I'm working through Massey's "Basic Course in AT." One of the problems is prove that a homeomorphism of the closed disk maps the boundary to the boundary and the interior to the interior. How would one prove this? I can't seem to get this one problem.
Homeomorphism of the Disk
13
$\begingroup$
algebraic-topology
-
13Hint: if there's a homeomorphism from X to X that maps a point x to y, then this induces a homeomorphism from X\{x} to X\{y}. – 2011-06-19
-
1Start with the fact that homeomorphisms map open sets to open sets. Take a point p in the interior--take it, please!--and consider its image h(p). The image of the interior of the disk D (i.e., an open disk) is an open set, so h(D) is also open, and h(p) is in h(D), which is open. You can show something similar for points in the exterior of CL(D), i.e., they are mapped to the exterior of Cl(D). Use the def. of a bdry. pt as having 'hoods (neighborhoods) that intersect both the interior and exterior, to show the image has the same properties. – 2011-06-19
-
0@gary Looks like your proof only shows that any homeomorphism of the ambient Euclidian space maps interior of the disk to the interior. – 2011-06-19
-
0Chris, I see where you're going. I know that my ultimate contradiction will come from the fact that I would have an isomorphism $0=\pi(D)=\pi(S^{1})=\mathbb{Z}$. I believe this comes from the homeomorphism inducing an homeomorphism between the disk and the punctured disk which can be deformation retracted to the circle. However I'm not sure how I get to remove the point. If I map an interior point to the boundary what prevents that "hole" from being filled by a boundary point? – 2011-06-19
-
0@Grigory:I am trying to show that if every 'hood of a point x intersects both Int(D) and Ext(D), the same will be the case for every 'hood of h(x). So if points in Int(D) are sent to Int(D), and points in Ext(D) are sent to Ext(D), then, for any 'hood Up of a bdry point p, points of Up in Int(D) will be sent to points in Int(h(D)), and the points of Up in Ext(D) will be sent to Ext(h(D)). So if x is a bdry point of D, so that every 'hood Ux of x intersects both Int(D) and Ext(D), the same will be the case for every 'hood h(Ux) of h(x), i.e., h(Ux) will intersect both Int(h(D)), and Ext(h(D)). – 2011-06-19
-
0@MathKid, a possibly-pedantic comment. A homeomorphism induces a group homomorphism (which in this case is also a group isomorphism) ; homeomorphisms are between topological spaces, and homomorphisms are between groups/algebraic structures (tho you may have the two coexisting in, e.g., Lie groups.) – 2011-06-19
-
0@MathKid: I think what Chris meant (please correct me if I'm wrong, Chris) is that the restriction of a homeomorphism is a homeomorphism, so that if X is homeomorphic to Y, then the restriction of X to X-{x} is homeomorphic to Y-{h(y}, and then the contradiction that you described follows. On another pedantic note ( maybe I am just pedantic!), and maybe obvious, note that the converse, i.e., extending a homeomorphism from a subspace into the super space is not always possible. – 2011-06-19
-
0@Gary, I get that part. I just don't understand why you necessarily have to have a point removed from the boundary or the interior if the interior doesn't go to the interior and the boundary doesn't go to the boundary. Hypothetically, why can't we have an exchange of points such that no hole exists? – 2011-06-19
-
0@MathKid:I think the argument is ( by contradiction), that _if_ a homeomorphism h were to send a point b in the boundary to a point i in the interior, you would arrive at a contradiction; specifically: given such map h, it would then follow that there is a homeomorphism h',between D-{b} and D-{i}. Then h' would give you, "induce" an isomorphism between the respective fundamental groups 0 and Z of D-{b} and D-{i}, which is not possible. – 2011-06-19
-
0Still can't comment, so I'll add this to Chris's helpful hint: you should be able to calculate the fundamental group of the closed unit disk minus a boundary point. – 2011-06-19
-
0Dylan, I understand your hint. I get the obvious contradiction when a point of the interior goes to the boundary or a point of the boundary goes to the interior. What I don't get is why you can't have a point P on the boundary interchanged with a point Q in the interior thereby leaving no hole and having neither the interior go to the interior nor the boundary to the boundary. Thoughts? Anyways, I appreciate the help y'alls are giving me. This would really bother me if I didn't finally get the problem! :) – 2011-06-19
-
0I'm not sure how any filling could occur! In the situation you mention, we would still obtain a homeomorphism from $D \setminus \{P\}$ to $D \setminus \{Q\}$. Where does your proof break down? – 2011-06-19
-
0If P is on the boundary and goes to the interior then we have a hole on the boundary. If Q is in the interior and goes to the boundary then we have a hole in the interior. Now if we have P on the boundary and Q on the interior and we place P where Q is and Q where P was then the hypotheses are satisfied: the boundary doesn't go to the boundary and the interior doesn't go to the interior. Plus we have no hole since the hole left by Q is filled by P and the hole left by P is filled by Q. Then our homeomorphism is between the disk and the disk. – 2011-06-19
-
0@MathKid: If what you say is that you swap $P$ and $Q$ then that's not a homeomorphism. Everybody seems to point you to the same conclusion and you don't seem to get it. If the boundary is not mapped to boundary and interior not mapped to interior, then you could construct two non homeomorphic sets which should be homeomorphic by our assumptions, and therefore we reach a contradiction. – 2011-06-19