2
$\begingroup$

An open subset $A \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{2}$ is not homeomorphic to an open subset of $\mathbb{R^{n}}$ for $n\geq 3$.

This question is from my General Topology class. We have seen up to part of algebraic topology.

My attempt:

Suppose a homeomorphism $f \colon X \to A$, where $X\subseteq \mathbb{R}^{n}$ is an open set. Then we can restrict this homeomorphism to an open ball contained in $X$ and, using some more homeomorphisms, suppose $X = \mathbb{R}^{n}$. Therefore we can also suppose $A \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{2}$ is an open simply connected set. Now, because of $\mathbb{R}^{n}-\{0\}$ is simply connected whenever $n\geq 3$, $f(\mathbb{R}^{n}-\{0\}) = A - \{f(0)\}$ is simply connected.

We want to deny that $A - \{f(0)\}$ is simply connected. In order to do that pick a $\delta > 0$ such that $B_{f(0)}[\delta] \subset A$. Then define the following function:

$$ \alpha \colon \mathbb{S}^{1} \to A - \{f(0)\}; ~ \alpha(z) = z\delta + f(0)$$

A set $X \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{n}$ is simply connected when every continuous function $p \colon \mathbb{S}^{1}\to X$ has a continuous extension $\overline{p}\colon \mathbb{B}^{2} \to X$.

I was not able to show that this function has not continuous extension to $\mathbb{B}^{2}$. Is it true? Any help would be appreciated but I would prefer help in my attempt.

Thank you.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think you can reduce to the case of $A$ being open simply connected. If $A$ is an open annulus at the beginning, there is no way to reduce it to your case $\endgroup$ – Randall Jun 21 '18 at 2:15
  • $\begingroup$ It is not the same set, indeed. But this does not matter if we finnd a contradiction, no? $\endgroup$ – Oddone Jun 21 '18 at 2:20
  • $\begingroup$ Can you use the fact that $S^1$ is not simply connected? $\endgroup$ – arkeet Jun 21 '18 at 2:29
  • $\begingroup$ Yes I do, @arkeet $\endgroup$ – Oddone Jun 21 '18 at 2:32
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think you can assume that the open set in $\Bbb R^n$ is homeomorphic to $\Bbb R^n$. It could be an open shell and that's definitively not homeomorphic to $\Bbb R^n$. $\endgroup$ – Cameron Williams Jun 21 '18 at 2:58
5
$\begingroup$

In order to reduce the problem to a problem about simply-connectedness, the thing you need is that the local property "every point $x \in X$ has a neighbourhood $U$ such that $U \setminus \{x\}$ is simply connected" is a homeomorphism invariant of $X$. This property holds for any open set in $\mathbb{R}^n$ for $n \ge 3$ (since any point has a neighbourhood homeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^n$), but not for $A \subseteq \mathbb{R}^2$, which can be proven as follows:


We want to show that if $U \subseteq \mathbb{R}^2$ is open and $a \in U$, then $U - \{a\}$ is not simply connected. There is $\delta > 0$ such that $U$ contains a closed ball $B_a(\delta)$, so in particular we have a map $$\alpha \colon \mathbb{S}^1 \to U - \{a\},\; \alpha(z) = \delta z + a.$$ The key is that this map has a left inverse $$\rho \colon U - \{a\} \to \mathbb{S}^1,\; \rho(x) = \frac{x-a}{|x-a|}$$ i.e. $\rho \circ \alpha = \operatorname{id}_{S^1}$. If $U - \{a\}$ were simply connected, then the map $\alpha$ would extend to $\bar\alpha \colon \mathbb{B}^2 \to U - \{a\}$. But then $$\rho \circ \bar\alpha \colon \mathbb{B}^2 \to \mathbb{S}^1$$ is a retraction, which is impossible since $\mathbb{S}^1$ is not simply connected.

$\endgroup$

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.