The Borsuk–Ulam Theorem

Anthony Carbery

University of Edinburgh &

Maxwell Institute for Mathematical Sciences

May 2010

() 1 / 43
 Outline

Outline

1 Brouwer fixed point theorem

2 Borsuk–Ulam theorem
Introduction
Case n = 2
Dimensional reduction
Case n = 3

3 An application

4 A question

() 2 / 43
 Brouwer fixed point theorem

Brouwer fixed point theorem

The Brouwer fixed point theorem states that every continuous map
f : Dn → Dn has a fixed point.
When n = 1 this is a trivial consequence of the intermediate value
theorem.
In higher dimensions, if not, then for some f and all x ∈ Dn , f (x) 6= x.
So the map f̃ : Dn → Sn−1 obtained by sending x to the unique point on
Sn−1 on the line segment starting at f (x) and passing through x is
continuous, and when restricted to the boundary ∂Dn = Sn−1 is the
identity.
So to prove the Brouwer fixed point theorem it suffices to show there is
no map g : Dn → Sn−1 which restricted to the boundary Sn−1 is the
identity. (In fact, this is an equivalent formulation.)

() 4 / 43
 Brouwer fixed point theorem

Proof of Brouwer’s theorem

It is enough, by a standard approximation argument, to prove that

there is no smooth (C 1 ) map g : Dn → Sn−1 which restricted to the
boundary Sn−1 is the identity.
Consider, for Dg the derivative matrix of g,
Z
det Dg.
Dn

This is zero as Dg has less than full rank at each x ∈ Dn .

() 5 / 43
 Brouwer fixed point theorem

So Z Z
0= det Dg = dg1 ∧ dg2 ∧ · · · ∧ dgn ,
Dn Dn
which, by Stokes’ theorem equals
Z
g1 dg2 ∧ · · · ∧ dgn .
Sn−1

This quantity depends only the behaviour of g1 on Sn−1 , and, by

symmetry, likewise depends only on the restrictions of g2 , . . . , gn to
Sn−1 .
But on Sn−1 , g is the identity I, so that reversing the argument, this
quantity also equals Z
det DI = |Dn |.
Dn

This argument is essentially due to E. Lima. Is there a similarly simple

proof of the Borsuk–Ulam theorem via Stokes’ theorem?
() 6 / 43
 Borsuk–Ulam theorem Introduction

Borsuk–Ulam theorem
The Borsuk–Ulam theorem states that for every continuous map
f : Sn → Rn there is some x with f (x) = f (−x). When n = 1 this is a
trivial consequence of the intermediate value theorem.
In higher dimensions, it again suffices to prove it for smooth f .
So assume f is smooth and f (x) 6= f (−x) for all x. Then
f (x) − f (−x)
f̃ (x) :=
|f (x) − f (−x)|
is a smooth map f̃ : Sn → Sn−1 such that f̃ (−x) = −f̃ (x) for all x, i.e. f̃
is odd, antipodal or equivariant with respect to the map x 7→ −x.
So it’s ETS there is no equivariant smooth map h : Sn → Sn−1 , or,
equivalently, there is no smooth map g : Dn → Sn−1 which is
equivariant on the boundary.
Equivalent to Borsuk–Ulam theorem; BU generalises Brouwer fixed
point thorem (since the identity map is equivariant).
() 9 / 43
 Borsuk–Ulam theorem Case n = 2

WTS there does not exist a smooth g : D2 → S1 such that

g(−x) = −g(x) for x ∈ S1 . If there did exist such a g, consider
Z Z
det Dg = dg1 ∧ dg2 .
D2 D2

This is zero as Dg has less than full rank at each x, and it equals, by
Stokes’ theorem,
Z Z
g1 dg2 = − g2 dg1 .
S1 S1

So it’s enough to show that

Z 1
(g1 (t)g20 (t) − g2 (t)g10 (t))dt 6= 0
0

for g = (g1 , g2 ) : R/Z → S1 satisfying g(t + 1/2) = −g(t) for all

0 ≤ t ≤ 1.
() 11 / 43
 Borsuk–Ulam theorem Case n = 2

ETS Z 1
(g1 (t)g20 (t) − g2 (t)g10 (t))dt 6= 0
0
for g = (g1 , g2 ) : R/Z → S1 satisfying g(t + 1/2) = −g(t) for all
0 ≤ t ≤ 1.
Clearly
(g1 (t)g20 (t) − g2 (t)g10 (t))dt
represents the element of net arclength for the curve (g1 (t), g2 (t))
measured in the anticlockwise direction. (Indeed, |g| = 1 implies
hg, g 0 i = 12 dt
d
|g|2 = 0, so that det(g, g 0 ) = ±|g||g 0 | = ±|g 0 |, with the
plus sign occuring when g is moving anticlockwise.) By equivariance,
(g1 (1/2), g2 (1/2)) = −(g1 (0), g2 (0)), and
Z 1 Z 1/2
g1 (t)g20 (t)dt = 2 g1 (t)g20 (t)dt.
0 0

