Browder's Theorem Through Brouwer's Fixed Point Theorem Arxiv:2107.02428V1 [Math.GN] 6 Jul 2021

Browder’s Theorem through Brouwer’s Fixed Point Theorem∗

Eilon Solan and Omri N. Solan† July 7, 2021

Abstract One of the conclusions of Browder (1960) is a parametric version of Brouwer’s Fixed Point Theorem, stating that for every continuous function f : ([0, 1] × X) → X, where X is a simplex in a Euclidean space, the set of fixed points of f, namely, the set {(t, x) ∈ [0, 1] × X : f(t, x) = x}, has a connected component whose projection on the first coordinate is [0, 1]. Browder’s (1960) proof relies on the theory of the fixed point index. We provide an alternative proof to Browder’s result using Brouwer’s Fixed Point Theorem.

Keywords: Browder’s Theorem, ﬁxed points, connected component.

MSC2010: 55M20.

1 Introduction

Brouwer’s Fixed Point Theorem (Hadamard, 1910, Brouwer, 1911) states arXiv:2107.02428v1 [math.GN] 6 Jul 2021 that every continuous function from a finite dimensional simplex into itself has a fixed point. This result was later generalized to nonempty, convex, and compact subsets of more general topological vector spaces, see, e.g., Schauder (1930), Tychonoff (1935), and Dyer (1956).

∗The ﬁrst author acknowledges the support of the Israel Science Foundation, Grant #217/17. †The School of Mathematical Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997800, Israel. e-mail: [email protected], [email protected].

1 The following parametric version of Brouwer’s Fixed Point Theorem is a special case of a more general result of Browder (1960). To state the theorem we need the concept of connected component. A set A ⊆ Rn is connected if there are no two disjoint open sets O1,O2 that satisfy (a) A ⊆ O1 ∪ O2, (b) A 6⊆ O1, and (c) A 6⊆ O2. A subset B of A is a connected component of A if every connected subset of A is either contained in B or disjoint of B.

Theorem 1.1 (Browder, 1960) Let f : ([0, 1] × X) → X be a continuous function, where X = [0, 1]n. Deﬁne the set of ﬁxed points of f by

Cf := {(t, x) ∈ [0, 1] × X : f(t, x) = x}. (1)

Then Cf has a connected component whose projection to the ﬁrst coordinate is [0, 1].

Example 1.2 Let X = [−1, 1], and f : [0, 1] × X → X be given by

x t = 0, f(t, x) := 1 (1 − t)x + t sin( t ) t 6= 0.

1 The set Cf is the union of {(0, x): x ∈ [−1, 1]} and {(t, sin( t )): t ∈ (0, 1]}, which is connected (but not path connected).

Theorem 1.1 was used in a variety of topics, like nonlinear complementarity theory (see, e.g., Eaves, 1971, or Allgower and Georg, 2012), nonlinear elliptic boundary value problems (Shaw, 1977), the study of global continua of solutions of nonlinear partial diﬀerential equations (see, e.g., Costa and Gon¸calves, 1981, or Massabo and Pejsachowitz, 1984), theoretical economics (Citanna et al., 2001), and game theory (see, e.g., Herings and Peeters, 2010, or Solan and Solan, 2021). Browder’s (1960) proof of Theorem 1.1 uses the ﬁxed point index,1 and hence is not accessible to many researchers, and cannot be taught in an undergraduate course in topology. In this paper we prove Theorem 1.1 using Brouwer’s Fixed Point Theorem. In particular, our proof is accessible to all mathematicians, and can be taught in any course in which Brouwer’s Fixed Point Theorem is proved. In Section 3 we discuss extensions of Theorem 1.1 to more general parameter sets and more general sets X.

1In fact, the statement of Browder’s (1960) more general version of Theorem 1.1 is phrased using the ﬁxed point index.

2 Theorem 1.1 easily follows from Brouwer’s Fixed Point Theorem when the 2 number of connected components of Cf is finite. As the next example shows, the number of connected components of Cf may not be finite or countable. Example 1.3 Recall that the Cantor set K is the set of all real numbers in [0, 1] such that, in their representation in base 3, appear only the digits 0 and 2. The cardinality of the Cantor set is the continuum, and its complement is a union of countably many open intervals. Let g : [0, 1] → [0, 1] be the function that is the identity on K, and, on each maximal open subinterval (a, b) of [0, 1] in the complement of K it is given by g(x) = x+(x−a)(b−x), see Figure 1. The function g is continuous, its range is [0, 1], and its set of fixed points is K. Define now a function f : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] by f(t, x) = g(x) for every (t, x) ∈ [0, 1] × [0, 1]. The connected components of Cf are then all sets of the form [0, 1] × {x} for x ∈ K.

g(x) 1

0 x 10 Figure 1: The function g in Example 1.3.

