# Homeomorphism is bijective [duplicate]

Here is my question: Is a homeomorphism, that is, a continuos function whose inverse function is also continuous, always bijective?

## marked as duplicate by Eric Wofsey general-topology StackExchange.ready(function() { if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return; $('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() { var$hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');$hover.hover( function() { $hover.showInfoMessage('', { messageElement:$msg.clone().show(), transient: false, position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 }, dismissable: false, relativeToBody: true }); }, function() { StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages(); } ); }); }); Apr 2 '18 at 5:47

• A function that isn't bijective doesn't have a well-defined inverse. Only bijective functions have inverses. – MJD Jun 16 '14 at 2:59
• @MJD Oh! My bad, I'd better delete this question, so stupid. – user136592 Jun 16 '14 at 3:00
• Where do you get a definition for homeomorphism that is not "a continuous bijection whose inverse is continuous". I.e., whoever defines homeomorphism without explicitly requiring bijectivity? – Eric Towers Jun 16 '14 at 3:01
• @MJD: Don't mean to nitpick, but you may have 1-sided inverses in some "categories" – user99680 Jun 16 '14 at 3:03
• @user99680 You can have partial inverses of nonbijective functions also. For example, $f:x\mapsto \sqrt x$ is a partial inverse of $g:x\mapsto x^2$, since we have $g(f(x)) = x$ for all $x$ for which the left side is defined. But that is not what is normally meant by the inverse of a function, and it is not what I guessed that OP meant. – MJD Jun 16 '14 at 3:06

Homeomorphisms are always onto. However there is a possible source for a confusion in certain circumstances. One example is when you have a topological embedding $f : X \rightarrow Y$. In such a case, if $f$ is not surjective then $f$ is not a homeomorphism onto $Y$, however $f$ is a homeomorphism onto its image.
You may, e.g., embed the circle $S^1$ in the plane $\mathbb R^2$ by, say $f(t)=(\cos t,\sin t)$. This map is not a homeomorphism onto the target space $\mathbb R^2$, (it cannot be a homeomorphism onto $Y$, since $f$ is not onto $Y$) but it is a homeomorphism onto its image, and, tautologically, it is onto its image. Still, note that this is not entire a trivial issue since, e.g., by some results, $S^1$ may not be embedded into $\mathbb R$ , and, in general, $S^n$ cannot be embedded into $\mathbb R^n$, nor $\mathbb R^k ; k=0,1,2,..,n-1$
• I don't understand. An embedding is an injective map $f : X \rightarrow Y$ with certain additional properties. Then $f : X \rightarrow \mathrm{Img}(X)$ is a homeomorphism. The statement "a homeomorphism need not be bijective" is false - I see no way around this. – RghtHndSd Jun 16 '14 at 3:14
• @rghthndsd Well, but the issue is onto what: onto the host space or onto its image; the fact that every map is onto its image is tautological. Still, the point I am trying to address is that, given spaces $X,Y$ , $X$ may not always be embeddable into $Y$. Can you suggest how to make this point better than I did? – user99680 Jun 16 '14 at 3:16
• When you say "homeomorphism onto its image" then you are specifying precisely onto what: it's onto its image. Where is the ambiguity? If you give me a map $f : X \rightarrow Y$ that is not onto, then $f$ is not a homeomorphism. Thus the statement "You may have a special case of a non-bijective homeomorphism" is false. I don't understand where you are coming from with the last sentence: what does the embeddability of certain spaces have to do with the definition of a homeomorphism? – RghtHndSd Jun 16 '14 at 3:21