doing my research I found the following problem and I´ll be glad if someone could give a reference.

We say that a compact connected subset $K$ of the plane is psuedo laminated if the following hold:

  • $K$ has a partition by $C^1$ curves without boundary. For each $x$ in $K$ denote by $W(x)$ the leaf through $x.$

  • For any $x\in K$ and any $y\in W(x)$ there exist a neighborhood $U_x$ and a continuous map $\phi:U_x\times [0,1]\to\mathbb{R}^2$ such that: 1) $\phi(x,0)=x$ 2) $\phi(x,1)=y$ 3) for any $z\in K\cap U_x$ we have that $\phi(z,t)\in W(z)$ for any $t\in[0,1].$

I´m looking for the following results:

1) Let $K$ be a compact connected subset of $\mathbb{R}^2$ and pseudo laminated. Then $K$ separates the plane in at least two connected components

2) If the complement of $K$ has just two connected components, then $K$ is just a circle.

  • $\begingroup$ Does U_x contain all of W(x), or just the two points x,y ? Also, I may be missing something in 2), because I have the impression that if you take K to be the union of circles of radii in [1,2], then K is pseudo laminated (you may even take U_x to be the entire plane and phi to be a family of rotations indexed by t), its complement has two connected components, but K is not homeomorphic to a circle. $\endgroup$ – Mathieu Baillif Mar 11 '13 at 21:57
  • $\begingroup$ Couldn´t $K$ in 2) be a "closed ring"? $\endgroup$ – Ramiro de la Vega Mar 11 '13 at 21:58
  • $\begingroup$ I´m sorry, $K$ has emtpy interior. U_x ia an open neighbourhood of $x.$ $\endgroup$ – Martin Mar 11 '13 at 22:07
  • $\begingroup$ I do not know a ref, but it does not seem to be hard to prove. BTW, do you know that the staement does not hold if you drop compactness? $\endgroup$ – Anton Petrunin Mar 12 '13 at 2:49
  • $\begingroup$ I agree, it seems not very hard to be proved. It is a bit faraway from i was doing and it was better to include a reference than a proof. If you drop compactness the statemement does not hold. For instance if you take just a curve which lool likes the graph of $\sin (1/x)$ at both "ends" does not separate the plane. Also, if you don´t have the second part of the definition of pseudo-laminatios the statement does not hold (the stable manifold of a Smale´s horshoe does not separates the plane) $\endgroup$ – Martin Mar 12 '13 at 12:47

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.