5
$\begingroup$

This is probably a very basic question, but I don't know the answer and I also don't see how it might be obvious (which it very well might be).

Given a topological space $X$, when is the set of all its continuous self-maps generated by the subset consisting of

  • the self-homeomorphisms of prime order (i.e., there exists some prime number $p$ such that $f^p = id$ while $f^k \neq id$ for all $k \leq p$) and
  • the continuous retractions (i.e. $f^2 = f$)?

Is the answer to this a well-known fact? Is there a characterization of the cases where it is true?

I should add that, by generation, I mean everything you can get by applying composition finitely many times.


Edit: I originally also asked whether the statement is true or not. A counterexample was quickly presented by James Cranch (see below), so I have put more emphasis on a different part of my question, namely if there is a characterization of the cases where the statement is true.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Where does this problem come from? Given the incomprehensible variety of topological space structures, I'd be inclined to suspect that a characterization over all topological spaces would be hopelessly difficult. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 6, 2013 at 15:32
  • $\begingroup$ Fair enough, my motivation is as follows: Take the lattice of all submonoids of the monoid given by all continuous self-maps of a topological space. If am not mistaken, then the atoms in this lattice are precisely the monads generated by one of the (nontrivial) functions that I have listet in my question. Thus, I was interested whether the (lattice-)join of all these gives me the full monoid. $\endgroup$
    – Niemi
    Commented Sep 6, 2013 at 15:42
  • $\begingroup$ A more reasonable (but still virtually impossible) question would be for which spaces is every maps which is not a self-homeomorphism generated by retractions. Probably one also wants to put some conditions on the topology so that every bijective cts self-map is a homeomorphism. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 6, 2013 at 19:28

3 Answers 3

6
$\begingroup$

This is most likely pretty rare. Let G be any finite group. Then Birkhoff proved that G is the automorphism group of a finite distributive lattice L. The G is the group of homomorphisms of the space of prime filters on L with the usual kernel-hull topology. Thus any finite group is the homeomorphism group of a finite topological space but need not be generated by elements of prime order.

Added.In fact any group is the homeomorphism group of a topological space, including torsion-free ones and any monoid can be the set of nonconstant selfmaps of a space. See What sets of self-maps are the continuous self-maps under some topology?.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ That's a good point (and one I should have considered it given that I am familiar with Birkhoff's result). It does not quite fully answer my question, but I thank you very much and happily give you an upvote for this. $\endgroup$
    – Niemi
    Commented Sep 6, 2013 at 15:33
4
$\begingroup$

It is not always the case; a counterexample is given by a degree-2 self-map of the circle.

A continuous retraction satisfies $\deg(f)^2 = \deg(f^2) = \deg(f)$ and hence has degree either $0$ or $1$. Meanwhile, the self-homeomorphisms have invertible degree, which must therefore be $\pm1$.

Compositions of these have degree $-1, 0$ or $1$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot for the answer. Do you know a characterization of the cases where the statement is true? $\endgroup$
    – Niemi
    Commented Sep 6, 2013 at 15:13
  • $\begingroup$ No. Similar techniques to this one will work quite well in greater generality, but only for the very pleasant kinds of spaces favoured by homotopy theorists. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 6, 2013 at 15:30
  • $\begingroup$ Alright. Thanks again for your help. $\endgroup$
    – Niemi
    Commented Sep 6, 2013 at 15:35
4
$\begingroup$

Here is s a different reason why the property is rare:

Consider a topological space $X$ with a continuous surjection $f \colon X \rightarrow X$ that is not a homeomorphism. Assume $f = g_n \circ \ldots \circ g_1$, where each $g_i$ is a homeomorphism or a continuous retraction. Since $f$ is surjective, $g_n$ must be surjective and is hence not a nontrivial retraction. It follows that it must be a homeomorphism. We obtain $g_n^{-1} \circ f = g_{n-1} \circ \ldots \circ g_1$, and we can repeat the arguments to conclude each $g_i$ is a homeomorphism. Thus $g_n \circ \ldots \circ g_1$ is a homeomorphism, whereas $f$ is not. Contradiction.

Thus, the statement fails whenever the space has a continuous surjective selfmap that is not a homeomorphism. Thus, it even fails for discrete spaces of infinite cardinality.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .