What are advantages and disadvantages of considering arbitrary functions from a subset of $\mathbb{R}$ to $\mathbb{R}^n$ rather than classically defined paths (that is functions from a connected subset of $\mathbb{R}$ to $\mathbb{R}^n$)?

In other words, why many mathematicians have chosen when they define paths to consider only functions from a connected subset of $\mathbb{R}$?

What results do not generalize nicely to unconnected subsets of $\mathbb{R}$?

One such result is that a function with zero derivative is constant. But we can replace "constant" with "locally constant" and pass.

  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I'd not say that the Cantor's set is a "path". $\endgroup$ – ajotatxe Aug 5 '16 at 20:37
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Doesn't a path imply you can get from any point to any other? If you define a path as a map from an arbitrary subset of $\Bbb R$ then I think it would be misnamed as a path. $\endgroup$ – Gregory Grant Aug 5 '16 at 20:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You'll be throwing at least the following babies out with the bath water: Cauchy's integral theorem, Riemann surfaces, covering spaces, homotopy theory, ... I.e., essentially everything that depends on "path" having its intuitive meaning as a continuous route from one point in a space to another. $\endgroup$ – Rob Arthan Aug 5 '16 at 20:49

The first thought that comes to mind is that path-connectedness would no longer imply connectedness, which seems contrary to intuition.

If the subsets of $\mathbb{R}$ are truly allowed to be arbitrary, then every topological space is path connected trivially, since you can take the points $\{a, b\}, a \neq b \in \mathbb{R}$ and for $x,y \in X$ set $f(a)=x$ and $f(b)=y$ and this function is then a "continuous path from x to y."


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.