In passing from (g1 (0), g2 (0)) to (g1 (1/2), g2 (1/2)) the total net
arclength traversed is clearly an odd multiple of π, and so we’re done.
() 12 / 43
 Borsuk–Ulam theorem Dimensional reduction

Theorem (Shchepin)
Suppose n ≥ 4 and there exists a smooth equivariant map
f : Sn → Sn−1 . Then there exists a smooth equivariant map
f̃ : Sn−1 → Sn−2 .

Once this is proved, only the case n = 3 of the Borsuk–Ulam theorem

remains outstanding.
Starting with f , we shall identify suitable equators En−1 ⊆ Sn and
En−2 ⊆ Sn−1 , and build a smooth equivariant map f̃ : En−1 → En−2 .
We first need to know that there is some pair of antipodal points {±A}
in the target Sn−1 whose preimages under f are covered by finitely
many diffeomorphic copies of (−1, 1). This is intuitively clear by
dimension counting (WMA f is onto!) but for rigour we can appeal to
Sard’s theorem.

() 14 / 43
 Borsuk–Ulam theorem Dimensional reduction

For x ∈ f −1 (A) and y ∈ f −1 (−A) = −f −1 (A) with y 6= −x, consider the

unique geodesic great circle joining x to y . The family of such is clearly
indexed by the two-parameter family of points of

f −1 (A) × f −1 (−A) \ {(x, −x) : f (x) = A}.

Their union is therefore a manifold in Sn of dimension at most three.

Since n ≥ 4 there must be points ±B ∈ Sn outside this union (and
necessarily outside f −1 (A) ∪ f −1 (−A)). Such a point has the property
that no geodesic great circle passing through it meets points of both
f −1 (A) and f −1 (−A) other than possibly at antipodes. In particular, no
meridian joining ±B meets both f −1 (A) and f −1 (−A).
We now identify En−2 as the equator of Sn−1 whose equatorial plane is
perpendicular to the axis joining A to −A; and we identify En−1 as the
equator of Sn whose equatorial plane is perpendicular to the axis
joining B to −B. We assume for simplicity that B is the north pole
(0, 0, . . . , 0, 1).

() 15 / 43
 Borsuk–Ulam theorem Dimensional reduction

Lemma (Lemma 1)

Suppose B = (0, 0, . . . , 0, 1) ∈ Sn and that X ⊆ Sn is a closed subset

such that no meridian joining ±B meets both X and −X . Let Sn±
denote the open upper and lower hemispheres respectively. Then
there is an equivariant diffeomorphism ψ : Sn → Sn such that

X ⊆ ψ(Sn+ ).

Remark 1. It is clear that we may assume that ψ fixes meridians and

acts as the identity on small neighbourhoods of ±B.
Remark 2. It is also clear from the proof that we can find a smooth
family of diffeomorphisms ψt such that ψ0 is the identity and ψ1 = ψ.
We shall need this later.

() 16 / 43
 Borsuk–Ulam theorem Dimensional reduction

Lemma
Suppose B = (0, 0, . . . , 0, 1) ∈ Sn and that X ⊆ Sn is a closed subset
such that no meridian joining ±B meets both X and −X . Let Sn±
denote the open upper and lower hemispheres respectively. Then
there is an equivariant diffeomorphism ψ : Sn → Sn such that

X ⊆ ψ(Sn+ ).

Continuing with the proof of the theorem, we apply the lemma with
X = f −1 (A). Let φ be restriction of ψ to E = En−1 . Consider the
restriction bf of f to φ(E): it has the property that bf (φ(E)) does not
contain ±A. Let r be the standard retraction of Sn−1 \ {±A} onto its
equator En−2 ; finally let
f̃ = r ◦ bf ◦ φ,
which is clearly smooth and equivariant.

