$ is $\sigma$-compact with product topology.

No, let $\pi_{n}$ be the standard projection from $\mathbb{R}^{\omega}$ onto $\mathbb{R}$, then $\pi_{n}f([-n,n])$ is a compact subset of $\mathbb{R}$ so bounded. Thus for each $n \in \mathbb{N}$ choose $x_{n} \in \mathbb{R} \setminus \pi_{n}f([-n,n])$ then $x=(x_{n})$ lies in $\mathbb{R}^{\omega}$ but not in $\bigcup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} f([-n,n])$, a contradiction.

share|improve this answer
    
It seems a nice argument. but I did not understand the contradiction. $x_n$ does not belongs to $\pi_n f([-n,n])$ but it could be an element of $\pi_n f([-k(n),k(n)])$ for some big $k(n)$. So if this happens we don't get the contradiction. can you manage to include this analysis in your argument ? Or it is there and I did not saw it ? –  Leandro Oct 22 '11 at 7:13
1  
@Leandro: It doesn’t matter: the contradiction is still there. Here are a few more details. For $n\in\omega$ let $K_n=f[[-n,n]]$; $\pi_n[K_n]$ is compact, so we pick $x_n\in\mathbb{R}\setminus \pi_n[K_n]\ne\varnothing$. Let $x=\langle x_k:k\in\omega\rangle\in\mathbb{R}^\omega$. For each $n\in\omega$ we have $\pi_n(x)=x_n\notin\pi_n[K_n]$, so $x\notin K_n$. Hence $x\notin\bigcup_nK_n=\mathbb{R}^\omega$, a contradiction. It’s a kind of diagonal argument: we use the $n$-th coordinate of $x$ to avoid $K_n$. –  Brian M. Scott Oct 22 '11 at 7:47
    
@BrianM.Scott thanks for post this. In fact, the answer's idea it is correct but this argument let more precise how to get the contradiction –  Leandro Oct 22 '11 at 8:31
    
Thanks, this definitely does the trick. –  Iian Smythe Oct 22 '11 at 14:07
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.