-4
$\begingroup$

Take a topological manifold $M$. Suppose one considers a strictly coarser topology than the manifold topology. Can such topology result in a non-Hausdorff topological manifold?

NOTE: PLEASE avoid the coarsest/finest topology over the manifold.

$\endgroup$
10
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ You simply re-posted the recently closed question without any expository improvements. It is unclear why coarsening the topology on a manifold can ever lead to a non-Hausdorff locally Euclidean space. It is unclear what is meant by "possesses singularities". I gather that your $f$ is meant to be a homeomorphism from a Hausdorff manifold to a non-Hausdorff one. Being Hausdorff is preserved under homeomorphisms so no such $f$ exists. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 15 at 22:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You absolutely have not understood the question @IgorBelegradek BTW I gave you the relevant links, but it seems you rather have no interest in reading the question carefully, otherwise you would understand that the Euclidean non-Hausdorff coarser exists by assumption. Once more I give an example, though I barely guess you take the responsibility of your closour vote! mathoverflow.net/q/454368/503363 $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 15 at 23:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @IgorBelegradek $f$ is clearly a diffeomorphism and one wants to know if the map remains smooth after changing the topology. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 15 at 23:11
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Do you have an example of such a non-Hausdorff, locally Euclidean topology on any smooth manifold? I suspect that wlog one could take such a thing and restrict to two charts in the coarse topology containing the non-separable points, and hence get an example that is the union of two balls in Euclidean space, analogous to the line with two origins. $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts
    Commented Feb 16 at 2:22
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @BastamTajik this is a reasonable move. I suggest asking in the special case that I outlined. And if it's not possible for balls in general, then there is nothing special to dimensions 4 and 2, and no amount of physical motivation will help. $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts
    Commented Feb 16 at 5:32

1 Answer 1

6
$\begingroup$

Your hypothesis (modifying the topology to produce a non-Hausdorff topological manifold from a Hausdorff one) is impossible, if you assume the non-Hausdorff manifold has dimension equal or less than the original; hence the answer to the question you asked is vacuously "yes".


Let $(M,\tau)$ be your topological manifold, and denote by $\tau'$ the coarser topology, which you asserted is locally Euclidean.

First we remark that the identity map, regarded as a function from the topological space $(M,\tau)\to (M,\tau')$ is continuous; this is a property of $\tau' \subseteq \tau$ (your coarser assumption).

Given $p\in M$, by the locally Euclidean assumption we may choose an open (w.r.t $\tau'$) neighborhood $O'$ that is homeomorphic to $E'$, some Euclidean space. Note that $O'$ is also open w.r.t. $\tau$.

Similarly there exists another open (w.r.t $\tau$) neighborhood $O$ that is homeomorphic to $E$, another Euclidean space.

Now $O' \cap O$ is an intersection of open sets in the $\tau$ topology, and so is a relatively open subset of $O$, and hence is homeomorphic to some open set $\bar{E}\subseteq E$ in an Euclidean space.

Consider the chain of mappings (for convenience I specify the topology for the middle two spaces)

$$ \bar{E} \to (O'\cap O,\tau) \to (O',\tau') \to E' $$

with the first map the homeomorphism of $O$ and $E$ and the final map the homeomorphism of $O'$ and $E'$. The middle map is the identity map on $M$.

This chain gives an injective continuous map from $\bar{E}$ to $E'$, hence by invariance of domain it is also a homeomorphism to its image. (Technically invariance of domain as commonly stated requires $E$ and $E'$ to have the same dimension. When $\dim(E) > \dim(E')$, however, an upgrade of the theorem shows that there can be no injective continuous maps.)

In particular, this shows the following:

Given any $p\in M$, there exists an open neighborhood (w.r.t $\tau$) $\Omega$ of $p$ such that every open subset $U\subseteq \Omega$ (w.r.t $\tau$) is also open w.r.t. $\tau'$.

Now, assume that $\tau$ is Hausdorff. Given $p\neq q\in M$ let $\Omega_p$ and $\Omega_q$ be as in the previous result. Let $U_p$ and $U_q$ be disjoint open sets (w.r.t. $\tau$) that separate $p$ and $q$. Then $U_p\cap \Omega_p$ and $U_q\cap \Omega_q$ are still disjoint, separates $p$ and $q$, and are both open in the $\tau'$ topology. This shows that $\tau'$ must also be Hausdorff.


For completeness (mostly for myself), let me spell out the upgrade to invariance of domain.

Corollary to Invariance of Domain If $U\subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ is open and $f:U\to \mathbb{R}^m$ is injective with $m < n$, then $f$ cannot be continuous.

Proof: WLOG we can assume $U$ is the unit ball at the origin. Let $V$ be unit ball at the origin of in $\mathbb{R}^m$. There is an obvious embedding of $V$ into $U$, which we denote by $g$.

Assume for contradiction that $f$ is continuous. Then $f\circ g$ is a continuous injective map from $V$ to $\mathbb{R}^m$ which by invariance of domain is an open map. So $f\circ g(V)$ is open in $\mathbb{R}^m$, and by the assumed continuity of $f$ we have $g(V)$ is open in $U$. But the standard embedding of $V$ into $U$ does not have open image.

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Willie, I suspected that this could be ruled out by such local considerations. $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts
    Commented Feb 16 at 11:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have no idea what you mean. Based on your previous questions, I assume you are thinking about Lorentzian manifolds for which the Alexandrov topology is different from the manifold topology. As the proof shows above, this topology is not locally Euclidean. So I have no idea how you can even try to think about a differential structure. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 16 at 23:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If they are not diffeomorphic to start, there is no diffeomorphism sitting around to "acquire a singularity". // As an aside, this is a frustration that others have also expressed about your questions. Many statements you make can be locally interpreted as a sensible one after some obvious modifications. But when you put them together the required modifications often are self-contradictory (between statements). I would personally prefer it if you pause for a bit and make sure your questions make sense, instead of relying on others to clarify them for you. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 17 at 0:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You are misstating the invariance of domain theorem, it requires equal dimension. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 17 at 1:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MoisheKohan: thank you for keeping me honest! $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 17 at 3:28

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