() 17 / 43
 Borsuk–Ulam theorem Dimensional reduction

Proof of Lemma

See the pictures on the blackboard!

() 18 / 43
 Borsuk–Ulam theorem Dimensional reduction

The Sard argument

WTS there is some pair of antipodal points {±A} in the target Sn−1
whose preimages under f are at most “one-dimensional”, i.e. covered
by finitely many diffeomorphic copies of (−1, 1).
Sard’s theorem tells us that the image under f of the set
{x ∈ Sn : rank Df (x) < n − 1} is of Lebesgue measure zero: so there
are plenty of points A ∈ Sn−1 at all of whose preimages x – if there are
any at all – Df (x) has full rank n − 1. By the implicit function theorem,
for each such x there is a neighbourhood B(x, r ) such that
B(x, r ) ∩ f −1 (A) is diffeomorphic to the interval (−1, 1). The whole of
the compact set f −1 (A) is covered by such balls, from which we can
extract a finite subcover: so indeed f −1 (A) is covered by finitely many
diffeomorphic copies of (−1, 1).

() 19 / 43
 Borsuk–Ulam theorem Case n = 3

Proposition (Shchepin)

Suppose that f : S3 → S2 is a smooth equivariant map. Then there

exists a smooth f † : D3 → S2 which is equivariant on ∂D3 = S2 , and
moreover maps S2± to itself.

Discussion: By identifying the closed upper hemisphere of S3 with the

closed disc D3 we obtain a smooth map
bf : D3 → S2
which is equivariant on ∂D3 = S2 .
Then the restriction of bf to ∂D3 = S2 gives a smooth equivariant map
g : S2 → S2 . If we could take g to be the identity, we would be finished
– the argument given for the Brouwer fixed point theorem showed that
no such bf exists.
We cannot hope for this, but we can hope to “improve” the properties
of g so that a similar argument will work. What we need more precisely
is that g maps S2± to itself.
() 21 / 43
 Borsuk–Ulam theorem Case n = 3

Proposition implies BU

Suppose there existed a smooth map f † : D3 → S2 ⊆ R3 which was

equivariant on ∂D3 = S2 , and mapped S2± to itself.
Let C be the cylinder D2 × [−1, 1] in R3 with top and bottom faces D±
and curved vertical boundary V = S1 × [−1, 1]. Let S± be the upper
and lower halves of S = ∂C. Let E be the equator of S.
Now C, with the all points on each vertical line of V identified, is
diffeomorphic to D3 , and S is also diffeomorphic to S2 .

Lemma
There is no smooth map f : C → S which is equivariant on ∂C, which
is constant on vertical lines in V and which maps D± into S± .

() 22 / 43
 Borsuk–Ulam theorem Case n = 3

Proposition
There is no smooth map f : C → S which is equivariant on ∂C, which
is constant on vertical lines in V and which maps D± into S± .

If such an f existed, then

Z Z
det Df = df1 ∧ df2 ∧ df3
C C
where Df is the derivative matrix of f . On the one hand this is zero as
Df has less than full rank at almost every x ∈ C, and on the other hand
it equals, by Stokes’ theorem,
Z Z Z
f3 df1 ∧ df2 = f3 df1 ∧ df2 + 2 f3 df1 ∧ df2
∂C V D+

by equivariance.

() 23 / 43
 Borsuk–Ulam theorem Case n = 3

Z Z
0= f3 df1 ∧ df2 + 2 f3 df1 ∧ df2
V D+

Now f maps V into E, so that f3 = 0 on V , and the first term on the

right vanishes.
As for the second term,
Z Z Z
f3 df1 ∧df2 = f3 df1 ∧df2 + f3 df1 ∧df2 .
D+ D+ ∩{x : f3 (x)=1} D+ ∩{x : f3 (x)<1}

The region of D+ on which f3 (x) < 1 consists of patches on which

f12 (x) + f22 (x) = 1, and so 2f1 df1 + 2f2 df2 = 0. Taking exterior products
with df1 and df2 tells us that on such patches we have
f1 df1 ∧ df2 = f2 df1 ∧ df2 = 0. Multiplying by f1 and f2 and adding we
get that h df1 ∧ df2 = 0 for all h supported on a patch on which
f3 (x) < 1. So for any h we have
Z
h df1 ∧ df2 = 0.
D+ ∩{x : f3 (x)<1}

