Skip to main content
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
Bumped by Community user
added 397 characters in body
Source Link
Changyu Guo
  • 1.9k
  • 11
  • 17

Given a continuous mapping $f$ between Euclidean domains (or domains in topological manifolds) of the same (topological) dimension, what are the natural assumptions to conclude that $f$ is open? Here, open means that f maps open sets to open sets.

The only way I know is imposing certain regularity assumption on $f$ to conclude that the fiber of $f$ has zero one-dimensional Hausdorff measure, i.e., $H^1(f^{-1}(y))=0$ for all $y$. Then one invokes a result of C. Titus, G. Young, The extension of interiority, with some applications, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 103 (1962) 329–340 to conclude that $f$ is open. Actually, the latter theorem implies that $f$ is both discrete and open. Here discreteness means that the fiber of $f$ does not have accumulation points.

Some update: In the following paper of Bonk and Kleiner, it was proved that a mapping of bounded multiplicity from $X$ to $\mathbb{R}^n$ is open, provided that $X$ is a compact metric space such that every non-empty open subset of $X$ has topological dimension at least $n$.

Bonk, Mario; Kleiner, Bruce Rigidity for quasi-Möbius group actions. J. Differential Geom. 61 (2002), no. 1, 81–106.

Given a continuous mapping $f$ between Euclidean domains (or domains in topological manifolds) of the same (topological) dimension, what are the natural assumptions to conclude that $f$ is open? Here, open means that f maps open sets to open sets.

The only way I know is imposing certain regularity assumption on $f$ to conclude that the fiber of $f$ has zero one-dimensional Hausdorff measure, i.e., $H^1(f^{-1}(y))=0$ for all $y$. Then one invokes a result of C. Titus, G. Young, The extension of interiority, with some applications, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 103 (1962) 329–340 to conclude that $f$ is open. Actually, the latter theorem implies that $f$ is both discrete and open. Here discreteness means that the fiber of $f$ does not have accumulation points.

Given a continuous mapping $f$ between Euclidean domains (or domains in topological manifolds) of the same (topological) dimension, what are the natural assumptions to conclude that $f$ is open? Here, open means that f maps open sets to open sets.

The only way I know is imposing certain regularity assumption on $f$ to conclude that the fiber of $f$ has zero one-dimensional Hausdorff measure, i.e., $H^1(f^{-1}(y))=0$ for all $y$. Then one invokes a result of C. Titus, G. Young, The extension of interiority, with some applications, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 103 (1962) 329–340 to conclude that $f$ is open. Actually, the latter theorem implies that $f$ is both discrete and open. Here discreteness means that the fiber of $f$ does not have accumulation points.

Some update: In the following paper of Bonk and Kleiner, it was proved that a mapping of bounded multiplicity from $X$ to $\mathbb{R}^n$ is open, provided that $X$ is a compact metric space such that every non-empty open subset of $X$ has topological dimension at least $n$.

Bonk, Mario; Kleiner, Bruce Rigidity for quasi-Möbius group actions. J. Differential Geom. 61 (2002), no. 1, 81–106.

added 10 characters in body
Source Link
Changyu Guo
  • 1.9k
  • 11
  • 17

Given a continuous mapping $f$ between Euclidean domains (or domains in topological manifolds) of the same (topological) dimension, what are the natural assumptions to conclude that $f$ is open? Here, open means that f maps open sets to open sets.

The only way I know is imposing certain regularity assumption on $f$ to conclude that the fiber of $f$ has zero one-dimensional Hausdorff measure, i.e., $H^1(f^{-1}(y))=0$ for all $y$. Then one invokes a result of C. Titus, G. Young, The extension of interiority, with some applications, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 103 (1962) 329–340 to conclude that $f$ is open. Actually, the latter theorem implies that $f$ is both discrete and open. Here discreteness means that the fiber of $f$ is totally disconnecteddoes not have accumulation points.

