8
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to find a proof for the following assetion: Given a rectangular region $R$ and a subset $A$ of $R$, if every curve that starts at the left side of $R$ and ends at the right side intersects $A$, then $A$ contains a connected component that intersects the upper and lower side of $R$.

Intuitively, if $A$ 'blocks' every curve that goes from left to right, then $A$ must have a connected component that goes from the upper to lower side.

I'm pretty sure I saw a proof of this theorem in an elementary topology book, but I can't seem to find it again. I would like to know wether there really is an elementary proof of this assertion (only using elementary topology) and where I can find it.

Sorry for my bad english. Any help is appreciated!

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, the rectangle belongs to $\mathbb{R}^2$ $\endgroup$ Commented 2 days ago
  • $\begingroup$ The correct assertion is that any curve connecting the left and right sides must cross any curve connecting the top and bottom sides, as long as both curves remain within the closed rectangle. Technically, topology isn't elementary. But there is actually an elementary proof of this fact, via discretization to reduce it to axis-parallel rectangular curves then application of the extremal principle, like here. $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday

1 Answer 1

15
$\begingroup$

I believe your assertion is false. Let $A=\gamma_1([0, \infty)) \cup \gamma_2([0, \infty))$ be a union of two curves that spiral in towards the disk $D_r$ of radius $r$ but never reach it. Something like this:

a Desmos graph matching the above description

Each closure $\overline{\gamma_i([0, \infty))} = \gamma_i([0, \infty)) \cup \partial D_r$ is disjoint from the other curve, so the two curves are a separation of $A$; neither component of $A$ meets the top and bottom edges.

Now suppose (for contradiction) that some curve $f \colon [0, 1] \to [-1,1]^2 \setminus A$ has $f(0)$ on the left edge and $f(1)$ on the right edge. By compactness $f$ attains some minimum distance $q$ away from the center. We can't have $q>r$ because $[-1, 1]^2 \setminus A \setminus D_q$ then certainly does not have such a path $f$. We can therefore let $t_0 = \inf\{t \in [0, 1] : f(t) \in D_r\}$, so then $f(t_0) \in \partial D_r$ and $f([0, t_0))$ is disjoint from $D_r$. Choose a small $\epsilon < r$. By continuity, there is some $\delta > 0$ with $f([t_0-\delta, t_0))$ all $\epsilon$-close to $f(t_0)$. However, since $f(t_0 - \delta) \notin D_r$, we can see that $f$ must always do another loop around $D_r$ on $(t_0-\delta, t_0)$ before being able to reach $f(t_0)$. But another loop around is impossible because $\epsilon$ is small, so we have a contradiction, and we can conclude that any path from the left edge to the right edge must meet $A$.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Indeed, the claim is false. I find it a bit easier to consider the case of "spinning" a curve around the whole box, yielding a piecewise-linear spiral approaching the boundary of the rectangular region from the inside. Any curve would either have to intersect the spiral, or else wind infinitely around the spiral (and thus cannot be the homeomorphic image of a closed interval) $\endgroup$ Commented 2 days ago
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is a beautiful counterexample, thanks. However, I'm pretty sure I saw a similar assertion (maybe under additional hypothesis) in a topology book and I can't find it again. $\endgroup$ Commented 2 days ago
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @A.L.Bergasa Maybe it is true for closed $A$. $\endgroup$ Commented 2 days ago
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For the closed $A$ case I think one can apply the Janiszewski theorem maybe and prove it by contradiction. $\endgroup$ Commented 2 days ago

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.