Another path connectedness issue

  • Thread starter radou
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Path
In summary, the conversation discusses an exercise on proving that a subset of R^2 is path connected if it is an open connected subspace. The first solution presented is to use the fact that R^2 is path connected, but this is not sufficient. The conversation then goes on to discuss another approach using open balls, and eventually the clopen hint is used to show that the set of points that can be connected to x by a path in U is clopen in U. The conversation also touches on the convexity of open balls and the need for a path to be in the subset of interest.
  • #1
radou
Homework Helper
3,149
8

Homework Statement



Here's an exercise which seems a bit bizzare.

Show that if U is an open connected subspace of R^2, the U is path connected.
(Hint: show that, given any x0 in u, the set of points that can be connected to x0 by a path in U is clopen in U.)

Now, given the fact that I know that R^2 is path connected, this seems incredibly trivial.

Obviously there's another way to solve it, ignoring the fact above. In this case, I don't even have a clue where to start. The hint seems helpful, since the only clopen sets in a connected space are the empty set and U (in this case) itself, so this proves the fact, but nevertheless I don't have a clue where to start.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Knowing R^2 is path connected does not prove that a subset is path connected. So it's not incredibly trivial. Now why don't you think a little more seriously about the other way? Open balls are path connected, right?
 
  • #3
Dick said:
Knowing R^2 is path connected does not prove that a subset is path connected. So it's not incredibly trivial. Now why don't you think a little more seriously about the other way? Open balls are path connected, right?

Of course, I completely ignored that the path needs to be in the subset of interest. Thanks.

OK, let U be an open connected subspace of R^2.

U can be written as a union of open balls, i.e. [itex]U = \cup_{x \in U} B_{x}[/itex], every of which is path connected. The intersection of these open balls is nonempty, since if it were empty, we could find a separation of U. So, all of these open balls have at least one element in common.

Now, take any x and y from U. There exist balls Bx and By in U which contains x and y. Their intersection is nonempty, and let z be an element contained in it. Now, since Bx is path connected, we can find a function f1 : [0, 1] --> Bx such that f1(0) = x and f1(1) = z, and the same for By, f2 : [0, 1] --> By, with f2(0) = z and f2(1) = y.

Now, if we define g(t) with g(t) = (1 - t)*f1(t) + t* f2(t), g is continuous, and g(0) = f1(0) = x, g(1) = f2(1) = y.

Does this work?
 
  • #4
radou said:
Of course, I completely ignored that the path needs to be in the subset of interest. Thanks.

OK, let U be an open connected subspace of R^2.

U can be written as a union of open balls, i.e. [itex]U = \cup_{x \in U} B_{x}[/itex], every of which is path connected. The intersection of these open balls is nonempty, since if it were empty, we could find a separation of U. So, all of these open balls have at least one element in common.

Now, take any x and y from U. There exist balls Bx and By in U which contains x and y. Their intersection is nonempty, and let z be an element contained in it. Now, since Bx is path connected, we can find a function f1 : [0, 1] --> Bx such that f1(0) = x and f1(1) = z, and the same for By, f2 : [0, 1] --> By, with f2(0) = z and f2(1) = y.

Now, if we define g(t) with g(t) = (1 - t)*f1(t) + t* f2(t), g is continuous, and g(0) = f1(0) = x, g(1) = f2(1) = y.

Does this work?

Is it really so obvious that the image of your g(t) is in BxUBy? I think it is because the balls are convex, but there's a much better way to join the two paths together. But once you make it work, you've basically just shown that the union of two path connected sets that have a nonempty intersection is path connected. That's fine. But that's not what you are being asked to prove. Think about using the clopen hint.
 
  • #5
For some reason, every time I totally ignore the fact that a path of interest must lie in the set I'm looking at.

OK, but the clopen argument leaves me a bit confused; given some x in U, I need to show that the set of points that can be joined to x by a path in U is clopen in U. Let's denote this set with S, then if y is in S, there exists a continuous function f : [0, 1] --> U such that f(0) = x and f(1) = y. Now I have no idea of what to do..?
 
  • #6
Dick said:
Is it really so obvious that the image of your g(t) is in BxUBy? I think it is because the balls are convex,

Btw, just to make this clear, if a set in R^2 is convex, then every line joining some two points of this set lies in the set, right? And the function g is linear function with boundary values "at these points" right? Clearly an open ball is a convex set, but the union of open balls isn't, in general, right?
 
  • #7
radou said:
For some reason, every time I totally ignore the fact that a path of interest must lie in the set I'm looking at.

OK, but the clopen argument leaves me a bit confused; given some x in U, I need to show that the set of points that can be joined to x by a path in U is clopen in U. Let's denote this set with S, then if y is in S, there exists a continuous function f : [0, 1] --> U such that f(0) = x and f(1) = y. Now I have no idea of what to do..?

Start by showing S is open. If y is path connected to x then there is an open ball around y that's path connected to x (and therefore in S). Then show U-S is also open.
 
  • #8
radou said:
Btw, just to make this clear, if a set in R^2 is convex, then every line joining some two points of this set lies in the set, right? And the function g is linear function with boundary values "at these points" right? Clearly an open ball is a convex set, but the union of open balls isn't, in general, right?

Right. The union of the balls may not be convex. There's much easier way to make your path g. Just let g on [0,1/2] follow f1 and g on [1/2,1] follow f2.
 
  • #9
Dick said:
Start by showing S is open. If y is path connected to x then there is an open ball around y that's path connected to x (and therefore in S)

This may seem like a dumb question, but how do I know that there's an open ball around y that's path connected to x?

