A challenge problem from Sally's Fundamentals of Mathematical Analysis.

Problem reads: Suppose $A$ is a subset of $\mathbb{R}^2$. Show that $A$ can contain at most one point $p$ such that $A$ is isometric to $A \setminus \{p\}$ with the usual metric.

I'm really not sure where to begin. I've found a fairly trivial example of a set for which this is true: let $A$, for example, be $\{(n,0) : n \in \{0\} \cup \mathbb{Z}^+\}$. Then we may remove the point $(0,0)$ and construct the isometry $f(n,0) = (n+1, 0)$. This is clearly an isometry because $d((n,0),(m,0)) = d((n+1,0),(m+1,0))$, in other words, we are just shifting to the right. But now suppose we remove some $(p,0) \neq (0,0)$. Then we must have $d((m,0), (m+1,0)) = 1$ for all points $(m,0), (m+1,0)$, but since $(p,0)$ was removed we will always have a "jump" point where the distance between two successive points is $2$.

But I'm not sure where to proceed. Isometries are equivalence relations, so maybe we can show that if $A \setminus \{p\}$ is isometric to $A \setminus \{q\}$, then $p = q$?

I will say that given how often Sally's errant in his book and that some of the other challenge problems are open problems, this might not have a reasonable solution (if it's even true).

Any ideas?

To avoid any confusion, the problem isn't asking a proof for the set not being isometric to itself minus two points at the same time. It's asking for a proof that there is at most one unique point that you can remove from the set and then create an isometry. This was something I misinterpreted for a while.

Edit: This is still stumping me. I'm beginning to wonder whether it's even true at all. Well, I've put a bounty on it, which hopefully serves as bit more incentive to try this problem out!

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Good example, well thought through. This looks like a toughie. $\endgroup$ – Ben Grossmann Nov 22 '16 at 4:22
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @Omnomnomnom: A need not have any isolated points: let $A=\{\langle 1,n\rangle:n\in\Bbb N\}$, where the ordered pairs are polar coordinates. An anticlockwise rotation about the origin through $1$ radian is an isometry of $A$ to $A\setminus\{\langle 1,0\rangle\}$, and $A$ is dense in $S^1$. $\endgroup$ – Brian M. Scott Nov 22 '16 at 23:32
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ Question is answered here: mathoverflow.net/questions/255448/… $\endgroup$ – Ben G. Dec 26 '16 at 8:24
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @BenG. is there not a purely analytic solution? I would be disappointed if this is true (and disgusted by Sally) $\endgroup$ – David Bowman Dec 27 '16 at 23:42
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GuyFsone: Why did you assign a bounty here, at MSE? It looks like an invitation to post incorrect solutions. The problem was solved by YCor in his answer here: mathoverflow.net/questions/255448/…. $\endgroup$ – Moishe Kohan Nov 13 '17 at 20:37

This is not a formal answer to question. But just to let future readers and the OP know that a brilliant and detailed solution to this problem can be found Here in mathobverflow. This was prosed by @Ycor.

| cite | improve this answer | |

This is an elementary proof in the case that neither isometry is a rotation. Suppose there to be isometries $P$ mapping $A$ to $A \setminus \{p\}$ and $Q$ mapping $A$ to $A \setminus \{q\}, p≠q$. $P$ and $Q$ cannot be self-inverse and so are either translations, glide reflections or rotations. Unless one or both of the isometries are rotations we therefore know that $P^2$ and $Q^2$ are both translations.

If $P^2$ and $Q^2$ are not parallel translations, the effect on a point of successively performing $Q^2$ $n$ times, then $P^{-2}$ $ n$ times, then $Q^{-2}$ $ n$ times and finally $P^2 $$n$ times is to make the point traverse $4n$ points of a parallelogram. Furthermore, by increasing the value of $n$, we can make the second and third edges of this parallelogram as far from the points $p,P(p),q$ and $ Q(q)$ as we wish. Starting from $P(p) ∈A$ we can therefore assume that all of the $4n$ points are also in $A$. In particular,$$P^{-1} (p)= P^{2(n-1)} Q^{-2n} P^{-2n} Q^{2n} P(p)∈A,$$ a contradiction.

If $P^2$ and $Q^2$ are parallel translations then first suppose $P$ and $ Q $ are glide reflections with parallel but not equal axes. Then $ PQ $ can be used in place of $ Q^2$ in the above case. Otherwise, $P$ and $Q$ commute and then $Q^{-1} (p)∈A$ since $p≠q$. Therefore $P^{-1} Q^{-1} (p)∈A$ since $Q^{-1} (p)≠p$. Then $P^{-1} (p)=QP^{-1} Q^{-1}(p)∈A$, a contradiction.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Why should an isometry of A with A-p necessarily extend to an isometry of R^2? (Which is what I presume you are using in order to classify isometries into translations, rotations, etc.) $\endgroup$ – Bruno Joyal Nov 16 '17 at 16:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I was assuming from the outset that we were dealing with isometries of the Euclidean plane. $\endgroup$ – S. Dolan Nov 16 '17 at 17:03
  • $\begingroup$ $A$ is a metric space in its own right, and the notion of "isometry of $A$" makes no reference to its living in $\mathbb R^2$... $\endgroup$ – Bruno Joyal Nov 16 '17 at 17:50
  • $\begingroup$ The question does not use the phrase "isometry of A" . I chose to use isometries of the Euclidean plane for "an elementary proof" in some cases. $\endgroup$ – S. Dolan Nov 16 '17 at 19:43

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.