5
$\begingroup$

As mentioned in the title, it's well know that boundary of the boundary of a manifold is empty. That is, if $M$ is the boundary of a manifold $N$, i.e. $M=\partial N$, then $M$ is a manifold without boundary, i.e. $\partial M=\varnothing$. For example, the sphere $S^n$ has no boundary because $S^n=\partial B^{n+1}$ where $B^{n+1}$ is the closed unit ball in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$. What I would like to ask is that: is there an easy proof or a short proof for this statement?

  • 0
    What definition of "boundary of a manifold" are you using?2012-01-02
  • 0
    Are there several definitions of "boundary of a manifold"? I didn't know that. But the one I am using is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold#Manifold_with_boundary2012-01-02
  • 1
    You should probably get a better reference... that blurb in Wikipedia is not exactly a piece of great exposition!2012-01-02
  • 3
    Of course I know that. However, since you have asked me "What definition of "boundary of a manifold" are you using?", I just quoted the definition which is available from wiki.2012-01-02

1 Answers 1

4

Let us define a (topological) $n$-manifold with boundary to be a (Hausdorff, second-countable) topological space $M$ locally homeomorphic to the closed half space $H$ in $\mathbb R^n$, and the boundary $\partial M$ of $M$ to be the subset of $M$ of points which do not have a neighborhood homeomorphic to an open set in $\mathbb R^n$.

Then:

  • show that the claim that $\partial\partial M=\emptyset$ follows from the observation that $\partial\partial H=\emptyset$;

  • show that $\partial\partial H=\emptyset$.

  • 0
    I am afraid that's what I need. I know how to prove the statement by using definition as you have said. But it's not short if you prove it rigorously by writting down all the details.2012-01-03
  • 0
    *What* is not short?2012-01-03
  • 0
    What you have given is just the idea of the proof. If you try to write down all the details of the proof, the proof is not short.2012-01-03
  • 0
    The first of my two bullets is almost immediate; the second one is a fast computation: first, that $\partial H$ is homeomorphic to $\mathbb R^{n-1}$, and that $\partial \mathbb R^{n-1}$ is empty.2012-01-03
  • 0
    (What is not trivial is that a point is *either* an interior point *or* a boundary point)2012-01-03
  • 1
    Oh really? Ok. Let's have a deal then. If you can write down the proof with all the details with less than, say 15 lines, I will accept your answer as what I required to be a short proof.2012-01-03
  • 1
    Yes, really. But I think it is better if *you* do it.2012-01-03
  • 1
    @Mariano: Can you give a hint as to how to proceed further?2015-10-24