3

Proposition:

If $a$ and $b$ are real numbers with $a< b$, then $\left ( a,b \right )$ is homeomorphic to $\left ( 0,1 \right )$.

Proof:

Define $$f:\left ( a,b \right )\rightarrow \left ( 0,1 \right) ,\ \ \ x \mapsto f\left ( x \right )=\frac{x-a}{b-a}$$

The inverse is $f^{-1}\left ( x \right )=\left ( b-a \right )x+a$ so a bijection exists.

It now suffices to show that $f$ and $f^{-1}$ are both continuous.

Recall:

The collection $\textbf{B}$ of intervals $\left ( a,b \right ) \subseteq \mathbb{R}$ is a basis for the standard topology on $\mathbb{R}$.

$\left ( 0,1 \right )\subseteq \mathbb{R}$ and so $\left ( s,t \right )\subseteq \mathbb{R}$. Thus, the collection of intervals $\left ( s,t \right ) \forall s,t \in \left ( 0,1 \right )$ is a basis for the topology on $\left ( 0,1 \right )$. In other words, we have a topology generated by a basis $\textbf{B}$. It is true that $\forall s,t \in \left ( 0,1 \right ): \left ( s,t \right )$ is an open set.

Recall: a function $f: \left ( X,\tau \right )\rightarrow \left ( Y,U \right )$ is continuous IFF $\forall$ u in $U: f^{-1}\left ( u \right ) \in \tau$.

$f^{-1}\left ( s,t \right )=\left ( s\left ( b-a \right )+a,t\left ( b-a \right )+a \right )$.

How should I take it from here?

1 Answers1

1

The definition of continuity that you are referring to, at the second part of your post, is the general definition of continuity for maps betwenn arbitrary topological spaces.

However, I would notice that you really do not need this: you have already shown that $f$, $f^{-1}$ are linear functions of the variable $x$ and linear functions are in fact continuous functions (by elementary arguments). So you are done.

P.S.: If you feel that you have to resort to the general definition, I think it is enough to notice that since $t>s\Rightarrow t\left ( b-a \right )+a>s\left ( b-a \right )+a \ $, then the inverse image of an open interval $(t,s)$, that is: $$ f^{-1}\left ( s,t \right )=\left ( s\left ( b-a \right )+a,t\left ( b-a \right )+a \right ) $$ is an open interval. Now since, as you have already mentioned in your post, the open intervals constitute bases for the topologies (thus any open set can be written as a union of open intervals) you can easily conclude that the inverse image of any open set is an open set. So you are done (again).

KonKan
  • 7,344
  • Can you provide a proof that linear functions are continuous, which is simpler than checking the definition. as suggested in the question? –  Sep 17 '16 at 03:43
  • Sure: $\lim_{x\to x_0}(ax+b)=ax_0+b$ – KonKan Sep 17 '16 at 03:51
  • Then please also show that both limit definition and open set definition are equivalent. –  Sep 17 '16 at 03:52
  • but this is not what the question is about! In any case, I have also added the open-set-definition-based proof in my post for clarity. – KonKan Sep 17 '16 at 03:54
  • @JohnMa i suggest you ask a question about the equivalence between limit definition for reals and topological continuuiy – Zelos Malum Sep 17 '16 at 04:00
  • @KonKan Just what I was looking to understand. It was helpful. – Mathematicing Sep 17 '16 at 04:07
  • @ZelosMalum Don't get me wrong. The first edition of this answer was quite unhelpful. Also from your comment I assume you also agree that the limit proof is not simpler than checking the definition. –  Sep 17 '16 at 05:00