0
$\begingroup$

GRE 0568 #65

enter image description here

This has been asked about here: Why are there no continuous one-to-one functions from (0, 1) onto [0, 1]?

There are proofs by:


None of the proofs are like mine, so I guess my proof is somehow wrong:

Such $f$ in $(III)$ would be a homeomorphism and thus $f^{-1}$ is a map that is a homeomorphism too. In particular, $f^{-1}$ is a map and is continuous. I believe now the same argument that disproves $(II)$, also disproves $(III)$:

In $(II)$, we must have $g(\text{compact}) \ \text{is compact}$ ($g$ is the supposed function in $(II)$). Now, we must have $f^{-1}(\text{compact}) \ \text{is compact}$.

Where did I go wrong ($\emptyset$ is an answer), and why/why not?


UPDATE: $f$ isn't necessarily an open map.

NEW PROOF:

That $f$ is continuous and bijective, I believe implies that $f^{-1}$ is a closed map. This is a contradiction because the image of $[0,1]$ under $f^{-1}$ should be closed, but we instead get $(0,1)$.

Is this still wrong?

UPDATE:

$(III)$ can be understood in trying to construct the continuous function in $(I)$: It will never be injective. (I didn't see at first $(III)$ was just $(I)$ with injective.)

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What makes you think that all continuous bijections are homeomorphisms? $\endgroup$ – Kavi Rama Murthy Oct 25 '18 at 9:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Continuous bijections are not homeomorphisms. Continuous bijections with continuous inverses are homeomorphisms. This makes the first assertion of your proof, namely that $f$ in $III$ is a homeomorphism, incorrect. $\endgroup$ – астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг Oct 25 '18 at 9:57
  • $\begingroup$ @KaviRamaMurthy OOHHHH LOL OK THANKS!!! $\endgroup$ – BCLC Oct 25 '18 at 9:59
  • $\begingroup$ @астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг OOHHHH LOL OK THANKS!!! $\endgroup$ – BCLC Oct 25 '18 at 9:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No, that doesn't prove that $f$ is a homeomorphism. $\endgroup$ – Kavi Rama Murthy Oct 25 '18 at 10:16
1
$\begingroup$

I think it is worth giving a counterexample to the assertion : "continuous bijections are homeomorphisms".

The example is a rather simple one : the identity map is always a bijection. If you take two topologies on a set, one which is (strictly) coarser than the other, then the identity map will be continuous precisely in one direction : from the topology with more open sets to the one with less open sets. The other way, if you take a pullback of an open set which is not in the smaller topology, it won't be open in the smaller topology, hence continuity is not possible.

For example, take $\mathbb R$ with the usual topology, and say $\mathbb R$ with indiscrete/discrete topology with the identity map.

This is an example of a continuous bijection which is NOT a homeomorphism. There are conditions under which a continuous bijection is a homeomorphism (compact to Hausdorff), but it is not true in general.


It is true that $f^{-1}$ is closed : in fact, the fact that $f^{-1}$ carries closed sets to closed sets is equivalent to the continuity of $f$. Therefore, we do not expect this fact to be of help to us in the question. I will expand.

When we look at $[0,1]$ and $(0,1)$ as topological spaces, it is with the subspace topology derived from $\mathbb R$. That is, a description of "open" or "closed" in each of these topologies, is given by the intersection of the set with a set that is open or closed in $\mathbb R$ respectively.

For example :

  • $[0,1]$ is closed and open in the $[0,1]$ topology, because $[0,1] = [0,1] \cap \mathbb R$, and so it is the intersection of $[0,1]$ with a set both open and closed in $\mathbb R$.

  • Similarly, $(0,1)$ is both open and closed in the subspace topology derived from $\mathbb R$ (in the subspace topology, not the one on $\mathbb R$).

With this in mind, since the map is from $(0,1)$ to $[0,1]$, the fact that $f^{-1}([0,1]) = (0,1)$ is closed is true, and not a contradiction : this is because $f$, as defined as a topological map, is operating with the subspace topologies, not those directly derived from $\mathbb R$. That is the problem with your logic.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Follow up: Wait but $f^{-1}$ is a closed map, and that could be argued...? $\endgroup$ – BCLC Oct 25 '18 at 10:10
  • $\begingroup$ Note: I updated my post. $\endgroup$ – BCLC Oct 25 '18 at 10:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have also updated my post. You can clarify things which you do not understand, since I believe this takes you into slightly alien territory. $\endgroup$ – астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг Oct 25 '18 at 10:26
  • $\begingroup$ Lol had a feeling it was something like that hehehe THANKS! $\endgroup$ – BCLC Oct 25 '18 at 10:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You are welcome! $\endgroup$ – астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг Oct 25 '18 at 10:32
0
$\begingroup$

Overkill solution: by the invariance of domain theorem (1-dimensional version), a 1-1 continuous function $f$ on an open subset $U$ of $\mathbb{R}$ into $\mathbb{R}$ is open, and in particular $f[U]$ is open too.

$[0,1]$ is not open, so no such map can exist onto $[0,1]$.

Other more elementary solution: Suppose $f: (0,1) \to [0,1]$ is 1-1, continuous and onto. Let $0<t_0,t_1 < 1$ be such that $f(t_0) = 0, f(t_1)=1$. If e.g. $t_0 < t_1$, then $f[t_0,t_1] = [0,1]$ and otherwise ($t_1 < t_0$), $f[t_1,t_0]=[0,1]$ by the intermediate value theorem. Now in the first case any $x \in (0,t_0)$ will assume an image already assumed by a different point from $[t_0,t_1]$, contradicting 1-1-ness of $f$. Otherwise the same holds for an $x \in (0,t_1)$ and $[t_1,t_0]$ resp. In either case we see that any continuous map $f$ from $(0,1)$ to $[0,1]$ that assumes the values $0$ and $1$ cannot be 1-1.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Henno Brandsma! 1. Why wouldn't астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг's answer about the closed map contradict your answer? 2. Why doesn't Wikipedia imply $f$ is indeed a homeomorphism as I (incorrectly) deduced? 'f is a homeomorphism between U and V.' $\endgroup$ – BCLC Oct 25 '18 at 14:28
0
$\begingroup$

A continuous 1-1 map from (0, 1) to {\mathbb R} is order preserving or order reversing. Assume order preserving. If c maps to 0 then any d in (0, 1) less than c would map to a point less than 0 in [0,1]. There are no such.

$\endgroup$

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.