2
$\begingroup$

I was thinking recently about Louville's Theorem and the fact that there exist a bijection between $\mathbb{R}^2$ and $ \mathbb{R}$.

Since $\mathbb{C}$ is nothing but $\mathbb{R}^2$ via the construction of $\mathbb{C}$ we can use those terms interchangeably. I thought of the following tho transformations. First $$f_1:\mathbb{R}^2 \to \mathbb{R}$$

which we know exists image 1

and then $$f_2:\mathbb{R} \to S^1 $$ witch is a well known bijection and is differentiable (as far as I know).

the composition of the functions $f_1$ and $f_2$ (let's call it $f_c$) should hence be a bijection between $\mathbb{R}^2$ and $ \mathbb{R}$.

Louville's theorem states that any function such that $|f(z)|<M$ and $f\in H(\mathbb{C})$ must be equal to a constant function. aka $f(z)=c, c\in\mathbb{C}$ Our function $f_c$ is not a constant function because it ascribes a unique number in $S^1$ for each number in $\mathbb{C}$ and also $f_c$ is bounded $(f_c(z)<2$ for every $z\in \mathbb{C})$. The only thing that could make Louville's theorem not work in this case would be the fact that $f_1$ is not a holomorphic function. Which would mean that there is no holomorphic bijection between $\mathbb{R}^2$ and $ \mathbb{R}$.

Is this argument true? If it is, does anyone know any restraints when it comes to differentiability of bijections between $\mathbb{R}^2$ and $ \mathbb{R}$?

Thank you in advance.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I'm confused on the ordering of your maps; you seem to end in $S^1$, but claim you have a differentiable map $R^2$ to $R$. $\endgroup$ – TomGrubb Mar 12 '18 at 19:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There is no continuous bijection $\mathbb R\to S^1$. $\endgroup$ – Christoph Mar 12 '18 at 19:31
  • $\begingroup$ The pre-image of any point $x\in\Bbb R$ of a map $\Bbb R^2\to\Bbb R$ is either empty or "at least one-dimensional". As such there exists no injective differentiable map from $\Bbb R^2$ into $\Bbb R$. $\endgroup$ – s.harp Mar 12 '18 at 19:40
  • $\begingroup$ @ThomasGrubb I claim the opposite that there is no differentiable map from $R^2$ to $R$ $\endgroup$ – Alexandar Solženjicin Mar 12 '18 at 19:43
  • $\begingroup$ @Christoph I would like to see a proof(not that I don't believe you) if you know a link, book reference.. $\endgroup$ – Alexandar Solženjicin Mar 12 '18 at 19:46
7
$\begingroup$

There are no continuous injective maps from $\mathbb R^2$ to $\mathbb R$ (which implies there are no differentiable maps with this property).

Proof: Suppose there is such a map $f.$ Then for each $y\in \mathbb R,$ $f$ is continuous and injective on the line $\mathbb R\times \{y\}.$ Since each of these lines is connected, so is each $f(\mathbb R\times \{y\}).$ Thus each $f(\mathbb R\times \{y\})$ is an interval with nonempty interior, and therefore contains a rational. But the collection of all of these intervals is uncountable and pairwise disjoint. This implies there are uncountably many distinct rational numbers, contradiction.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Holomorphic functions are open. So if a holomorphic function is a bijection, it automatically is a homeomorphism.
But there is no homeomorphism from $\mathbb R^2$ to $\mathbb R$.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

You cannot even do this for a continuous mapping. You may be thinking of the existence of space filling curves: continuous onto mappings from $[0,1]$ to $[0,1] \times [0,1]$, but these are not 1-1 mappings.

A theorem relevant to your question is Brouwer's Invariance of DomainTheorem. If $f:\mathbb{R}^2 \to \mathbb{R}$ is a continuous 1-1 map, then so is the composite with an inclusion $i:\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}^2$ given by $i(x) = (x,0)$. Then $i \circ f:\mathbb{R}^2 \to \mathbb{R}^2$ is a continuous 1-1 map. By Invariance of Domain, the image is an open set. But this is not the case since the image is contained in the image of $i$, namely the $x$-axis.

It may be possible to give a much simpler proof if you assume the map is differentiable. (The Invariance of Domain Theorem, while unsurprising, is very difficult to prove without knowing some geometric or algebraic topology.)

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I edited my previous answer. It now gives a simple proof for the continuous case. $\endgroup$ – zhw. Aug 24 '18 at 19:16

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.