9

My question is about the following statement about planar graphs:

A graph is planar (i.e. can be embedded in the plane) if and only if it can be embedded in the sphere $S^2$.

By an embedding we mean the following:

To every vertex $v \in V$ we associate a unique point in $\mathbb{R}^2$(or $S^2$). To every edge $e \in G$ we associate a unique simple arc, which is a homeomorphic image of $[0,1]$, connecting the points associated to its end vertices such that no two arcs intersect other than in a common vertex point.

The "only if" part of the statement above follows directly by using stereographic projection, which gives an embedding $\mathbb{R}^2 \hookrightarrow S^2$. For the "if" part, in every proof I find one simply says that in an embedding of a graph in $S^2$, one can always avoid a point and can therefore use stereographic projection again to get the embedding in $\mathbb{R}^2$.

I can see this fact being true for finite graphs, as the embedded graph is just the bijective continuous image of finitely many intervals glued together in some way (which is a compact space), so if the image was the whole $S^2$, we would get a homeomorphism between $S^2$ and something which isn't $S^2$.

But what about infinite graphs? As far as I know, a graph is just defined to be a tuple $(V,E)$, where $V$ is a set (of vertices) and $E$ is a set consisting of some 2-element-subsets of $V$. So $V$ can be basically anything, so I could for example just take $V = S^2$ (as a set), or any other (uncountable) infinite set. In this case, how can I ensure that in a drawing of the graph on $S^2$ I can still avoid one point? Or is this statement not even true for infinite graphs?

Ed Pegg
  • 21,868
TilBe
  • 171
  • If the sphere has all points, I'm not sure edges are still meaningful. For countably infinite graphs, the statement seems true. – Ed Pegg Jul 31 '18 at 15:31
  • 1
    Sure...you could say that there's an edge from $P$ to $Q$ exactly when they're antipodal, for instance. The usual definition of a graph embedding seems to take into account a kind of topology on the geometric realization of the graph, and that topology doesn't seem to be related (in the case of a graph with all points of $S^2$ as vertices, and no edges) to the topology of the underlying space $S^2$. So using $S^2$ seems like a red herring --- any uncountable set would work equally well. – John Hughes Jul 31 '18 at 15:47
  • 2
    Henning Makholm's answer to this related question -- https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/712013/can-there-exist-an-uncountable-planar-graph?rq=1 -- seems very relevant. – John Hughes Jul 31 '18 at 15:54
  • @JohnHughes You're probably right, my problem is that the topology that the embedded graph is given is nowhere defined (at least in my notes), and as it is called "embedding" I assumed we would transport the topology maybe from some abstractly defined graph as a topological space (say a quotient space of some points and arcs glued together in the right way). Anyways, even if we just say we take the subspace topology of the union of these points and arcs, I don't see how to prove the statement. – TilBe Jul 31 '18 at 15:56
  • Precisely; for finite graphs, it's pretty easy: you take the points $(1,0,0,0 \ldots), (0, 1, 0, 0, \ldots), \ldots$ in $\Bbb R^N$, (where $N$ is your vertex count), and construct straight-line edges between them, and you've got an mapping of a "geometric realization" of your graph into $\Bbb R^N$, which (by subspace topology) gives you a topology. Trying to do the same of an uncountable number of vertices leads you to questions of which product topology you're using, etc., and down a deep rathole, I expect. – John Hughes Jul 31 '18 at 15:59
  • Thanks for the link, very interesting. In the finite case though, the topology we get would be the same as taking the quotient topology, where we think of the graph as a topological (quotient) space on its own. For the infinite case, it seems like there isn't any notion of "planarity", right? – TilBe Jul 31 '18 at 16:12
  • @TilBe: As long as each vertex has finite degree we can certainly talk about embedding a (countably) infinite graph in the plane without running into topological subtleties. Those embeddings would also give rise to an embedding in the sphere, if it doesn't bother you that the graph is no longer closed in the ambient sphere (which it can't be because the sphere is compact but the graph is not). The subspace topology would be the same as for the plane embedding, though -- the vertices have an accumulation point, but that is not is not actually on the graph. – hmakholm left over Monica Jul 31 '18 at 16:36
  • 2
    Your definition of "embedding" is not what I would consider to be the normal definition of an embedding for an infinite graph. Any graph naturally gives rise to a topological space (just the quotient space obtained by gluing together all its vertices and edges). Your definition is equivalent to a continuous injection from this topological space, rather than a topological embedding. – Eric Wofsey Jul 31 '18 at 18:44
  • 1
    Assuming you have some awful "embedding" (as Eric says, not really an embedding in the normal sense" where vertices are dense and every point is in the image, you can still get it to be planar. For example, take stereographic projection such that some point lying in an edge is sent to $\infty$. Then map the plane by homeomorphism to a smaller simply connected subset of the plane (like a disk). You can now connect the cut edge back up in the complement of that disk to get a planar "embedding" – Carl Aug 01 '18 at 02:21
  • 1
    And of course, if every point of the sphere is a vertex, then you use axiom of choice/ cardinality arguments to shift some infinite sequence of points so that some point is no longer in the image. – Carl Aug 01 '18 at 02:22
  • @Carl Great idea! I think this should work, thank you. – TilBe Aug 01 '18 at 09:47

