My exploring Borsuk-Ulam Theorem [math-000U]

My exploration (around April, 2025) of Borsuk-Ulam theorem began with trying to prove the Lyusternik-Shnirel'man closed theorem for S1S^1 and S2S^2. While I could grasp it intuitively, constructing a rigorous proof proved elusive.

This led me to tackle the Borsuk theorem directly: For every continuous function f:Sn→Rnf : S^n \to \mathbb{R}^n, there exists a point x∈Snx \in S^n such that f(x)=f(−x)f(x) = f(-x).

The Failed Stereographic Approach [local-0]

My initial idea was to decompose ff using North/South stereographic projections—the natural atlas for SnS^n. This approach not quite work here: the N/S maps send the projection point to nowhere (or must change codomain to one-point compactification), making any function decomposed this way necessarily discontinuous.

Refinement: Finite Projections [local-1]

I then considered pulling the projection point outward along the N-S axis, forcing projections into finite regions to maintain continuity. This insight—that continuity constraints force us to work in bounded regions—became crucial to my understanding.

Following this idea to examine the N/S map decomposition, after compressing infinity back to Rn\mathbb{R}^n, the continuity requirement also necessitates pulling back the neighborhood, leading to the same conclusion as the outward projection: the region must be finite.

At this moment, I learn the relations between different description of Borsuk-Ulam (Some applications of the Borsuk-Ulam Theorem).

The Breakthrough [local-2]

My proof strategy ended up opposite to the classical development. I first established a lemma:

Lemma: Let f:Sn→Rnf : S^n \to \mathbb{R}^n be continuous and antipode-preserving. Then there exists x∈Snx \in S^n such that f(x)=0f(x) = 0.

The details can be found here, the key is f(E):Sn−1→Sn−1f(E) : S^{n-1} \to S^{n-1} bound an open set of Rn\mathbb{R}^n that contains 00 and is the image of rest two open sets on SnS^n. Hence, f(x)=0f(x) = 0 for some xx

Proof [local-3]

For the main theorem, define g(x)=f(x)−f(−x)g(x) = f(x) - f(-x). Two key observations:

  1. gg is continuous
  2. gg is antipode-preserving: g(−x)=f(−x)−f(x)=−g(x)g(-x) = f(-x) - f(x) = -g(x)

Applying the lemma: there exists xx such that g(x)=0g(x) = 0, which means f(x)−f(−x)=0f(x) - f(-x) = 0, hence f(x)=f(−x)f(x) = f(-x). Proof complete.

The "wrong" approach turns out is useful in lemma, and provides a more concrete view about the problem. After this, I also found Borsuk-Ulam Implies Brouwer: A Direct Construction, which is the same approach, and use cube version.