2 Proof of Theorem 1.1

In this section we prove Theorem 1.1. The theorem will follow from Brouwer’s Fixed Point Theorem once we prove the following two results. 2In this case, our Proposition 2.1 is trivial, hence the proof reduces to our Proposi- tion 2.2.

3 Proposition 2.1 If Cf has no connected component whose projection on the ﬁrst coordinate is [0, 1], then there are two disjoint open sets O0 and O1 that satisfy the following properties:

(C1) The sets O0 and O1 cover Cf , that is, Cf ⊆ O0 ∩ O1.

(C2) Every connected component B of Cf that satisﬁes B ∩ ({0} × X) 6= ∅ is a subset of O0.

(C3) Every connected component B of Cf that satisﬁes B ∩ ({1} × X) 6= ∅ is a subset of O1.

Proposition 2.2 If there are two disjoint open sets O0 and O1 that satisfy (C1)–(C3), then there is a continuous function F : ([0, 1]×X) → ([0, 1]×X) that has no ﬁxed point.

To see that the two propositions imply Theorem 1.1, note that the con- clusion of Proposition 2.2 contradicts Brouwer’s Fixed Point Theorem, hence Proposition 2.2 implies that there are no two disjoint open sets O0 and O1 that satisfy (C1)–(C3). Hence Proposition 2.1 implies that Cf has a connected component whose projection on the first coordinate is [0, 1]. As Example 1.2 shows, connected components of Cf may be complicated sets, and as Example 1.3 shows, the number of connected components of Cf may be of the order of the continuum. In particular, the condition that Cf has no connected component whose projection on the first coordinate is [0, 1] is difficult to use. Proposition 2.1 turns the contrapositive assumption of Theorem 1.1 into a seemingly stronger condition that is easier to use. The proof of Proposotion 2.1 is the more challenging part of the proof of Theorem 1.1, and it goes through the following steps.

• For every k ∈ N we will approximate Cf by a “simple” set Sk. We will 1 do that by covering [0, 1] × X with ﬁnitely many boxes of diameter 2k , and deﬁning Sk to be the union of all boxes that intersect Cf .

• We will then prove that if Cf has no connected component whose projection on the ﬁrst coordinate is [0, 1], then there is k such that Sk has no connected component whose projection on the ﬁrst coordinate is [0, 1].

4 • Since Sk is the union of ﬁnitely many boxes, if it has no connected component whose projection on the ﬁrst coordinate is [0, 1], then the existence of two disjoint open sets O0 and O1 that satisfy (C1)–(C3) w.r.t. Sk (rather than Cf ) is clear. Since Sk ⊇ Cf , Proposition 2.1 follows.

2.1 Proof of Proposition 2.1 The maximum norm in Rn is given by

0 0 0 n d∞(y, y ) := max |yi − yi|, ∀y, y ∈ R . i=1,...,n In the proof we will use the distance between a point and a set and the distance between two sets: for every two sets A, A0 ⊆ Rn and every point y ∈ Rn,

0 0 0 d∞(y, A) := inf d∞(y, y ), d∞(A, A ) := inf d∞(y, y ). y0∈A y∈A,y0∈A0 We will also use the Hausdorﬀ distance between sets: 0 0 0 dH (A, A ) := max sup d∞(y, A ), sup d∞(y ,A) . y∈A y0∈A0 Qn+1 For every k ∈ N, let Tk be the collection of all boxes i=1 [ai, bi] ⊆ n+1 [0, 1] where ai and bi are rational numbers that are integer multiples of 1 2k . We note that Tk+1 reﬁnes Tk: every set T ∈ Tk+1 is a subset of some set T 0 ∈ T . Let k [ Sk := {T ∈ Tk : T ∩ Cf 6= ∅}.

This is the union of all boxes in Tk that contain points in Cf , see Figure 2, where the set Cf has three connected components. In particular, Sk ⊇ Cf . Since Tk+1 reﬁnes Tk, we have Sk+1 ⊆ Sk.

5 Figure 2: The boxes in Tk and the sets Cf (dark) and Sk (grey).

Lemma 2.3 If there is k ∈ N such that Sk has no connected component whose projection on the ﬁrst coordinate is [0, 1], then there are two disjoint open sets O0 and O1 that satisfy (C1)–(C3).

