5
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The most natural sufficient condition that comes to mind is that $f$ be a $C^1$ submersion. $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg Dec 3 '13 at 13:46
  • $\begingroup$ One remark: the discreteness above should be replaced by lightness. Discreteness means that the fiber of f does not have accumulation points. $\endgroup$ – Changyu Guo Dec 3 '13 at 13:59
  • $\begingroup$ There is classical nice sufficient condition (Brouwer): a continuous injective map from an open subset of $\mathbf R^n$ to $\mathbf R^n$ is open. However, it looks like it is superseded by the theorem of Titus-Young you mention. $\endgroup$ – ACL Mar 6 '14 at 13:01
  • $\begingroup$ To ACL: the result you mentioned is the invariance of the domain, which is a simply application of degree theory. Here I am looking for more analytic assumptions on $f$, instead of strong topological assumptions, like you mentioned local injectivity. $\endgroup$ – Changyu Guo Mar 6 '14 at 14:00

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.