1

The answer https://math.stackexchange.com/a/4411293/32337 includes the assertion that the Niemytzki plane $\Gamma$ (also known as the Moore plane, and as the tangent disk space) is locally metrizable.

What is a metric on a basic open neighborhood $N = \{(x, 0\} \cup B_{r}((x,0))$ of a point $(x, 0)$ on the horizontal axis that is compatible with the topology of $\Gamma$? [Here $B_{r}((x,0))$ denotes the usual Euclidean open ball of radius $r$ at the indicated point.]

murray
  • 778
  • 3
  • 16

2 Answers2

3

The Moore plane is Hausdorff and completely regular, and therefore $N$ is also Hausdorff and completely regular. In particular, $N$ is Hausdorff and regular. Besides, it is clearly second countable. But then, by Urysohn's metrization theorem, $N$ is metrizable.

  • To show that the subspace topology of $N$ in $\Gamma$ is the same as the subspace topology of $N$ for the usual topology of the half-plane is a bit tricky, namely, to show that each basic open neighborhood of, say, $(0, 0)$ in $N$ for $\Gamma$ contains the intersection with $N$ of a usual (Euclidean) neighborhood of the same point. – murray Mar 25 '22 at 15:27
  • I ser nothing tricky there. Do you want me to add that to my answer? – José Carlos Santos Mar 25 '22 at 15:29
  • Yes! I'm having trouble with this: let $N = {(x,0)}\cup B_{r}((x,r))$, a basic neighborhood of $(x,0)$ in $\Gamma$. Take a basic $\Gamma$-neighborhood $V = {(x,0)}\cup B_{\epsilon}((x,\epsilon)$ of $(x, 0)$ contained in $N$, that is, $\epsilon < r$. How does one find a Euclidean open ball $B_{\delta}((x,0))$ such that $B_{\delta}((x,0)) \cap N \subset V$? – murray Mar 25 '22 at 18:58
  • I can't do that. I was wrong. Sorry about that. I've edited my answer. What do you think now? – José Carlos Santos Mar 25 '22 at 19:27
  • Ugh: using a sledgehammer! – murray Mar 25 '22 at 19:39
  • @murray My though exactly! But I was unable to find a better answer. – José Carlos Santos Mar 25 '22 at 19:41
2

Any point $(x',y')$ in $N$, except $(x,0)$, lies on the boundary of some $B_\epsilon((x,\epsilon))$. Define $\rho(x',y')$ to be that $\epsilon$, and $\rho(x,0) = 0$. The map $(x',y') \mapsto (x',y', \rho (x',y'))$ embeds $N$ in $\mathbb R^3$ (as a skewed cone with a slit down the side). Transferring the standard metric back gives this metric on $N$:

$d((x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2)) = \sqrt {(x_2-x_1)^2 + (y_2-y_1)^2 +(\rho(x_2,y_2) - \rho(x_1,y_1))^2}$

ETA further explanation.

Let $(x,\epsilon)$ be the point where the perpendicular bisector of $(x',y')$ and $(x,0)$ crosses the line through $(x,0)$ parallel to the y-axis. Then $(x',y')$ is on the boundary of $B_\epsilon((x,\epsilon))$. Simple geometry shows that $\epsilon = [(x'-x)^2 + y'^2]/2y'$.

Let's call the inclusion map $\phi$ and its image $M$. $\phi^{-1}$ is the restriction to $M$ of the projection onto the (x,y)-plane. $N \setminus \{(x,0)\}$ and $M\setminus\{(x,0,0)\}$ have the standard topology so $\phi^{-1}|_{M\setminus\{(x,0,0)\}}$ is continuous.Its restriction to any compact subset of $M\setminus\{(x,0,0)\}$ will be closed which is enough to show it is a homeomorphism between $M\setminus\{(x,0,0)\}$ and $N\setminus\{(x,0)\}$.

That leaves only the behaviour at $(x,0)$ to be considered. Let $C_\epsilon$ be the intersection of the $\epsilon$-ball in $\mathbb R^3$ centered on $(x,0,0)$ with $M$. It is a cone-like shape which lies below the plane $z=\epsilon$ and contains all of that part of $M$ which is below $z=\epsilon/\sqrt{5}$. Hence

$B_{\epsilon/\sqrt{5}}((x,\epsilon/\sqrt{5})) \cup \{(x,0)\} \subset \phi^{-1}(C_\epsilon) \subset B_\epsilon((x,\epsilon)) \cup \{(x,0)\}$.