Proof. Let A0 be the union of all connected component of Sk that intersect {0} × X. Let A1 := Sk \ A0. Each of the sets A0 and A1 is a union of ﬁnitely many boxes, and the two sets are disjoint. It follows that 1 d∞(O0,O1) ≥ 2k . This implies that the open sets 1 O := (t, x) ∈ Y : d ((t, x),A ) < , 0 ∞ 0 2k+1 and 1 O := (t, x) ∈ Y : d ((t, x),A ) < , 1 ∞ 1 2k+1 satisfy (C1)–(C3).

From now on we assume that for every k ∈ N, the set Sk has a connected component whose projection on the ﬁrst coordinate is [0, 1]. We will prove that in this case, Cf has a connected component whose projection on the ﬁrst coordinate is [0, 1].

Lemma 2.4 Suppose that for every k ∈ N, the set Sk has a connected component whose projection on the ﬁrst coordinate is [0, 1]. There is a decreasing sequence of closed sets (Dk)k∈N that satisﬁes the following properties for every k ∈ N:

(D1) Dk is a union of boxes in Tk, and in particular it is closed.

(D2) Dk ⊆ Sk.

(D3) If k > 1 then Dk ⊆ Dk−1.

(D4) For every l ≥ k, The set Sl ∩ Dk has a connected component whose projection on the ﬁrst coordinate is [0, 1].

(D5) Dk is a minimal subset of Sk that satisﬁes (D1)–(D4).

6 Proof. The proof is by induction over k. Define D−1 := [0, 1] × X, k−1 let k ∈ N be given, and assume that we already defined (Dj)j=1 in a way that satisfies (D1)–(D5). We argue that the set Dk := Sk ∩ Dk−1 satisfies (D1)–(D4). For k = 1 this holds by the properties of (Sk)k∈N. Assume now that k > 1. By definition, (D2) and (D3) hold. Since Sk is a union of boxes in Tk, since Dk−1 is a union of boxes in Tk−1, and since Tk refines Tk−1, (D1) holds. (D4) holds since Dk−1 satisfies (D4). Since the set Sk ∩ Dk−1 is composed of finitely many boxes in Tk, it has finitely many subsets that satisfy (D1)–(D3), and at least one of them, Sk ∩ Dk−1, satisfies (D4). Let Dk be a minimal (w.r.t. set inclusion) subset of Sk ∩ Dk−1 that satisfies (D1)–(D4). Then Dk also satisfies (D5).

Since the sequence (Dk)k∈N is a decreasong sequence of closed sets, the T intersection D∗ := k∈N Dk is closed and nonempty. Since the sets (Dk)k∈N are contained in the compact set [0, 1] × X, we have limk→∞ dH (Dk,D∗) = 0. As we now show, the minimality of Dk (Property (D5)) implies that Dk is connected. In fact, this implication is the reason for requiring Dk to satisfy Property (D5).

Lemma 2.5 The set Dk is connected, for every k ∈ N.

Proof. Assume by way of contradiction that Dk∗ is not connected for 0 00 some k∗ ∈ N. Let O and O be two disjoint open sets that satisfy (a) 0 00 0 00 Dk∗ ⊆ O ∪ O , (b) Dk∗ 6⊆ O , and (c) Dk∗ 6⊆ O . 0 For every k ∈ N, every connected component of Dk lies either in Dk ∩ O 00 or in Dk ∩ O . Hence, and since for every k ∈ N, the set Dk has a connected component whose projection on the first coordinate is [0, 1], at least one of 0 00 the sets Dk ∩ O and Dk ∩ O has a connected component whose projection on the first coordinate is [0, 1]. Assume w.l.o.g. that for infinitely many k’s, 0 the set Dk ∩ O has a connected component whose projection on the first coordinate is [0, 1]. 0 Since the sequence (Dk)k∈N is decreasing, if Dk+1 ∩ O has a connected 0 component whose projection on the first coordinate is [0, 1], then Dk ∩ O has a connected component whose projection on the first coordinate is [0, 1]. 0 It follows that for every k ∈ N, and in particular for k = k∗, the set Dk ∩ O has a connected component whose projection on the first coordinate is [0, 1]. 0 But then the set Dk∗ ∩ O satisfies Properties (D1)–(D4) for k∗ = k, contradicting the minimality of Dk∗ (Property (D5)).

