2
$\begingroup$

Topological manifolds are defined to be locally Euclidean (e.g. John Lee). That is, any point is in an open set that is homeomorphic to either $\mathbb{R}^n$, an open ball in $\mathbb{R}^n$ or an open subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$.

I understand why "$\mathbb{R}^n$" and "open ball in $\mathbb{R}^n$" are equivalent definitions of locally Euclidean: any open ball is homeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^n$, and the composition is again a homeomorphism. But why is "open subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$" also equivalent? Since an open subset that is not connected is not homeomorphic to any open balls.

Attempt: suppose $p$ is a point on the manifold and $U$ is the open set containing $p$ that is homeomorphic to an open subset $V$ of $\mathbb{R}^n$. There is an open ball centered at the homeomorphic image of $p$ in $V$.

The inverse image of this open ball is an open set $W$ in the manifold. Therefore, $p$ is in an open set $W$ that is homeomorphic to an open ball (by restricting the previous homeomorphism to the inverse image). For the other direction: an open ball is an open set.

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ What you wrote in your "attempt" is perfectly fine to answer your question. $\endgroup$ – Seub Dec 18 '13 at 1:24
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Thanks! I wasn't very sure about its validity. $\endgroup$ – Jean Valjean Dec 18 '13 at 18:04
1
$\begingroup$

As noted in the comments, my "attempt" is a valid answer.

$\endgroup$

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.