1
$\begingroup$

suppose $G_n$ be the group of $n\times n$ non-singular matrcies with detereminant $>0$, suppose we have a map $f:G_n\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n\setminus \{0\}$ such that $A\mapsto Ae_1$, which is surjective, continuous. where $e_1=(1,0,0,\dots,0)$ the fiber corresponding to $e_1$ is homeomorphic to $G_{(n-1)}\times \mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ which are connected, I want to know $G_n$ is connected?given that $G_{n-1}$ is connected.

  • 2
    The answer to your _title_ question is yes: the continuous image of a connected space is always connected. But the _body_ question is something else!2012-09-13
  • 0
    I don't know the definition of a submersion, but if $f:X\rightarrow Y$ is a quotient map of topological spaces (surjective, continuous, $f^{-1}(V)$ open iff $V\subseteq Y$ is open) and the fibers of $f$ are connected, then $f$ induces a bijection between the connected components of $X$ and those of $Y$. In particular, if $Y$ is connected, then $X$ is.2012-09-13
  • 1
    Dear miosaki: please edit the question so that the title and the body ask the same question. Currently, we have one answer for each and that is rather confusing.2012-09-13
  • 0
    I have edited my question2012-09-14
  • 0
    @miosaki, please do eedit the *title* of the question so that it matches what you are asking! Otherwise, it makes it less easy for people to do searches and such things in the future!2012-09-15

1 Answers 1

3

N.B: The original question has been completely re-written since this answer was posted. Check the page history to see the original question.

In short: yes! You have a fibre bundle $\pi : T \twoheadrightarrow B$, where $\pi$ is a continuous surjection and both the fibres $\pi^{-1}(b)$ and the total space $T$ are connected. Connectedness is preserved by continuous maps, so if $T$ is connected then $B$ must be connected too.

We can show what the base space is connected as follows:

Assume that the base space $B$ is disconnected. Then there exist open subsets $X,Y \subset B$ such that $X \cup Y = B$ while $X \cap Y = \emptyset$. Since $\pi$ is a continuous surjection it follows $\pi^{-1}(X)$ and $\pi^{-1}(Y)$ are open in $T$ and that $\pi^{-1}(X), \pi^{-1}(Y) \subset T$ such that $\pi^{-1}(X) \cup \pi^{-1}(Y) = T$ and $\pi^{-1}(X) \cap \pi^{-1}(Y) = \emptyset$. It follows that $T$ is also disconnected, which is a contradiction.

  • 0
    Not all surjective submersions are fiber bundles.2012-09-13
  • 0
    (For example, pick any locally trivial fiber bundle of manifolds and delete any closed subset in its domain without breaking surjectivity)2012-09-13
  • 0
    You are answering the question in the title, which is different to that of the body of the question. It would be best if you qualified the initial *yes* to make this explicit :-)2012-09-13
  • 0
    @MarianoSuárez-Alvarez: Obviously not, but it would have been pedantic of me to ignore the title. However, even ignoring the title, my answer is still valid: "*Connectedness is preserved by continuous maps*". Whether or not $\pi : T \to B$ is a fibre bundle, or simply a continuous surjection, if $T$ is continuous then $B$ is. Nowhere did I discuss the fibres, other than repeating this OP's assumptions. The fibre condition is superfluous.2012-09-13
  • 0
    My first comment merely referred to the fact that your second sentence starts with «You have a fiber bundle...» and that is not quite correct.2012-09-13
  • 0
    As I said: ignoring the title would have been pedantic.2012-09-13
  • 0
    The title does not imply that one has a fiber bundle either, really: «fibers are connected» in no way requires or implies that the map be a fiber map, and thus the hypothesis «the fibers are connected» can very well apply to a surjective submersion which is not a fiber bundle. If it read instead «the fiber is connected» it would suggest a fiber bundle, though.2012-09-13
  • 0
    Whatever you say. I'm bored now.2012-09-15
  • 0
    It matters in that there *is* a difference between a surjective submersion and a fiber map, which is important to take into account (and which is somewhat counter-intuitive) —as clearly the OP is starting in the subject, helping him keep things straight *is* valuable. It does not affect me in the least personally, of course, and as this interchange has taken from me only an insignificant amount of energy and attention, I don't see it as a burden and a bore in the same way you seem to see it. In any case, the question has been edited into involving an actual fiber map :-)2012-09-15
  • 1
    May I suggest that we could better invest our energies in helping answer other questions rather than discussing minor technical details.2012-09-15