() 24 / 43
 Borsuk–Ulam theorem Case n = 3

Hence Z Z
f3 df1 ∧ df2 = df1 ∧ df2
D+ D+ ∩{x : f3 (x)=1}
Z Z
= df1 ∧ df2 + df1 ∧ df2
D+ ∩{x : f3 (x)=1} D+ ∩{x : f3 (x)<1}
Z
= df1 ∧ df2 .
D+

By Stokes’ theorem once again we have

Z Z Z
df1 ∧ df2 = f1 df2 = − f2 df1 ,
D+ ∂D+ ∂D+

and, since f restricted to ∂D+ is equivariant, this quantity is nonzero

(and indeed is an odd multiple of π), by the remarks in the proof of the
case n = 2 above.
So no such f exists and we are done.
() 25 / 43
 Borsuk–Ulam theorem Case n = 3

Proof of Proposition
Proposition (Shchepin)

Suppose that f : S3 → S2 is a smooth equivariant map. Then there

exists a smooth f † : D3 → S2 which is equivariant on ∂D3 = S2 , and
moreover maps S2± to itself.

Recall that f induces first bf : D3 → S2 (identifying the upper closed

hemisphere of S3 with D3 ), and then a smooth equivariant g : S2 → S2
by restricting bf to the boundary of D3 .

Lemma (Lemma 8)

If g : S2 → S2 is a smooth equivariant map, then there exists a smooth

equivariant g † : S2 → S2 which preserves the upper and lower
hemispheres of S2 .

We shall then extend g † to all of D3 , “interpolating” between g † on S2

and bf on a shrunken D3 .
() 26 / 43
 Borsuk–Ulam theorem Case n = 3

Proof of Lemma 8

(Equivariant g : S2 → S2 =⇒ hemisphere preserving g † .)

Choose ±A in target S2 such that g −1 (±A) are finite.
Choose ±B (wlog N and S poles) in domain S2 s.t. merdinial
projections of g −1 (±A) on standard equator E are distinct.
Apply Lemma 3 with X = g −1 (A): ∃ equivariant diffeo ψ : S2 → S2
s.t. g −1 (A) ⊆ ψ(S2+ ).
So g∗ := g ◦ ψ is a smooth equivariant selfmap of S2 ; g∗−1 (A) ⊆ S2+ .
Let g̃ : E → E be the meridinial projection of g∗ (x) on E.
(Well-defined since g∗−1 (±A) ∩ E = ∅.) Then g̃ smooth and
equivariant.

We next extend g̃ to a small strip around E:

() 27 / 43
 Borsuk–Ulam theorem Case n = 3

Extend g̃ to a small strip around E; and then to all of S2 .

For x ∈ S2 let l(x) ∈ [−π/2, π/2] denote its latitude with respect to
E.
For x 6= ±B, let x denote its meridinial projection on E.
For 0 < r < π/2 let Er = {x ∈ S2 : |l(x)| ≤ r }.
Consider only r so small that Er ∩ g∗−1 (±A) = ∅. Let
d = dist (±A, g∗ (E)).
Since g∗ is uniformly continuous, there is an r > 0 such that for
x ∈ Er we have d(g∗ (x), g∗ (x)) < d/10.
Now extend g̃ to Er by defining g̃(x) to be the point with the same
longitude (merdinial projection) as g̃(x) and with latitude πl(x)/2r .
This extension is still equivariant and smooth.
Define g̃(x) = A for l(x) > r and g̃(x) = −A for l(x) < −r . Then g̃
is continuous, equivariant, preserves the upper and lower
hemispheres and – except possibly on the sets {x : l(x) = ±r } –
is smooth.
() 28 / 43
 Borsuk–Ulam theorem Case n = 3

Thus g̃ satisfies all the properties we needed for g † except for

smoothness.
We shall need to sort this out and to also simultaneously establish an
auxiliary property of g̃ which we’ll need for the interpolation step to
work.
Claim: For all x ∈ S2 , g̃(x) 6= −g∗ (x).

() 29 / 43
 Borsuk–Ulam theorem Case n = 3

Claim: For all x ∈ S2 , g̃(x) 6= −g∗ (x).