7 Lemma 2.6 The set D∗ is connected.

Proof. Assume by way of contradiction that D∗ is not connected, and 0 00 0 00 let O and O be two disjoint open sets that satisfy (a) D∗ ⊆ O ∪ O , (b) 0 00 D∗ 6⊆ O , and (c) D∗ 6⊆ O . 0 00 c 0 We have D∗ ∩ O = D∗ ∩ (O ) , hence D∗ ∩ O is closed, and it is disjoint 0 c 0 0 c of the closed set (O ) . It follows that d∞(D∗ ∩ O , (O ) ) > 0. Similarly, 00 00 c d∞(D∗ ∩ O , (O ) ) > 0. 0 00 Since limk→∞ dH (Dk,D∗) = 0, It follows that the sets O and O satisfy (a)–(c) w.r.t. Dk (instead of w.r.t. D∗), for every k suﬃciently large. This implies that for every such k, the set Dk is not connected, contradicting Lemma 2.5.

For every k ∈ N, the set Dk has a connected component whose projection on the first coordinate is [0, 1]. In particular, for every t ∈ [0, 1] there is xk,t ∈ X such that (t, xk,t) ∈ Dk. Since X is compact, the sequence (xk,t)k∈N has a converging subsequence. Since limk→∞ dH (DK ,D∗) = 0, it follows that there is xt ∈ X such that (t, xt) ∈ D∗. Therefore, the projection of D∗ on the first coordinate is [0, 1]. It follows that the connected component of Cf that contains D∗ satisfies the property that its projection on the first coordinate is [0, 1], contradicting the assumption in the proposition.

2.2 Proof of Proposition 2.2 We start by deﬁning a continuous function g : ([0, 1] × X) → [−1, 1] that satisﬁes the following properties (see Figure 3, where Cf has six connected components):

• g ≡ 1 on B1 := ({0} × X) ∪ (Cf ∩ O0).

• g ≡ −1 on B−1 := ({1} × X) ∪ (Cf ∩ O1).

8 O1 O1 B1 B−1 g = 1 g = −1

O0 O0

10 10 Part A Part B

Figure 3: The sets Cf (dark), O0 and O1 (grey) in Part A; the sets B1, B−1 (dark) in Part B.

The sets B1 and B−1 are disjoint. As in the proof of Lemma 2.6, Cf ∩O0 = c Cf ∩ (O1) is closed, and similarly, Cf ∩ O1 is closed. It follows that B1 and B−1 and closed, and hence by Titze’s Extension Theorem such a function g exists, for example,  1, (t, x) ∈ B1,   −1, (t, x) ∈ B−1, g(t, x) := d∞ (t,x),B−1 −d∞ (t,x),B1  , Otherwise.  d∞ (t,x),B−1 +d∞ (t,x),B1

We argue that for every ε > 0 suﬃciently small, t + εg(t, x) ≥ 0 for every (t, x) ∈ [0, 1] × X. Indeed, since g is continuous over the compact set [0, 1] × X, it is absolutely continuous. Hence, and since g ≡ 1 on {0} × X, it follows that there is ε > 0 such that g(t, x) ≥ 0 whenever t ≤ ε. This implies that if t ≤ ε then t + εg(t, x) ≥ t ≥ 0, and if t ≥ ε, then since g(t, x) ≥ −1 we have

t + εg(t, x) ≥ t − ε ≥ 0.

Analogously, for every ε > 0 sufficiently small t + εg(t, x) ≤ 1 for every (t, x) ∈ [0, 1] × X. Let ε > 0 be sufficiently small so that t + εg(t, x) ∈ [0, 1] for every (t, x) ∈ [0, 1] × X. Consider the function F : ([0, 1] × X) → ([0, 1] × X) defined by

F (t, x) := t + εg(t, x), f(t, x), ∀(t, x) ∈ [0, 1] × X.

9 The function F is continuous, and by the choice of ε its range is indeed [0, 1] × X. We argue that F has no ﬁxed point. Indeed, if (t∗, x∗) is a ﬁxed point of F , then

t∗ = t∗ + εg(t∗, x∗), x∗ = f(t∗, x∗).

∗ ∗ This implies that g(t , x ) = 0. Since g attains the values 1 and −1 on Cf , it ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ follows that (t , x ) 6∈ Cf . On the other hand, since x = f(t , x ), we have ∗ ∗ (t , x ) ∈ Cf , a contradiction.