2 Answers2

1

First, some definitions. I will say that a map of two topological spaces is an ICM if it is injective and continuous. In contrast, a map $f: X\to Y$ between topological spaces is called an embedding if it is a homeomorphism to its image (equipped with subspace topology). It is clear that there are no surjective topological embeddings from graphs to $S^2$ (since the latter is not homeomorphic to a graph). What you are asking about are ICMs, not topological embeddings.

Theorem. If $G$ is a graph which admits an ICM $f: G\to S^2$, then $G$ also admits an ICM to ${\mathbb R}^2$.

Proof. I will identify $S^2$ with the Riemann sphere, ${\mathbb C}\cup \{\infty\}$, the 1-point compactification of the complex plane. If $G$ has no edges then, because it has an injective map to $S^2$, the vertex-set of $G$ has cardinality of at most continuum. Therefore, any bijection $G\to {\mathbb R}^2$ will be an ICM.

Thus, I will assume that $G$ contains at least one edge. It follows that $G$ contains a topological arc $I$, a subset homeomorphic to the interval $[0,1]$ (just take a proper closed subarc in any edge). Then $f|_I$ is a topological embedding (since $I$ is compact and $S^2$ is Hausdorff) and, thus, $A=f(I)$ is homeomorphic to $[0,1]$, i.e. is a Jordan arc. I will use a nontrivial result of 2-dimensional topology: For every Jordan arc $J\subset {\mathbb R}^2$ there is a homeomorphisms of ${\mathbb R}^2$ to itself sending $J$ to a straight-line segment. See for instance here and here.

Remark. For the proof it suffices to know less, namely that the complement of any Jordan arc in $S^2$ is simply-connected. However, assuming only this, I would have to work a bit harder than I like.

It follows that there is a a homeomorphism $h: S^2\to S^2$ sending $A=f(I)$ to the subset $$ J=[0,\infty]\subset {\mathbb C}\cup \{\infty\}, $$ the 1-point compactification of the (real) positive half-line in the complex plane. On the complement ${\mathbb C} - J$ we have a single-valued branch of the function $\sqrt{z}$: If $z=re^{i\phi}, 0<\phi<2\pi$, then $$ \sqrt{z}= \sqrt{r}e^{i\phi/2}. $$ This function extends continuously to $0$ and $\infty$ by $$ \sqrt{0}=0, \sqrt{\infty}=\infty. $$ Consider the map $$ \sqrt{h\circ f} : G \setminus I \to U= \{z: Im(z)>0\}. $$ Extend this map to the end-points $p, q$ of the arc $I$ (sending them, respectively, to $0, \infty$). This defines a continuous injective map $$ g: (G\setminus I) \cup \{p, q\}\to U \cup \{0, \infty\}. $$ Extend this map to the arc $I$ by the map $h\circ f$. I will leave it to you to check that this extension defines an ICM $$ g: G\to U\cup [0,\infty]. $$ Thus, we obtained an ICM $g: G\to S^2 \setminus \{-i\}$ (I could have taken any point in the lower half-pane instead of $-i$). Since $S^2 \setminus \{-i\}$ is homeomorphic to ${\mathbb C}$, theorem follows. qed

