1

One of the most immediate consequences of the Alexander-Pontryagin Duality Theorem is that if $X$ is compact and $f, g: X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ are two embeddings, then $\mathbb{R}^n \setminus f(X)$ and $\mathbb{R}^n \setminus g(X)$ have the same number of components. The same applies for $\mathbb{S}^2$.

But in the plane, there are no 'wild sets'. So is it in fact the case that $\mathbb{R}^2 \setminus f(X) \simeq \mathbb{R}^2 \setminus g(X)$ when $X$ is connected? A union of two disjoint circles are a counterexample if we don't assume $X$ is connected, depending on whether one is in the interior region of the other.

I thought I had seen some counterexample to this in the plane, some sort of graph, but now I can't think of it and it wasn't in the book I thought I saw it in so now I'm feeling uncertain. Note that $f$ and $g$ would have to be inequivalent embeddings, because every isotopy of compact subsets in the plane extends to an ambient isotopy.

EDIT: As pointed out in a comment below, it's true. The proof outlined here uses shape theory: Homotopy type of the complement of a subspace

So now my question is, is there a more elementary proof? It doesn't have to be for the full-strength "only homotopy type matters" of the above theorem, just when $K, K'$ are homeomorphic would be satisfactory to me.

  • 1
    relevant question, whose answer I believe implies a positive answer to your question as well in the $\Bbb R^2$ case. https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2897660/homotopy-type-of-the-complement-of-a-subspace – Alessandro Codenotti Feb 17 '21 at 14:06
  • Yes, this answer implies it's true. Hmm, if shape theory is the only proof then I can imagine why I hadn't seen it, before haha I guess I should rephrase my question . . . – John Samples Feb 17 '21 at 14:11
  • Well I don´t know if it is the only proof (I hope not in fact!). I´m a little confused by that answer however, it claims that the closed topologist´s since curve and a point have the same shape, so by the cited result they are supposed to have homeomorphic complements in the plane. which seems very false to me (the complement of the former has two path components I´d guess). What am I missing? – Alessandro Codenotti Feb 17 '21 at 14:13
  • 1
    You might be thinking of the Warsaw Circle; "closed" topologist's sine curve just means it's the compact version, with the limit arc at $x = 0$. – John Samples Feb 17 '21 at 14:15
  • Oh ok that makes a lot of sense, I mixed up the names, I had indeed the Warsaw circle in mind, thanks for clearing that up – Alessandro Codenotti Feb 17 '21 at 14:16
  • Should the term "compact" in the statement be replaced by "connected"? It would also be nice if the meaning of "$\simeq$" was explained. – Ruy Feb 17 '21 at 15:41
  • You do not need shape theory for this, Alexander duality suffices, plus the fact that each surface whose homology is that of the plane is homotopy equivalent to one. – Moishe Kohan Feb 17 '21 at 21:49
  • Can you post a more elaborated answer? – John Samples Feb 17 '21 at 23:08
  • Actually don't worry about it, I think the shape theory proof is OK and probably is equivalent. It doesn't really need "shape theory" for the proof, just some retract theory and the Alexander-Pontryagin. What would actually help would be a proof that doesn't use algebraic topology - though nerves and "Cech cycles" would be ok. Do you know if there is such a proof? – John Samples Feb 18 '21 at 07:26

1 Answers1

1

Here is a proof via the Alexander duality (using the form of duality with the Chech cohomology of $K$):

  1. If $K\subset S^2$ is compact and connected, then for $\Omega= S^2\setminus K$ we have $H_1(\Omega)=0$.

  2. Thus, each component $\Omega_i$ of $\Omega$ is an oriented surface with $H_1(\Omega_i)=0$. One then proves that such $\Omega_i$ is simply-connected. One proof is that for each noncompact connected surface $S$, $\pi_1(S)$ is free. Then apply Hurewicz theorem in conjunction with the fact that $H_1(\Omega_i)=0$.

  3. Thus, assuming that $K$ is nonempty, Hurewicz theorem applied one more time implies that each $\Omega_i$ is contractible.

  4. Applying the Alexander duality again, we see that ${H}_0(\Omega)\cong \check{H}^1(K)$. In other words, the homotopy type of $K$ also determines the number of connected components of $\Omega$. Hence, the homotopy type of $K$ determines the homotopy type of $\Omega=S^2\setminus K$.

One can do better, of course, and note that each connected noncompact simply-connected surface $S$ is homeomorphic to the plane. Proving this is not hard once you know the classification of surfaces; in fact, it is enough to know that $S$ is orientable and has $b_1(S)=0$ (thus, simplifying the proof above and avoiding most of the Algebraic Topology arguments):

Exhaust $S$ by compact subsurfaces with (smooth) boundary $S_k$ (find a smooth proper function on $S$ and consider its regular sublevel sets). Use the assumption that $b_1(S)=0$ to conclude that each boundary component of $S_k$ bounds a compact subsurface in $S$. Using this, enlarge each subsurface $S_k$ to a compact subsurface $S'_k$ which has exactly one boundary component and no handles (since $b_1=0$). WLOG, the surfaces $S'_k$ still form an exhaustion: $$ S'_k\subset int(S'_{k+1}). $$ Now, using the classification of surfaces conclude that $S'_k$ is homeomorphic to the disk and each $S'_{k+1} \setminus int(S'_k)$ is homeomorphic to the annulus. Using this information, construct a homeomorphism $S\to R^2$.

See also my answer here.

With this exhaustion argument in mind, you only need algebraic topology to relate the number of connected components of $R^2\setminus K$ to the topology of $K$. One can do this without algebraic topology but it will be long and complicated (since, among other things, you will be reproving Jordan curve theorem) and, as far as I am concerned, pointless.

To conclude: The homotopy type of a connected and compact subset $K\subset S^2$ determines the topology of $S^2 \setminus K$.

Moishe Kohan
  • 97,719
  • Is the point of using smooth functions to get collaring for the annuli? I will have the annulus theorem at my disposal at this point, is that good enough to avoid any smooth arguments? All those various characterizations and sufficient conditions for simply connected domains in the plane/sphere I will also have, so I can do the 'second act' where we extend 'homotopy type' to 'homeomorphism type' without problems. So algebraic topology (beyond basic homotopy theory/surface classification) only shows up in #1 and #4, right? – John Samples Feb 19 '21 at 19:44
  • 1
    @JohnSamples: Yes, on all items. The Schoenflies theorem is a rather intricate result, using smooth curves simplifies things a lot. – Moishe Kohan Feb 19 '21 at 20:00
  • Ok thanks, I will see if I can wrangle it without Alexander-Pontryagin Duality in a REASONABLE way; your outline is very helpful. Otherwise I will just have to assume some of its consequences. I'd be surprised if it's possible to do without at least knowing what "homologous curves" are, but the homotopy extension property might be able to do a surprising amount of work. It's useful to me to have a non-algebraic proof because this is for a book where I want the result, but don't want to develop the theory or assume familiarity with homology/cohomology. – John Samples Feb 20 '21 at 00:17