Week 3 Homeomorphic spaces. Topological properties. Hausdorff spaces
Version 2024/11/02 Week 3 in PDF All notes in PDF To other weeks
Homeomorphisms and homeomorphic spaces
We have arrived at one of the most important definitions of the course.
Definition: homeomorphism, homeomorphic spaces.
Let
-
•
is a bijection, -
•
is continuous, -
• the inverse,
of is continuous.
Two topological spaces
Note that the topologies of two homeomorphic spaces are considered equivalent. Indeed, if
between the two topologies. Indeed, if
Notation: homeomorphism.
We will write
Earlier, we used the word “equivalent” to describe a relation between topological spaces which are homeomorphic. This word has a precise mathematical meaning:
Claim: ‘homeomorphic’ is an equivalence relation.
‘Homeomorphic’ is an equivalence relation between topological spaces.
-
Proof. We need to check the three conditions of equivalence relation.
Reflexive: we need to show that every space
is homeomorphic to itself. Indeed, The identity map is a bijection, is continuous as shown earlier, and hence the inverse is also continuous.Symmetric: We need to show that if
then Assume that Since is a homeomorphism, the inverse bijection is, by definition, continuous. Furthermore, the inverse of is which is continuous. We conclude thatTransitive: we need to show that if
and then Assume that Then where is a homeomorphism: it is a bijection as it has inverse and both and are continuous as compositions of continuous maps, by Proposition 2.6. □
Let us now consider examples of homeomorphic spaces.
Example: some spaces homeomorphic to
Show that the Euclidean line
-
• the open interval
(a subspace of ); -
• an open half-line
-
• the right open half-circle of the unit circle in the complex plane.
Solution. We construct pairs of continuous functions which are mutual inverses between some pairs of the given spaces:
We do not need to construct homeomorphisms between each pair of the given spaces: since “homeomorphic” is an equivalence relation, we have constructed enough to show that all four spaces are homeomorphic to each other.
The homeomorphism between the right half-circle of the unit circle and
Figure 3.1: a homeomorphism between the open half-circle and a straight line
The homeomorphisms shown above are not unique, and there are many other ways of showing that these four spaces are pairwise homeomorphic.
Remark. The four spaces shown above are quite different as metric spaces: for example,
-
•
and are unbounded but and the half-circle are bounded; -
•
is a complete metric space whereas and the open half-circle are not complete.
Hence there is no way these metric spaces can be isometric (i.e., equivalent as metric spaces). We thus observe that being homeomorphic (i.e., equivalent as topological spaces) is a weaker requirement, for metric spaces, than being isometric.
Example: some spaces homeomorphic to
Show that the Euclidean plane
-
• the punctured sphere (a sphere in
with one point removed); -
• the open unit disc
in -
• the open quadrant
Solution: we exhibit a homeomorphism between
Consider the unit sphere
where
-
• let
be a point on -
• extend the straight line
beyond -
• let
be the point of intersection of the line with the plane -
• put
The construction of
Figure 3.2: the stereographic projection is a homeomorphism between a punctured sphere and
Further examples and applications of homeomorphisms
The material in this section is not examinable
Knot theory is a branch of mathematics which arose from an attempt to classify knots rigorously by Peter Guthrie Tait (1831–1901). In 1920s, following the work of J. Alexander, knot theory became part of Topology.
A knot is a smooth injective function
The main problem of knot theory is to classify all knots up to isotopy. For example, a basic result of knot theory is that a trefoil knot, the curve shown in Figure 3.3, is not isotopic to
the unknot (a straightforward copy of the circle in
Figure 3.3: a trefoil knot [Link to online interactive 3D diagram]
Is the problem of deciding whether two knots are isotopic related to the notion of homeomorphism? After all, every knot is homeomorphic to a circle, isn’t it? Yes, but complements of knots are not homeomorphic. A highly non-obvious result is
The theory of knots extends to links which are unions of disjoint knots in
Figure 3.4: Borromean rings [Link to online interactive 3D diagram]
A stylised representation of Borromean rings was chosen as the logo of the International Mathematical Union.
End of non-examinable material.
Topological properties
The following general type of a topological problem is of overwhelming importance in theory as well as applications.
Problem 1: the homeomorphism problem.
Given two topological spaces
A homeomorphism
Definition: topological property.
A property of topological spaces is called a topological property if, whenever a space
A standard approach to proving that two topological spaces
In simple cases, this can be achieved by going through a list of well-known topological properties and determining which of them
Among topological properties, we distinguish those which help us to solve the second main problem:
Problem 2: the continuous image problem.
Given two topological spaces
Of course, a negative answer to Problem 2 implies a negative answer to Problem 1. Problem 2 can be solved with the help of a topological property of
Hausdorff spaces
The first property of a topological space that we consider is being a Hausdorff space.
Definition: Hausdorff space.
