2
$\begingroup$

Are the $\Bbb S^2\times \Bbb R^2$ and $\Bbb R^2\times \Bbb S^2$ homeomorphic? I know that the answer is certainly yes but what is confused me is the following:

  • $\Bbb R^2\times \Bbb S^2$: Consider a plane and attach a $2$-sphere to each point of it,
  • $\Bbb S^2\times \Bbb R^2$: Consider a $2$-sphere and attach a plan $\Bbb R^2$ to each point of it.

How to justify geometrically that this two are exactly a copy of each other?

Update: How to justify this paradox: In first case we have 1 plan with many spheres and in second case 1 sphere with many plans?

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I could be wrong, but I think your descriptions of those two spaces are incorrect. $\endgroup$ – mathworker21 Aug 2 '19 at 9:31
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Just prove that the function going from $\Bbb R^2\times \Bbb S^2$ to $\Bbb S^2\times \Bbb R^2$ and defined as $(x,y) \mapsto (y,x)$ is a homeomorphism. $\endgroup$ – nicomezi Aug 2 '19 at 9:33
  • $\begingroup$ @nicomezi, I know that. I want to imagine that why this two description are as same?Not Algebraically. $\endgroup$ – C.F.G Aug 2 '19 at 9:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You can give a lot of sense to "to imagine", I guess I have to ask you to be more precise. Do you want a geometrical interpretation ? $\endgroup$ – nicomezi Aug 2 '19 at 9:40
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Well it's a matter of referential : take your second picture and move around the sphere; you get a bunch of planes. Now in every movement around the sphere you mane, pretend the planes you get are alo the same : the sphere has to be moving - you get the first description of one plane woth a bunch of spheres $\endgroup$ – Maxime Ramzi Aug 2 '19 at 9:46
2
$\begingroup$

As you said, the spaces are homeomorphic. You imagine a product $X \times Y$ in two different ways:

  1. A copy of $Y$ attached at each point of $X$.

  2. A copy of $X$ attached at each point of $Y$.

The copies $\{x\} \times Y$ are pairwise disjoint, and I guess you imagine them as "isolated bags hanging on string". However, they are not isolated, for each $y \in Y$ the collection of points $(x,y)$ with $x \in X$ forms again a string going through the bags. Thus you see that you do not have a string with isolated bags, but a web which is on a par with respect to vertical and horizontal threads.

Edited:

For any product $X \times Y$ you have two projections $p_X : X \times Y \to X, p_X(x,y) = x$, and$p_Y : X \times Y \to Y, p_Y(x,y) = y$. This gives you two directions to look at $X \times Y$:

  1. Look from $X$ at $X \times Y$. For each $x \in X$ you see the "fiber" $p_X^{-1}(x) = \{x\} \times Y$, in the case of $\mathbb R^2 \times S^2$ a sphere "attached" at each point of the plane.

  2. Look from $Y$ at $X \times Y$. For each $y \in Y$ you see the "fiber" $p_Y^{-1}(y) = X \times \{y\}$, in the case of $\mathbb R^2 \times S^2$ a plane "attached" at each point of the sphere.

There is no paradox. It is just a matter of perspective. Perhaps a simpler example will illustrate this. Consider the set $P = [0,1] \times \mathbb \{0,1\}$ which is a subset of the plane $\mathbb R^2$. Looking at $P$ from the left (i.e. in the direction of the $x$-axis) you see two intervals. each attached at the points $0,1$. Looking at $P$ from below (i.e. in the direction of the $y$-axis) you see a collection of two-points sets, each attached at a point of $[0,1]$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ first, thanks for your answer. but, I don't see theme as isolated bags. According to your explanation, How you justify this paradox that in first case we have 1 plan with many spheres and in second case 1 sphere with many plans? $\endgroup$ – C.F.G Aug 3 '19 at 4:09
4
$\begingroup$

Your descriptions indeed do not match, but that's because neither accurately describes what the product of topological spaces really is.

Let's use $\hat\times$ to denote the operation you're describing: For a space $A$ and a pointed space $B$, we define $A \mathbin{\hat\times} B$ as the result of gluing a copy of $B$ to every point of $A$.

Let's consider $\mathbb S^1$ and $\mathbb R^1$ for simplicity.

$\mathbb R^1 \mathbin{\hat\times} \mathbb S^1$ is a line with a circle glued to every point of it. That space has a lot of loops, by contracting $\mathbb R^1$ it's homotopic to an uncountable wedge sum of circles.

$\mathbb S^1 \mathbin{\hat\times} \mathbb R^1$ is a circle with a line glued to every point of it. That space is homotopic to a single circle by contracting all the copies of $\mathbb R^1$, so it's a different space than $\mathbb R^1 \mathbin{\hat\times} \mathbb S^1$.

But neither of those two spaces is homeomorphic to $\mathbb S^1 \times \mathbb R^1$, which is just a cylinder.

A different intuition of the product of two spaces, which is more accurate, would be to imagine $A \times B$ as extruding $B$ along $A$. So $\mathbb S^1 \times \mathbb R^1$ would be taking a line and extruding it along a circle, yielding a cylinder, and $\mathbb R^1 \times \mathbb S^1$ would be taking a circle and extruding it along a line, also yielding a cylinder.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Very nicely explained. Wish I could give more than one up-vote. $\endgroup$ – JonathanZ supports MonicaC Aug 3 '19 at 4:28
0
$\begingroup$

Here's another way to think about the Cartesian product that I like. It's not as geometric as you're maybe looking for, but I find it's more useful for questions like these.

The product $$\prod_{j\in{J}}X_j$$

can be defined as the set of all functions $$f:J \rightarrow \bigcup_{j\in{J}}X_j $$ such that $f(j)\in x_j$ for all $j\in J$. This works even for uncountable $J$.

Thus the Cartesian product $\mathbb{R}^2\times S^2$ can be interpreted as the set of all functions from $\{1,2\}$ where ${1}$ is mapped onto the Euclidean plane and $2$ is mapped onto a 2-sphere. 'Geometrically', I like to draw the numbers $1$ and $2$, then draw a few arrows from $1$ to the plane, and $2$ to the circle. The cartesian product is this collection of arrows.

The way I 'see' this is a homeomorphism is that there's no distinguishing features between $1$ and $2$ in this context; I can simply change all the arrows leading from $1$ to lead from $2$.

$\endgroup$

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.