3 Extensions

We proved Theorem 1.1 when X = [0, 1]n. Our proof holds whenever X is a nonempty, convex, and compact subset of a locally convex metrizable topological vector space. The only part of the proof that needs to be adapted for this extension is the definition of Tk. Since [0, 1] × X is compact and Lk metrizable, for every k ∈ N there is a finite collection (Tk,l)l=1 of open sets 1 with diamater smaller than k that covers X. We can assume furthermore Lk that each open set Tk+1,l is a subset of one of the sets (Tk,l)l=1. We then Lk define Tk to be the collection of closures of (Tk,l)l=1, for each k ∈ N. We note that Browder’s (1960) proof using the fixed point index implies Theorem 1.1 when X is a nonempty, convex, and compact subset of a locally convex topological vector space (but not necessarily metrizable).

In Theorem 1.1, the parameter set is [0, 1]. One may wonder whether the theorem remains valid for more general parameter sets. The answer is positive. We here illustrate this extension for the parameter set [0, 1]2. Let f : ([0, 1]2 × X) → X be a continuous function, where X = [0, 1]n, and let ϕ : [0, 1] → [0, 1]2 be a continuous and surjective function (e.g., the Peano’s curve (Peano, 1890)). The function h := f ◦ (ϕ, IdX ) : [0, 1] × X → X is a composition of two continuous functions, hence continuous, and by Theorem 1.1 the set Ch has a connected component, denoted B, whose projection on the first coordinate is [0, 1]. But then the set {(ϕ(t), x):(t, x) ∈ B} is a connected component of Cf whose projection on the first coordinate is [0, 1]2. Note that this construction is valid whenever the parameter set Y possesses a space-filling curve, namely, there is a continuous and surjective function ϕ : [0, 1] → Y . Recall that the Hahn-Mazurkiewicz Theorem (e.g.,

10 Willard, 2012, Theorem 31.5) states that a space possesses a space-ﬁlling curve if and only if it is compact, connected, locally connected, and second- countable. One example of a set that does not possess a space-ﬁlling curve is the set Cf in Example 1.2.

References

[1] Brouwer L.E.J. (1911) Uber¨ Abbildung von Mannigfaltigkeiten. Math- ematische Annalen, 71(1), 97–115. [2] Browder F. (1960) On Continuity of Fixed Points under Deformation of Continuous Mappings. Summa Brasiliensis Mathematicae, 4, 183–191. [3] Citanna A., CrèsH., DrèzeJ., Herings P.J.J., and Villanacci A. (2001) Continua of Underemployment Equilibria Reflecting Coordination Fail- ures, Also at Walrasian Prices. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 36, 169–200. [4] Costa D.G. and Gon¸calves J.V.A. (1981) Existence and Multiplicity Results for a Class of Nonlinear Elliptic Boundary Value Problems at Resonance. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 84(2), 328–337. [5] Dyer E. (1956) A Fixed Point Theorem. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 7(4), 662–672. [6] Eaves B.C. (1971) On the Basic Theorem of Complementarity. Mathe- matical Programming, 1(1), 68–75. [7] Hadamard J. (1910) Note sur quelques applications de l’indice de Kro- necker. In Jules Tannery: Introduction àla théoriedes fonctions d’une variable (Volume 2), 2nd edition, A. Hermann & Fils, 437-–477. [8] Herings P.J.J. and Peeters R. (2010) Homotopy Methods to Compute Equilibria in Game Theory. Economic Theory, 42(1), 119–156. [9] Kuratowski K. (1968) Topology, Volume II, Academic Press. [10] Massabo I. and Pejsachowicz J. (1984) On the Connectivity Properties of the Solution Set of Parametrized Families of Compact Vector Fields. Journal of Functional Analysis, 59(2), 151–166.

11 [11] Peano G. (1890) Sur une Courbe, qui Remplit Toute une Aire Plane. Mathematische Annalen, 36(1), 157–160.

[12] Schauder J. (1930) Der Fixpunktsatz in Funktionalr¨aumen. Studia Mathematica 2, 171–180.

[13] Shaw H. (1977) A Nonlinear Elliptic Boundary Value Problem at Res- onance. Journal of Diﬀerential Equations, 26, 335–346.

[14] Solan E. and Solan O.N. (2021) Sunspot Equilibrium in Positive Recur- sive General Quitting Games. International Journal of Game Theory, forthcoming.

[15] Tychonoﬀ A. (1935) Ein Fixpunktsatz. Mathematische Annalen, 111, 767–776.

[16] Willard S. (2012) General Topology, Courier Corporation.