A topological space
open in
In other words, two distinct points of
-
Proof. Given topological spaces
such that is Hausdorff and we need to prove that is Hausdorff.Let
be points of with The points of are distinct as is injective. Hence, applying the definition of “Hausdorff” to we can find-
•
open in such that
Put
and Observe that-
•
are open in because is continuous so open open; -
•
-
•
We have thus verified the definition of “Hausdorff” for the space
□ -
Many “natural” examples of topological spaces are Hausdorff, for the following reason:
Figure 3.5: “Metric topology is Hausdorff”
-
Proof. Let
be a metric space. Let be points of such that then, by axioms of a metric, the distance is positive. Denote and consider the open balls andThen
and a standard argument based on the triangle inequality shows that (See Figure 3.5 for an illustration.)We have constructed disjoint open neighbourhoods of
and so we have verified the definition of “Hausdorff” for □
Figure 3.6: “a subspace of a Hausdorff space is Hausdorff”
-
Proof. Let
be a Hausdorff topological space, and let be a subset of considered with the subspace topology.Take two distinct points
of Then are also distinct points of and so they have disjoint open neighbourhoods, and inThe sets
and may not be subsets of so we put and Then-
•
and -
•
are open in by definition of the subspace topology; -
•
We have constructed disjoint open neighbourhoods of
in and so we have verified the definition of “Hausdorff” for (See Figure 3.6 for an illustration.) □ -
-
Proof. Attention: strictly speaking, a point is not a set and so cannot be closed. Still, “a point is closed” is a traditional shorthand for saying “a set which consists of a single point is closed”, or, equivalently, “a singleton is closed”: singleton means a one-point set.
Let
where is a Hausdorff topological space. We need to show that the set is closed, equivalently that its complement is open inFor each point
we have so by definition of “Hausdorff”, there are open neighbourhoods which are disjoint: (Note that the set depends on hence we subscript it with even though it is an open neighbourhood of the point )We are going to ignore
and only use the fact that does not contain That is,The set
-
• is open as a union of open sets
-
• is contained in
because for each -
• contains
because each point of is contained in the set
We conclude that
is, in fact, equal to (See the illustration in Figure 3.7.)Figure 3.7: the set
is the union of the open neighbourhoods for allTherefore, we have proved that
is open. □ -
Do non-Hausdorff topological spaces exist? Yes, and they form an important class of topological spaces used in algebraic geometry (search: Zariski topology). We give a very simple example of a non-Hausdorff space.
Example: a non-Hausdorff topological space.
Show that the set
Solution: the only open sets in
We note informally that the antidiscrete topology is the “weakest possible” topology as it has the fewest open sets, and there are not enough open sets to provide disjoint open neighbourhoods for points of the space. We will now formalise the notion of weaker (and stronger) topology.
Definition: stronger topology, weaker topology.
Suppose that
We say that
means that is weaker, is stronger.
Exercise: let
-
1. Show that any topology on
is stronger than the antidiscrete topology on and is weaker than the discrete topology on -
2. Show that (
discrete topology) is Hausdorff. -
3. Show that (
antidiscrete topology) is non-Hausdorff if, and only if, the cardinality of is at least
Proposition 3.5.
If
-
Proof. Take any two points
in such that Since is Hausdorff, there exist -open sets withSince
is stronger than the sets are open in as well. We have found disjoint -open neighbourhoods of and so we have verified the definition of “Hausdorff” for □
References for the week 3 notes
Definition of homeomorphism is the same as [Sutherland, Definition 8.7]. Our claim that ‘homeomorphic’ is an equivalence relation solves [Sutherland, Exercise 8.4].
Figure 3.1 is based on TikZ code written by OpenAI ChatGPT when asked to illustrate the
homeomorphism between right open half-circle of the unit circle in the plane and the vertical straight line tangent to the half-circle at the point
The stereographic projection
The Gordon-Luecke Theorem (non-examinable) was proved in: C. M. A. Gordon and J. Luecke, Knots are determined by their complements, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 2 (1989), no. 2, 371–415.
The advanced subject of knot theory is touched upon in [Armstrong, Chapter 10]. Figure 3.4, showing the link known as the Borromean rings is produced by code written by OpenAI ChatGPT in the Asymptote language. Several incorrect diagrams were generated when the AI tried to represent the rings by perfect circles which is impossible. This diagram, which uses ellipses, was the response to feedback that the previous attempt was too visually complex.
We use the term topological property in the same sense as [Armstrong] and [Sutherland], but these textbooks do not formally define this term.
Figure 3.5 is TikZ code written by OpenAI ChatGPT to a prompt “illustrate the proof that metric topology is Hausdorff”.
Figure 3.6 is based on TikZ code by OpenAI ChatGPT to a prompt “illustrate the proof that a subspace of a Hausdorff space is Hausdorff”. Reworked by YB to add visual sophistication.
Proposition 3.2 (metric implies Hausdorff) is [Sutherland, Proposition 11.5].
Proposition 3.1 (Hausdorffness is a topological property) and Proposition 3.3 (subspace of Hausdorff is
Hausdorff) solve [Sutherland, Exercise 11.4a,d].
Proposition 3.4 (in Hausdorff, a point is closed) solves [Sutherland, Exercise 11.2a].
The example “antidiscrete
[Sutherland, Definition 7.6] says “finer” and “coarser” in place of our stronger and weaker topology; we follow the terminology in [Willard] which is also used in Functional Analysis. Proposition 3.5 (topology stronger than Hausdorff is Hausdorff) elaborates on the remark made in [Willard, Example 13A.2].
Version 2024/11/02 Week 3 in PDF All notes in PDF To other weeks