Given a continuous mapping $f$ between Euclidean domains (or domains in topological manifolds) of the same (topological) dimension, what are the natural assumptions to conclude that $f$ is open? Here, open means that f maps open sets to open sets.

The only way I know is imposing certain regularity assumption on $f$ to conclude that the fiber of $f$ has zero one-dimensional Hausdorff measure, i.e., $H^1(f^{-1}(y))=0$ for all $y$. Then one invokes a result of C. Titus, G. Young, The extension of interiority, with some applications, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 103 (1962) 329–340 to conclude that $f$ is open. Actually, the latter theorem implies that $f$ is both discrete and open. Here discreteness means that the fiber of $f$ is totally disconnected.

Given a continuous mapping $f$ between Euclidean domains (or domains in topological manifolds) of the same (topological) dimension, what are the natural assumptions to conclude that $f$ is open? Here, open means that f maps open sets to open sets.

The only way I know is imposing certain regularity assumption on $f$ to conclude that the fiber of $f$ has zero one-dimensional Hausdorff measure, i.e., $H^1(f^{-1}(y))=0$ for all $y$. Then one invokes a result of C. Titus, G. Young, The extension of interiority, with some applications, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 103 (1962) 329–340 to conclude that $f$ is open. Actually, the latter theorem implies that $f$ is both discrete and open. Here discreteness means that the fiber of $f$ does not have accumulation points.

grammar
Source Link
Federico Poloni
  • 20.2k
  • 2
  • 82
  • 120

How many ways do we have to prove that a mapping is open?

The question is that given a continuous mapping f between Euclidean domains 

Given a continuous mapping $f$ between Euclidean domains (or domains in topological manifolds) of the same (topological) dimension. What, what are the natural assumptions to conclude that f$f$ is open? Here, open means that f maps open setsets to open setsets.

The only way I know is that one imposes certain regularity assumption on f to

concludeThe only way I know is imposing certain regularity assumption on $f$ to conclude that the fiber of f$f$ has zero one-dimensional Hausdorff measure, i.e., H^1(f^{-1}(y))=0$H^1(f^{-1}(y))=0$ for all y$y$. Then one invokes a result of C. Titus, G. Young, The extension of interiority, with some applicationsThe extension of interiority, with some applications, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 103 (1962) 329–340 to conclude that f$f$ is open. Actually, the latter theorem implies that f$f$ is both discrete and open. Here discreteness means that the fiber of f$f$ is totally disconnected.

How many ways we have to prove that a mapping is open?

The question is that given a continuous mapping f between Euclidean domains 

(or domains in topological manifolds) of the same (topological) dimension. What are the natural assumptions to conclude that f is open? Here, open means that f maps open set to open set.

The only way I know is that one imposes certain regularity assumption on f to

conclude that the fiber of f has zero one-dimensional Hausdorff measure, i.e. H^1(f^{-1}(y))=0 for all y. Then one invokes a result of C. Titus, G. Young, The extension of interiority, with some applications, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 103 (1962) 329–340 to conclude that f is open. Actually, the latter theorem implies that f is both discrete and open. Here discreteness means that the fiber of f is totally disconnected.

How many ways do we have to prove that a mapping is open?

Given a continuous mapping $f$ between Euclidean domains (or domains in topological manifolds) of the same (topological) dimension, what are the natural assumptions to conclude that $f$ is open? Here, open means that f maps open sets to open sets.

The only way I know is imposing certain regularity assumption on $f$ to conclude that the fiber of $f$ has zero one-dimensional Hausdorff measure, i.e., $H^1(f^{-1}(y))=0$ for all $y$. Then one invokes a result of C. Titus, G. Young, The extension of interiority, with some applications, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 103 (1962) 329–340 to conclude that $f$ is open. Actually, the latter theorem implies that $f$ is both discrete and open. Here discreteness means that the fiber of $f$ is totally disconnected.

Source Link
Changyu Guo
  • 1.9k
  • 11
  • 17
Loading