7
$\begingroup$

I found this exercise I'm not able to solve.

EXERCISE : Let's call $X$ the topological space obtained quotienting $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ by the equivalence relation $\sim$ :

$x\sim y \Leftrightarrow x=y$ or $||x||=||y||$ or $||x||\cdot ||y||=1$.

Is $X$ an Hausdorff space ($T2$)?? Is $X$ compact?? Can anyone help me?

The only idea i had is this one but I had plenty of doubt about its correctness.. Using hyperspherical coordinates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-sphere#Hyperspherical_coordinates) can I say that $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is omeomorph to $\mathbb{R}\times \left[ {0,\pi } \right] \times \cdots \times \left[ {0,\pi } \right] \times \left[ {0,2\pi } \right[$ ??? And if that was true, using the fact that $\sim$ act only on the norm and not on the angles, can I say that $\mathbb{R}^{n}/\sim {\rm{ }} = \left( {\mathbb{R}\times \left[ {0,\pi } \right] \times \cdots \times \left[ {0,\pi } \right] \times \left[ {0,2\pi } \right[} \right)/\sim {\rm{ }} = \mathbb{R}/\sim$ ??? Thanks in advance.

  • 0
    Hint: there is one equivalence class for every norm $\leq 1$.2011-09-07
  • 0
    $\mathbb{R}^n$ is not homeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}\times[0,\pi)...$ because the one on the right has boundary/corners/etc while the one on the left is a smooth manifold. (Just look at regular polar coordinates).2011-09-07

1 Answers 1

2

I imagine this space like this: you identify all elements with the same norm, so the orbits are spheres. Furthermore, you identify elements of norm $k$ with elements of norm $1/k$, therefore you can consider only spheres with radius $\leq 1$.

Denote by $\pi$ the canonical projection $x \mapsto [x]$ where $[x]$ is the equivalence class of $x$.

Pick $x,y$ two different points in $X$. Then $\|x\|\neq \|y\|$ and $\|x\|\|y\|\neq 1$. Now it is enough to find two neighborhoods $U,V$ for $x,y$ respectively such that $\pi(U) \cap \pi(V)=\emptyset$. You can consider $U,V$ to be open balls of carefully chosen radii. There are two cases to study: when both $\|x\|,\|y\|$ are on the same side of $1$, and for example when $\|x\|<1<\|y\|$.

As for compactness, pick $\{O_n\}$ an open cover for $X$. Define $X_n=\{x \in [0,1] : \exists y \in O_n \text{ with }\|y\|=x \text{ or }\|y\|=1/x\}$. Then $\{X_n\}$ is an open cover for $[0,1]$ and there is a finite subcover (eventually renumber) $\{X_1,...,X_n\}$. Then the corresponding $O_1,O_2,...,O_n$ cover $X$. This proves that $X$ is compact.

  • 1
    You need only prove that $X$ is Hausdorff. Once you know that, it is clear that the map $[0,1]\to X: t \mapsto \text {class of } (t,0,\ldots ,0)$ is a homeomorphism because: a) it is bijective b) $[0,1]$ is compact and c) $X$ is Hausdorff . As a consequence $X$ is compact.2011-09-07
  • 0
    @Georges, isn't the compactness of $X$ quite clear even without Hausdorffness, because the canonical projection restricted to the closed unit ball of $\mathbb{R}^n$ (which is compact) is surjective.2011-09-07
  • 1
    @LostInMath: Sure, but Georges's argument has the virtue of identifying the quotient space with something rather familiar :)2011-09-07
  • 1
    Thank you very much for you answers!!! Really really usefull! I have only a little last question... In the proof of the Hausdorfness. When dealing with this kind of exercises I have to choose not simply two open sets (containing $x$ and $y$) but two saturated sets. I'm pretty sure that's not a problem cause, seems to me, that in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ every open set is saturated but I'm not able to proof that... Thank you again!!2011-09-07
  • 1
    Caro Lorenzo, your display of gratitude is quite refreshing: bravo! Be careful that a saturated open set here is necessarily a union of spheres (with of course zero added in if it was in the original open set), so: no, not every open set in $\mathbb R^n$ is saturated. And it is good news that you could not prove such a false statement!2011-09-07
  • 0
    @Lorenzo: If by saturatedness of $A\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ you mean that $\pi^{-1}\pi(A)=A$, then every open set is not saturated. For example if $n=1$, then $-1\in\pi^{-1}\pi(0,2)$. I also wondered whether it really suffices to show Hausdorffness that $\pi(U)\cap\pi(V)=\emptyset$ for some neighborhoods of $U,V$ of $x,y$, since we haven't proved that $\pi$ is open.2011-09-07
  • 0
    @LostInMath: As you surely know, $\pi$ *is* open (but you are right: this hasn't been mentioned yet).2011-09-07
  • 0
    Ok, I know, I'm becoming pretty annoying with all these question... I'm so sorry I ask you to explain every little thing but I really need to understand it well. @Georges why do you say $\pi$ is clearly open??? If $\pi$ is a bijection then ok I understand it but $\pi$ is not bijective.2011-09-07
  • 0
    Dear Lorenzo, I never wrote that "$\pi$ is clearly open", but only that LostInMath probably knew it was. To prove it, try to determine the saturation of a small open ball.2011-09-07
  • 0
    If $p:X\rightarrow Y$ is a continuous map we say that $W\subset X$ is saturated if for every $x\in W$ and $y\in X$ with $p(x)=p(y)$ then $y\in W$. So I think that in our case an open ball $B(x,r)$ is not a saturated set cause doesn't contains all the equivalence classes of all his points. To be more clear i give an example. the open set $B(0,1/2)$ contains all the vector $x$ with $||x||=1/4$ but does not contain the vectors with norm $1/||x||=4$.2011-09-07
  • 0
    That's why I don't understand why do you say $\pi$ is open. For the definition of the topology of the quotient, $A\subset \mathbb{R}^{n}/\sim$ is open iff $A$ is an open saturated subset of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ and so seems to me that $\pi(B(x,r))$ is not open. Where is the mistake?2011-09-07
  • 0
    @Lorenzo: To show that $\pi$ is open it's enough to show $\pi(B)$ is open in $X$ for every open ball $B\subseteq\mathbb{R}^n$. But by definition of quotient topology $\pi(B)$ is open in $X$ iff $\pi^{-1}\pi(B)$ is open in $\mathbb{R}^n$, so as Georges said you have to determine $\pi^{-1}\pi(B)$ and see that it is open.2011-09-07