The Lusternik-Schnirelmann-Borsuk theorem has the following two equivalent covering formulations. For every integer , a cover of the sphere by closed sets has a member containing an antipodal pair. The same assertion holds with open sets in place of closed sets. Thus antipodal-pair-free open sets, or antipodal-pair-free closed sets, cannot cover . The dimension-zero case simply says that one set covering the two-point sphere contains both points.
Here is why the two versions agree. A finite open cover of a compact metric space admits a closed shrinking that still covers: sufficiently small closed balls subordinate to the open cover can be grouped according to their containing open member. Applying the closed version to that shrinking proves the open version. Conversely, if a nonempty closed subset of avoids antipodal pairs, compactness gives positive distance between and . A sufficiently small open neighbourhood of still avoids antipodal pairs. Enlarge each member of a hypothetical closed counterexample in this way; the open version rules it out. Empty members cause no difficulty.
Another common equivalent formulation is the Borsuk-Ulam theorem: every continuous has for some , or, equivalently, every continuous odd function has a zero. For example, if antipodal-pair-free open sets covered , a subordinate partition of unity would give the odd function
It cannot vanish, since some , whereas antipodal-pair-freeness forces . In the other direction, if an odd function never vanishes, choose vectors forming a regular simplex centred at the origin in . For , the open sets cover and none contains an antipodal pair, contradicting the covering theorem.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.