Welcome to MathOverflow

Question

25

10

As a student, I was taught that the Jordan curve theorem is a great example of an intuitively clear statement which has no simple proof.

What is the simplest known proof today?

Is there an intuitive reason why a very simple proof is not possible?

edited Dec 11 2009 at 2:33

Harald Hanche-Olsen
5,790●1●14●34

asked Dec 11 2009 at 2:28

tylern
657●6●9

1

I retagged this a bit; proof-theory is inappropriate here. – Harald Hanche-Olsen Dec 11 2009 at 2:35

4

One reason why a simple proof is hard to come up with is that curves can be fiendishly complicated. In fact, if you restrict attention to piecewise smooth curves, it is not hard to come up with a simple proof, the point being that a smooth curve really divides the plane locally. – Harald Hanche-Olsen Dec 11 2009 at 2:38

2

In the smooth, PL or PL-smooth case the proof is quite intuitive and straightforward -- IMO going further to prove the Schoenflies theorem (that one of the bounded regions is a disc) is similarly straightforward. The reason it's not simple in the topological case is that topological curves can be extremely "fuzzy" making local arguments difficult -- Julia sets that are simple closed curves, for example. – Ryan Budney Dec 11 2009 at 2:46

18

For general continuous curves, it's not that a simple proof is not possible, it's that it's not desirable. The true content of the result is homology theory, which proves the separation result in n dimensions. There are special proofs in 2D that are simpler, but every such proof that I have seen feels like a one-night stand. – Greg Kuperberg Dec 11 2009 at 5:34

2

"One reason why a simple proof is hard to come up with is that curves can be fiendishly complicated." @Harald: I guess a general continuous function from R to R can be fiendishly complicated, and that's why we shouldn't expect a simple proof of the intermediate value theorem, right? ;-) – Kevin Buzzard Dec 11 2009 at 7:46

show 5 more comments

fuzzytron · Accepted Answer · 2009-12-11 02:50:40Z UTC

14

There's a short proof (less than three pages) that uses Brouwer's fixed point theorem, available here:

The Jordan Curve Theorem via the Brouwer Fixed Point Theorem

The goal of the proof is to take Moise's "intuitive" proof and make it simpler/shorter. Not sure whether you'd consider it "nice," though.

answered Dec 11 2009 at 2:50

fuzzytron
1,740●6●16

Thank you for this reference. The quality of the linked PDF is awful, however. For those with the requisite access, the paper is by Ryuji Maehara, Amer. Math. Monthly 91 (1984), 641–643 (doi:10.2307/2323369). The reviewer (see ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=769530) also recommends the proof in Munkres' Topology: a first course as requiring a “comparable quantity of background”. – Harald Hanche-Olsen Dec 11 2009 at 3:17

The least nice part of Maehara's proof is the dependence on the Tietze extension theorem. – Konrad Swanepoel Dec 11 2009 at 19:36

1

In my opinion the Tietze-trick is the most beautiful part of the proof. I am also one of the many people grown up having told that the Jordan curve theorem is something quite difficult to prove. But after reading this proof I will sleep very well. – Balazs Strenner May 31 2011 at 4:47

Vladimir Kanovei · Answer 2 · 2013-05-11 19:35:27Z UTC

1

An elementary proof by means of nonstandard analysis (by reduction to the case of polygons) and elementary combinatorics is given in Kanovei & Reeken, A nonstandard proof of the Jordan curve theorem, RAE 1999, 24, 161--170

answered May 11 at 19:35

Vladimir Kanovei
11●1

nemesiso · Answer 3 · 2012-05-30 10:13:38Z UTC

-1

A nice and simple proof using mod 2 intersection theory is given in the book Differential Topology by Guillemin,Pollack.

answered May 30 2012 at 10:13

nemesiso
123●4

Isn't this the <b>smooth</b> Jordan curve theorem? (Much easier). The function f (Page 86) is assumed to be smooth. – Daniel Moskovich May 30 2012 at 13:08

Ronnie Brown · Answer 4 · 2012-05-30 09:50:34Z UTC

There is a proof of the Jordan Curve Theorem in my book "Topology and groupoids" which also derives results on the Phragmen-Brouwer Property. Also published as

`Groupoids, the Phragmen-Brouwer property and the Jordan curve theorem', J. Homotopy and Related Structures 1 (2006) 175-183.

The van Kampen Theorem for the fundamental groupoid on a set of base points is used to prove that if $X$ is pathconnected and the union of open path connected sets $U,V$ whose intersection has $n$ path components, then the fundamental group of $X$ contains the free group on $n-1$ generators as a retract.

May 30: The question asks why there is not a simple proof. Perhaps the following Figure 9.10 from the above book will explain why a proof is not expected to be so so easy; how do you decide whether a point in the middle is inside or outside?

Fig9.10

Kevin Lin · Answer 5 · 2009-12-26 10:11:38Z UTC

5

Several proofs are here:

http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~aar/jordan/index.htm

Among them, Tverberg's (1980) could (and should) be mentioned.

But, after reading (and reading)

http://www.math.sunysb.edu/~bishop/classes/math401.F09/HalesDefense.pdf ,

I really like Jordan's proof itself.

edited Dec 26 2009 at 10:11

Kevin Lin

answered Dec 11 2009 at 16:26

Ady
2,641●6●21

It is "Tverberg", not "Tvelberg". Sorry for the typo. – Ady Dec 11 2009 at 17:29

3

I've fixed it for you. But you can edit your answers, you know. – Kevin Lin Dec 26 2009 at 10:11

Well, nobody asked you to do that, I think. – Ady Dec 27 2009 at 17:07

mathoverflow.net/faq#othersedit – Kevin Lin Jan 9 2012 at 18:43

Konrad Swanepoel · Answer 6 · 2009-12-11 18:14:17Z UTC

Carsten Thomassen's proof is relatively simple:

Carsten Thomassen, The Jordan-Schönflies theorem and the classification of surfaces. Amer. Math. Monthly 99 (1992), no. 2, 116-130.

By the way, the Jordan Curve Theorem has a formal proof (one that can be checked by a computer): Thomas C. Hales, The Jordan curve theorem, formally and informally. Amer. Math. Monthly 114 (2007), no. 10, 882-894.

Hales bases the formal proof on Thomassen's.

The following is a survey on the older papers on the subject:

H. Guggenheimer, The Jordan curve theorem and an unpublished manuscript by Max Dehn. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 17 (1977), 193-200.

ivane · Answer 7 · 2009-12-11 05:01:00Z UTC

2

You should compare with: "Geometric Topology in Dimensions 2 and 3", Moise, Edwin E. (1977). Springer-Verlag and tell

answered Dec 11 2009 at 5:01

ivane
143●10

Kevin Lin · Answer 8 · 2009-12-11 03:06:20Z UTC

15

It depends on what you mean by "simple". If you know homology, the proof is not very hard (less than 1 page), see for example, section 2.B ("Classical Applications") of Hatcher's book "Algebraic Topology".

answered Dec 11 2009 at 3:06

Kevin Lin
13k●2●34●115

Nice proof of the Jordan curve theorem?

Remember to vote up questions/answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)

8 Answers

You can accept an answer to one of your own questions by clicking the check mark next to it. This awards 15 reputation points to the person who answered and 2 reputation points to you.