Btw, just a small digression. I just tried to prove that open balls are path connected in R^n. If I define an open ball at the origin B(0, ε) = {x in R^n : ||x|| < ε}, then, given any two points x and y in B, the function f(t) = (1 - t) x + t y lies in B, for ||f(t)|| <= (1 - t)||x|| + t||y|| < ε. Now, can I conclude that any open ball of radius ε in R^n is path connected, since it's homeomorphic to the open ball B(0, ε)? I assume homeomorphisms preserve path connectedness, right?
 
  • #10
radou said:
This may seem like a dumb question, but how do I know that there's an open ball around y that's path connected to x?

Start with any open ball around y (preferably one inside of U). Find a path from x to y. Find a path from y to a point in the open ball. Glue them together

Btw, just a small digression. I just tried to prove that open balls are path connected in R^n. If I define an open ball at the origin B(0, ε) = {x in R^n : ||x|| < ε}, then, given any two points x and y in B, the function f(t) = (1 - t) x + t y lies in B, for ||f(t)|| <= (1 - t)||x|| + t||y|| < ε. Now, can I conclude that any open ball of radius ε in R^n is path connected, since it's homeomorphic to the open ball B(0, ε)? I assume homeomorphisms preserve path connectedness, right?

This is right. If you have a homeomorphism, you can just compose it with a path in the domain to get a path in the codomain. If you're interested, there's an even easier proof that all balls are path connected, which doesn't require convexity or homeomorphisms: to get from x to y, just take the path from x to the origin, then the origin to y that goes on straight lines.
 
  • #11
Office_Shredder said:
If you're interested, there's an even easier proof that all balls are path connected, which doesn't require convexity or homeomorphisms: to get from x to y, just take the path from x to the origin, then the origin to y that goes on straight lines.

I'm not sure I understood this? You take any open ball of R^n, right? Take any points x and y lying inside it. Then..? How can a path go to the origin, it goes outside the ball then, no? I guess there's a misunderstanding here..
 
  • #12
Dick said:
Start by showing S is open. If y is path connected to x then there is an open ball around y that's path connected to x (and therefore in S). Then show U-S is also open.

OK, if y is path connected to x, take an open ball around y in U (we can do this, since U is open). Then every point of this open ball is path connected to y, and hence path connected to x. So, the set of all points path connected to x is a union of open balls, which is again open. The complement of this set in U is the set of all points not path connected to x. But regardless of this, since these points are in U, for all of them there exist open balls in U around them, and hence the set equals a union of such open balls, so it's open. Hence, the set of all points path connected to x is closed. So, it must equal U (it cannot be empty, since y it contains y). Since this holds for any x, it follows that U is path connected.

Now, if this is correct, there's only one step I don't quite understand, and it's the first one. We only assumed that y is path connected to x. But this might not be true..?
 
  • #13
radou said:
OK, if y is path connected to x, take an open ball around y in U (we can do this, since U is open). Then every point of this open ball is path connected to y, and hence path connected to x. So, the set of all points path connected to x is a union of open balls, which is again open. The complement of this set in U is the set of all points not path connected to x. But regardless of this, since these points are in U, for all of them there exist open balls in U around them, and hence the set equals a union of such open balls, so it's open. Hence, the set of all points path connected to x is closed. So, it must equal U (it cannot be empty, since y it contains y). Since this holds for any x, it follows that U is path connected.

Now, if this is correct, there's only one step I don't quite understand, and it's the first one. We only assumed that y is path connected to x. But this might not be true..?

Ok, so if y is in S then you agree there is an open ball around y that is path connected to x. Right? Now if z is in U-S, yes, there is a ball B around z in U. Isn't it pretty clear that if z is NOT path connected to x then no point in B can be path connected to x? Hence the ball is in U-S.
 
  • #14
Dick said:
Ok, so if y is in S then you agree there is an open ball around y that is path connected to x. Right? Now if z is in U-S, yes, there is a ball B around z in U. Isn't it pretty clear that if z is NOT path connected to x then no point in B can be path connected to x? Hence the ball is in U-S.

OK, I got it all now. Thanks for your patience.
 

FAQ: Another path connectedness issue

What is "Another path connectedness issue"?

"Another path connectedness issue" refers to a problem in graph theory where a graph has multiple paths connecting two vertices, making it difficult to determine the shortest path between them.

Why is "Another path connectedness issue" important?

"Another path connectedness issue" is important because it can impact the efficiency and accuracy of algorithms that rely on finding the shortest path in a graph. It is also a fundamental concept in graph theory and has applications in various fields, such as transportation planning and network analysis.

How is "Another path connectedness issue" different from regular path connectedness?

The main difference between "Another path connectedness issue" and regular path connectedness is that in the former, there are multiple paths connecting two vertices, while in the latter, there is only one path. This difference can have important implications in graph theory and algorithm design.

What are some strategies for dealing with "Another path connectedness issue"?

There are several strategies for addressing "Another path connectedness issue." One approach is to use algorithms specifically designed to find the shortest path in graphs with multiple paths between vertices, such as the A* algorithm. Another strategy is to preprocess the graph by merging or eliminating redundant paths to simplify the problem.

What are some real-world examples of "Another path connectedness issue"?

"Another path connectedness issue" can be found in various real-world scenarios, such as finding the most efficient travel route between two cities with multiple connecting flights, determining the most optimal delivery route for a package with multiple possible paths, or identifying the shortest route for a network of roads with multiple possible routes between two locations.

Back
Top