Moishe Kohan
  • 111,854
0

Regarding the comments on 'topological embedding' vs immersed realization: A 'topological graph' in all standard definitions, even for infinite graphs, defines a one-dimensional space (in the sense of covering dim, ind or Ind). Thus, as a one-dimensional subset of a surface (sphere) it does not contain any open set, by the standard result in dimension theory that the open 2-ball has dimension two and the result that dimension is non-increasing for subsets of separable metric spaces. Thus it misses a point of the sphere, which we may assume to be the north pole. Then stereographic projection is an embedding of the graph into the plane.

The general question also has a positive answer. It suffices to show that even if a combinatorial immersion covers the sphere, it is combinatorially equivalent to one which doesn't. Let $v \in V$. If $V$ combinatorially immerses in the sphere we have that $E(v)$ has cardinality of the continuum at most, where $E(v)$ is the set of edges containing $v$ as a coordinate. Thus $E(v)$ can be combinatorially immersed in the Cantor Fan. If $G$ is combinatorially immersed in the sphere, then consider the sphere with a closed disc removed. This is homeomorphic to the sphere punctured by $v$. Then we can just draw in the Cantor Fan in this excised neighborhood connecting as needed and obtain that in at least a neighborhood of one point of $G$ we get that the combinatorially equivalent image of the immersion is at most one-dimensional. There is a minor issue about winding toward a circle vs. a point, but all rays converging onto $v$ will have to have the same winding and can be 'unscrewed' simultaneously. I will leave the details for that bit. The result follows.

Note however that this does not necessarily give you a continuous map of the ends of the Cantor Fan onto the boundary circle of the excised neighborhood. In fact it will be impossible to get a continuous function in some cases, since continuous maps from the Cantor set onto the circle are necessarily at least $2$-to-$1$. So you will have to do your immersion in the fan in a potentially complicated and delicate way.

Edit one more time: Actually, I worry about using the Cantor Fan, for pedagogic reasons. Let us instead use a disc with a half-open crescent removed, one corner at $v$ and one at the boundary. Then we get a foliation that bijects with the boundary circle of the excised neighborhood in a trivial way. I am leaving up my first bad idea to give a new question: What conditions ensure that there always exist a vertex where the Cantor Fan is sufficient and can be immersed, as above, but continuously? I wonder, because if not you will have vertices all of whose neighborhoods of arcs are very fat, and compactness might smush some of these 'neighborhoods' together in ways that force some points to behave trivially. Though you might think about a Wada Basin scenario where the smushing isn't helpful. If you allow multigraphs, then a foliation by great circles through two antipodes does not allow this construction.