That shows that $\phi$ and $\phi^{-1}$ are continuous at $(x,0)$ and $(x,0,0)$.


Added later:

Here's an alternative metric which is perhaps simpler to visualise. It has the virtue that the basic tangent disc nbhds. of $(x,0)$ are the open balls around it in this metric.

Let $d_1((x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2)) = \max(|x_2-x_1|,\frac 12 |y_2-y_1|,|\rho(x_2,y_2) - \rho(x_1,y_1)|)$.

The balls for $d_1$ around points in $N \setminus \{(x,0)\}$ are intersections of the crescent-shaped areas between tangent discs with open rectangles, giving the usual topology; around $(x,0)$ they are the whole tangent discs (with $(x,0)$ attached). So overall $d_1$ induces the required topology on $N$.

Yet another approach is to show that $N$ can be embedded in $\mathbb R^2$ as an open disc with a slit, with the Euclidean topology (i.e with the points on one radius removed but the centre point retained). The map $N \rightarrow \mathbb R^2$ given by

$(x',y') \mapsto (x',y'-\rho(x',y'))$

does the trick. The metric induced on $N$ is

$d_2((x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2)) = \sqrt{(x_2-x_1)^2 +(y_2-\rho(x_2,y_2) -y_1 +\rho(x_1,y_1))^2}$.

A more complicated formula, but probably the easiest way to visualise $N$.

  • I don't see the first assertion, that $(x', y') \neq (x, 0)$ lies on the boundary of a (unique) $B_{\epsilon}((x, \epsilon)$. Nor how you arrive then at the conclusion that this metric $d$ induces the relative topology on $N$ induced by the topology of the Niemytzki plane. – murray Mar 26 '22 at 17:04
  • @murray I've added some more details to my answer. – David Hartley Mar 27 '22 at 19:02
  • I can see the mere existence of some $B_{\epsilon}((x, \epsilon))$ on whose bounding circle a given point $(x', y') \in N$ lies, by a continuity argument: start with $\epsilon=r$, the radius of $N$ and shrink $\epsilon$ towards 0; at the start, $(x', y')$ will be inside the $\epsilon$-ball and eventually $(x', y')$ will be outside such a ball, so at some value of $\epsilon$ the point will be on the boundary. But this still does not really help get an actual, explicit metric on $N$ that induces the relative topology from the Niemytzki lane. – murray Mar 27 '22 at 19:17
  • What are the intended domain and codomain of "the inclusion map $\phi$"? – murray Mar 27 '22 at 21:27
  • The metric I gave is explicit and, unless you disagree that $\phi$ is a homeomorphism, induces the correct topology on $N$. (A nice alternative would be $d((x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2)) = \max(\sqrt {(x_2-x_1)^2 + (y_2-y_1)^2}, |\rho(x_2,y_2) - \rho(x_1,y_1|)$ which gives the same topology but makes the $\epsilon$-ball around $(x,0)$ exactly $B_\epsilon((x,\epsilon)) \cup {(x,0)}$.) – David Hartley Mar 27 '22 at 21:37
  • I can neither agree nor disagree about whether $\phi$ is a homeomorphism because you did not say what the domain and codomain of $\phi$ are! – murray Mar 27 '22 at 21:40
  • $\phi$ is the map embedding $N$ in $\mathbb R^3$ described at the beginning of my answer. It is a homeomorphism between $N$ with its Niemytzki topology and $\phi(N)$ with the Euclidean topology. – David Hartley Mar 27 '22 at 21:41
  • For the originally described $\phi$, I don't see why the conical image of $N$ has a slit. What points of the skewed cone are missing? – murray Apr 12 '22 at 15:14
  • Each horizontal section through the cone is a circle with one point missing, corresponding to the circumference of a tangent disc with the base point removed. The slit goes vertically up from the base point. (The circumference minus the base point forms a closed set in the Niemytzki topology, so it has to be at a non-zero minimum distance from the base point in any compatible metric.) – David Hartley Apr 13 '22 at 13:48