Skip to main content

Timeline for Jordan Curve Theorem for Manifolds

Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0

11 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jun 11, 2011 at 18:26 comment added Ryan Budney @James: the target space being Euclidean isn't terribly important for Jordan-Brouwer, it's an expository simplification -- the proof is pretty much always more general than the statement of the theorem.
Jun 11, 2011 at 17:58 answer added Theo Johnson-Freyd timeline score: 0
Jun 11, 2011 at 17:51 vote accept Dilitante
Jun 11, 2011 at 17:33 comment added Dilitante Should be simply connected, yes. Ryan, This differs from the Jordan-Brouwer theorem in that now we are talking about mappings into any simply connected Manifold, not just R^n
Jun 11, 2011 at 15:44 comment added Sergey Melikhov Ryan: I don't think transversality and Guillemin-Pollack suffice. The question is about topological embeddings.
Jun 11, 2011 at 15:35 comment added Ryan Budney James, IMO this question is a great math.stackexchange.com question.
Jun 11, 2011 at 15:16 comment added Ryan Budney The general theorem of the form of (1) is called the Jordan-Brouwer Separation theorem. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_curve_theorem also the Differential Topology text of Guillemin and Pollack. General theorems of the type (2) follow directly from elementary transversality theorems, see also Guillemin and Pollack.
Jun 11, 2011 at 13:51 answer added Angelo timeline score: 8
Jun 11, 2011 at 13:40 comment added George Lowther For (1) I think you need $f$ to act trivially on the nth (co)homology group. Think about embedding a circle in a torus. I need not break it into two components.
Jun 11, 2011 at 13:37 comment added Francesco Polizzi If you take as $C$ a meridian of a $2$-torus $M\subset \mathbb{R}^3$, it seems to me that $M−C$ is connected
Jun 11, 2011 at 13:03 history asked Dilitante CC BY-SA 3.0