MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I asked myself, which spaces have the property that $X^2$ is homeomorphic to $X$. I started to look at some examples like $\mathbb{N}^2 \cong \mathbb{N}$, $\mathbb{R}^2\ncong \mathbb{R}, C^2\cong C$ (for the cantor set $C$). And then I got stuck, when I considered the rationals. So the question is:

Is $\mathbb{Q}^2$ homeomorphic to $\mathbb{Q}$ ?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 60 down vote accepted

Yes, Sierpinski proved that every countable metric space without isolated points is homeomorphic to the rationals: .

An amusing consequence of Sierpinski's theorem is that $\mathbb{Q}$ is homeomorphic to $\mathbb{Q}$. Of course here one $\mathbb{Q}$ has the order topology, and the other has the $p$-adic topology (for your favourite prime $p$) :-)

share|cite|improve this answer

As Gerald Edgar points out in his comment on Xandi Tuni's answer, the continued fraction trick works for the irrationals, not for the rationals. But this turns out to be enough:

1) An irrational number has a unique continued fraction expansion. Therefore the irrationals are isomorphic to an infinite direct product of ${\mathbb Z}$ with itself. Therefore (writing ${\mathbb I}$ for the irrationals) we have ${\mathbb I}={\mathbb I}^2$.

2) Therefore ${\mathbb I}^2$ imbeds as a dense subset of the reals. Now map ${\mathbb Q}\times {\mathbb Q}$ to ${\mathbb I}\times {\mathbb I}$ by (say) adding $\sqrt{2}$ to each component. This imbeds ${\mathbb Q}\times {\mathbb Q}$ as a countable dense subset of the reals.

3) Now use the fact that every countable dense subset of the reals is homeomorphic to ${\mathbb Q}$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Yes, they are homeomorphic. To construct a homeomorphism from $\mathbb Q$ to $\mathbb Q^2$, one can proceed roughly as follows: express $q\in \mathbb Q$ as a continued fraction $[a_0, a_1,a_2,...]$ (of finite length) and associate with it the pair $([a_0,a_2,...], [a_1,a_3,...])$.

Mind that this is a homeomorphism, but not an isometry (cf comment on Tom's answer).

I vaguely remember that there is a ceneral Theorem in point set topology stating that all coutable topological spaces "of the same kind as $\mathbb Q$" are homeomorphic.

share|cite|improve this answer
Why the construction does not work for $\mathbb R$ instead of $\mathbb Q$? – Wadim Zudilin May 26 '10 at 12:40
Each positive rational has two different continued fraction expansions. 5+1/2 = [5,2] maps to ([5],[2]) = (5,2). But 5+1/2 = [5,1,1] also, which maps to ([5,1],[1]) = (6,1). – Gerald Edgar May 26 '10 at 13:20
@Xandi: On the contrary, it works with infinite continued fractions to show that the space of irrationals is homeomorphic to its square. – Gerald Edgar May 26 '10 at 13:22
Sry but i was wondering why this is - surjective: only $a_0$ might be negative; hence you never get $a_1$ negative and hence the map is not surjective. - continuous : Note that $a_n:=[1;n]=1+1/n$ converges to $1$, but $([1],[n])=(1,n)$ diverges. I don't know how to repair this. Still it would be nice to have an explicit homeomorphism. – HenrikRüping May 26 '10 at 14:22
The irrationals have a nice characterisation as well (the rationals are the unique countable metric space without isolated points): the irrationals are the unique 0-dimensional [base of clopen sets] separable metric space that is nowhere locally compact [no non-empty open set has compact closure]. It is a way of showing that the irrationals are homeomorphic to N^N and hence to any finite or countable power of itself. – Henno Brandsma May 26 '10 at 17:55

I don't think so: the completion of $\mathbb{Q}^2$ is $\mathbb{R}^2$, so that a homeomorphism $\mathbb{Q}^2\to\mathbb{Q}$ would give a homeomorphism $\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}$?

share|cite|improve this answer
Your argument only shows that there is no isometry. – Xandi Tuni May 26 '10 at 12:35
You're quite right. I thought it sounded too good to be true... – Tom Smith May 26 '10 at 12:36
This will give a really good exercise for a topology course! – Xandi Tuni May 26 '10 at 12:48
It also shows there is no homeomorphism uniformly continuous in both directions. – Gerald Edgar May 26 '10 at 13:24

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.