2
$\begingroup$

Hi all. Can you help me with this? I have a square $S$ in euclidean plane with edges $A,B,C,D$ and a closed set $F$ in $S$ such that $F\cap A=F\cap C=\emptyset$, and $F\cap B$ and $F\cap D$ are nonempty. Assume that any curve in $S$ starting on $C$ and ending on $A$ intersects $F$. Does it follow that there exists a curve in $F$ starting on $B$ and ending on $D$?

Intuitively, it seems trivial, but I don't know how to proove it formally. Thanks a lot, Peter

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ thank for answers. If I change it to "does F has to have a connected component connecting B and D", is it true? Peter $\endgroup$ Nov 5, 2010 at 21:18

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

No, take $S=[-2,2]\times[-2,2]$ and $F$ the closure of the graph of $[-2,2]\setminus\{0\}\ni x\mapsto \sin(1/x)$.

$$*$$

However, it is true that there is a connected component of $F$ that meets both the (closed) edges $B$ and $D.$ Equivalently, there is a connected component of the set $G:=F\cup B\cup D$ that contains both $B$ and $D.$ Suppose not, by contradiction. Then, the same holds for some open neighborhood $V$ of $G$ in $S$ (this is easily shown recalling that a nested intersection of connected compacta is a connected compact). This amounts to saying that the edges $B$ and $D$ have disjoint open nbds, resp, $U_B$and $U_D$ whose union is $V$. The assumption that $S\setminus F$ contains no paths connecting $A$ and $B$ implies that the edges $A$ and $B$ also have disjoint open nbd $U_A$ resp., $U_C$, whose union is $S\setminus F.$ In conclusion, we have covered the square with four nbds of the edges, in such a way that nbds of opposite edges do not meet. This leads to a contradiction. Consider a partition of unity subordinate to the covering $\{U_A, U_B, U_C, U_D\},$ and use it to define a vector field $X$ on $S$ such that on $U_i\cap U_j$ the field $F$ is a convex combination of the exterior normal to $U_i$ and the exterior normal to $U_j$. This implies that $X$ has topological degree $1$ w.r.to zero, and never vanishes, a contradiction. Otherwise, you may use $X$ to retract the square on its boundary, another contradiction.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, thats right. What would be sufficient for me, is: "does F have to have a connected component, connecting a point on B and a point on D?" Do you think now it holds? Thanks a lot. $\endgroup$ Nov 5, 2010 at 21:17
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, that is true. I do not have a reference handy, but in case I'll add a proof. $\endgroup$ Nov 5, 2010 at 21:22
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. If its easy, could you give me some hint? Peter $\endgroup$ Nov 5, 2010 at 21:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.