Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Apparently, there is the following fact:

The set of homeomorphism classes of connected manifolds has the same cardinality $c$ as that of $\mathbb R$.

I find it to be interesting; but would be happier to see a proof, and would be grateful for a reference somewhere.

share|improve this question
Already in dimension 3 there are continuously many non-homeomorphic manifolds (in fact even contractible open subsets of $\mathbf{R}^3$, see my answer here mathoverflow.net/questions/4155/…). –  algori May 17 '10 at 2:05
add comment

3 Answers

up vote 12 down vote accepted

Upper bound (assuming the manifolds are second countable): every manifold admits a complete metric, and the "set" of isometry classes of complete separable metric spaces is of cardinality continuum. Indeed, every such a space is a completion of a countable metric space, and there is only continuum of metrics on a countable set.

Lower bound: there is a continuum of non-isomorphic fundamental groups of manifolds. E.g. any countable sum of cyclic groups is a first homology group of a connected manifold: just take a connected sum of an appropriate countable collection of lens spaces.

share|improve this answer
To be more explicit in the second part: You can encode an infinite binary string as a subset $S$ of the prime numbers. Then you can take a connected sum of the lens spaces $L(p,1)$ for each $p \in S$. You can then use the fundamental group or first homology as an invariant to recover $S$, or even Milnor's theorem that 3-manifolds uniquely factor with respect to connected sum. Technically speaking Milnor's theorem is in the closed category, but it applies to this case. I think that there are only countably many compact manifolds. –  Greg Kuperberg May 16 '10 at 22:20
Greg, your last statement is correct. Any compact manifold can be triangulated with finitely many simplexes, and there are only countably many ways to glue these guys together. –  Kevin Ventullo May 17 '10 at 1:54
Kevin, are you talking about the smooth case? Aren't there non-triangulable topological manifolds? –  Sergei Ivanov May 17 '10 at 8:40
add comment

There are countably many compact topological manifolds, as was shown by Cheeger-Kister in "Counting topological manifolds", Topology 9 1970 149--151. The proof depends on results of Edwards-Kirby of deformation of homeomorphisms. A sketch of the proof is here.

Incidentally, a good discussion of counting non-metrizable manifolds is in Gauld's paper, section 3.

share|improve this answer
add comment

I am worried that this may not be true in TOP (the topological category). Let us work in PL (piece-wise linear) instead. Every PL manifold can be expressed as a locally finite simplical complex, with at most a countable number of vertices. Thus there are at most $2^N$ of these. (Here $N$ is the natural numbers.) I think I will leave the lower bound as an exercise -- I have a way of doing this by encoding binary sequences using generalized Heegaard splittings of three-manifolds, but that is a hack. I am sure that there is a more beautiful way to give the lower bound just using non-compact surfaces.

I looked, but could not find a reference.

EDIT: Just in case the above is too brief here is an "easier" exercise. The number of simple locally finite graphs on at most a countable number of vertices is again $2^N$. [Hint: consider the adjacency matrix.] [In fact, the locally finite hypothesis is not necessary in this case.]

EDIT2: After thinking a bit more about my three-manifold examples, I realized the statement can be simplified a bit. You can embedd the set of binary sequences into the set of homeomorphism classes of submanifolds of $S^3$ as follows: Choose your two favorite distinct hyperbolic links in $S^3$, each with two components. Lets call these links $L_0$ and $L_1$. Given a binary sequence $s \colon N \to \{0,1\}$ form a three manifold $M_s$ by gluing copies of $L_0$ and $L_1$ as instructed by $s$. Note that $M_s$ embeds in the three-sphere; the complement looks a bit like Antoine's necklace. Finally, $M_s$ determines $s$ by the uniqueness of the JSJ decomposition. As a remark - it is also possible to do this with hyperbolic manifolds (thus having trivial JSJ decomposition) again embedding in the three-sphere.

Ah - following the link that algori provides reminds me that there are (up to homeomorphism) uncountably many Whitehead manifolds - open, contractable submanifolds of $S^3$. The point of all of these examples is that it is "easy" to encode information in the end of a three-manifold. I'll leave my examples here, as they are a useful warm-up to understanding the Whitehead manifolds.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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