enter image description here

  • This is not the question. The OP is asking whether this is true for infinite graphs. – Cheerful Parsnip Aug 01 '18 at 02:10
  • I expanded the answer. – John Samples Aug 01 '18 at 03:00
  • Upon further reflection, my method can show more. If we do this same 'peeling' procedure along a non-trivial edge, rather than a point, we again obtain a combinatorially equivalent immersion. We can take a nested sequence of finite open covers and do the peeling in a controlled way in each neighborhood. Doing so will eventually produce a combinatorially equivalent immersion whose image is one-dimensional. This result is presumably in the literature somewhere, ask Diestel. – John Samples Aug 01 '18 at 06:57
  • Huh. Apparently my absolutely correct solution was so gobsmackingly beautiful that somebody accidentally gave it a -1 . . . \salty – John Samples Aug 01 '18 at 09:58
  • First of all, in most of the literature a planar graph is only defined for finite graphs (at least in Diestel, Bollobas and even in topological graph theory by Tucker and Gross). I was wondering because in my lecture notes we did not have that restriction. Also, to be honest, I am not quite sure if I understand what you've written. Maybe I just have to think about it a little bit more. Nevertheless, thank you anyways! – TilBe Aug 01 '18 at 10:13
  • @JohnSamples, I did not downvote, but it seems to me that the OP's question is simply false. There are infinite graphs which can be embedded in the plane, but no infinite graph can be embedded in the sphere. By compactness, there will be an accumulation point of the vertices, meaning the topology on the image of the graph will be incorrect. – Cheerful Parsnip Aug 01 '18 at 12:24
  • @cheerful Parsnip I know a parsnip would never betray me. But OP is using a totally non-topological notion of graph 'embedding'. Though any graph that can be embedded in the plane can also be embedded in the sphere. Note that sphere - pt is not compact. – John Samples Aug 01 '18 at 19:46
  • @tilbe Indeed it is good to not define planarity just for finite graphs. In this purely combinatorial context there are objects like dendroids which could be the image of one of these graphs but which do not embed in the plane. The most commonly used type of 'infinite graph' are the locally finite ones, i.e. ones that already have a topological structure such that every point has a neighborhood basis whose elements each have finite boundaries. Dendrites are an example of these locally finite graphs which are always planar. – John Samples Aug 01 '18 at 19:50
  • @tilbe Also, the technique is just to extend the length of any edge containing $v$. In that neighborhood drawn above there are arcs from $v$ to each point of the boundary circle. Just keep the ones which converge onto arcs that were edges of $G$ containing $v$ and discard the others. Like, say $v$ was the end point of only five edges (counting twice for loops at $v$). Then in that swollen nbhd you will keep five of those arcs in the foliation and just connect them to those edges to obtain a combinatorially equivalent graph that doesn't cover the sphere. – John Samples Aug 01 '18 at 19:56
  • Okay, I see the OP is using a strange definition of embedding. I thought the hard part would be going from planar embedding to spherical embedding (which would be impossible under the standard definition of embedding) but under the OP's non-standard definition, it is going from the sphere to the plane which is non-obvious. I'll have to digest your answer some more. – Cheerful Parsnip Aug 01 '18 at 20:24
  • @JohnSamples: now that I understand the context in which you are working, I'm still confused about whether you are claiming to have an answer or not. So I see that you are trying to comb the graph in the neighborhood of a vertex, but I don't really see how you are doing that. Also, are you accounting for other vertices which are accumulating onto the boundary circle? – Cheerful Parsnip Aug 01 '18 at 20:33
  • Points converging to $v$ aren't relevant since we don't care about continuity. OP's question is just concerning combinatorial realization, with no care given to any topology. So the lengths may blow up but it's fine for this context. Peeling along an edge instead of blowing up a point is even clearer. Just grab an arc and peel the space open a bit along it. Not continuous, but gives the result he wants. – John Samples Aug 02 '18 at 01:05
  • @CheerfulParsnip May I ask what the standard definition would be? I took it from my lecture notes and in some standard literature like Diestel it seems similar. And why would it be impossible to go from a planar embedding to a spherical embedding? $\mathbb{R}^2$ is the same as $S^2 - pt$ which embeds into $S^2$. – TilBe Aug 02 '18 at 08:03
  • As a side note, I do know that this is not a topological definition of embedding.But for that, we first of all would need to define a graph as a topological space on its own, right? I've seen that one can define a topological graph as the quotient of some arcs (glued together in the correct way). Then one could define an embedding as an actual (topological) embedding of this topological space. – TilBe Aug 02 '18 at 08:21
  • But the problem is, in every graph theory book I only find this non-topological definition. Maybe this is because most graph theorists are computer scientist and not mathematicians. Anyways, both of you are saying I am using a non-standard definition. Do you have a reference for me where I can find the standard definition? – TilBe Aug 02 '18 at 08:22
  • @TilBe: the standard definition of an embedding and the graph theory definition happen to coincide for finite graphs. – Cheerful Parsnip Aug 02 '18 at 17:01
  • You always want your edges to be open sets, so usually you define the vertices as a subset of Hilbert Space, or some higher weight space if you want points to be able to be an end point for uncountably many edges (you will lose some properties like first countability and separability). Then declare that a configuration of those vertices and a collection of pairwise-disjoint arcs each with end points in the vertex set is a graph if each arc is open. If you want to allow edges to converge onto each other then you drop the openness assumption, but this is not usually referred to as a graph. – John Samples Aug 05 '18 at 00:24