Consider, for x ∈ Er , the three points g∗ (x), g∗ (x) and g̃(x).
Now g∗ (x) and g̃(x) are on the same meridian, and g∗ (x) is
distant at least d from ±A.
On the other hand, g∗ (x) is at most d/10 from g∗ (x).
Thus g∗ (x) is at least 9d/10 from ±A and lives in a
d/10-neighbourhood of the common meridian containing g∗ (x)
and g̃(x).
So for x ∈ Er , g∗ (x) cannot equal −g̃(x).
For l(x) > r we have g̃(x) = A and g∗ (x) 6= −A because g∗−1 (−A)
is contained in the lower hemisphere.
Similarly for l(x) < −r , g̃(x) 6= −g∗ (x). Thus for all x ∈ S2 we have
g̃(x) 6= −g∗ (x).

() 30 / 43
 Borsuk–Ulam theorem Case n = 3

Mollify g̃ in small neighbourhoods of {x : l(x) = ±r } (and then

renormalise to ensure that the target space remains S2 !) to obtain g †
which is smooth, equivariant, preserves the upper and lower
hemispheres and, being uniformly very close to g̃, is such that
g † (x) 6= −g∗ (x) for all x.
Hence we also have, with ψ as above,

g † (x) 6= −(g ◦ ψ)(x) for all x.

Let ψt be a smooth family of diffeomorphisms interpolating between

ψ0 = I and ψ1 = ψ.

() 31 / 43
 Borsuk–Ulam theorem Case n = 3

With this in hand, the proposition follows by defining, for x ∈ S2 and

0 ≤ t ≤ 1, f̃ : D3 → S2 by

(3t − 2)g † (x) + (3 − 3t)(g ◦ ψ)(x)

f̃ (tx) = when 2/3 ≤ t ≤ 1,
|(3t − 2)g † (x) + (3 − 3t)(g ◦ ψ)(x)|

f̃ (tx) = g ◦ ψ3t−1 (x) when 1/3 ≤ t ≤ 2/3

and
f̃ (tx) = bf (3tx) when 0 ≤ t ≤ 1/3.

This makes sense because for 2/3 ≤ t ≤ 1 we have

(3t − 2)g † (x) + (3 − 3t)(g ◦ ψ)(x) 6= 0; then f̃ has all the desired
properties of f † (including continuity) except possibly for smoothness at
t = 1/3 and 2/3. To rectify this we mollify f̃ in a small neighbourhood
of {t = 1/3} and {t = 2/3} and renormalise once more to ensure that
the target space is indeed still S2 . The resulting f † now has all the
properties we need.
() 32 / 43
 An application

Borsuk–Ulam again

Theorem (Borsuk–Ulam)
If F : SM → RM is continuous, then there is some x with F (x) = F (−x).

So if F is also odd, i.e. F (−x) = −F (x) for all x, then there is some x
with F (x) = 0.
Trivially the same applies to functions F : SM → RN with M ≥ N – just
add extra zero components of F until there are M of them.

() 34 / 43
 An application

A typical application
Theorem (Ham Sandwich Theorem)
Suppose we have open sets U1 , . . . , Un in Rn . Then there exists a
hyperplane bisecting each Uj .

If P is a hyperplane {x : a0 + a1 x1 + · · · + an xn = 0}, let

P + = {x : a0 + a1 x1 + · · · + an xn > 0} and similarly for P − . Note that
changing the signs of all the coefficients swaps P ± . We say P bisects
U if |U ∩ P + | = |U ∩ P − |.
Every point a = (a0 , . . . , an ) ∈ Sn ⊆ Rn+1 corresponds to some
hyperplane Pa .
Then the map (Z )n
Z
a 7→ 1− 1
Uj ∩Pa+ Uj ∩Pa−
j=1
is a continuous odd map from Sn to Rn and so there is an a which
maps to zero.
() 35 / 43
 An application

So, given n 1-separated unit balls B1 , . . . , Bn in Rn , there is a degree 1

algebraic hypersurface (i.e. a hyperplane!) Z such that

Hn−1 (Z ∩ Bj ) ≥ Cn .

Here, Hn−1 denotes n − 1-dimensional surface area.

More generally, if we have many more balls than the dimension n, can
we find an algebraic hypersurface Z – not of degree 1 but of controlled
degree – such that
Hn−1 (Z ∩ B) ≥ Cn
for all B?

() 36 / 43
 An application

Yes!
In fact, we have:
Proposition (Stone-Tukey, Gromov)
Suppose we have N  n 1-separated unit balls B in Rn . Then there
exists an algebraic hypersurface Z such that

(i) deg Z ≤ Cn N 1/n

and

(ii) Hn−1 (Z ∩ B) ≥ Cn
for all B.

() 37 / 43
 An application

Proof of Proposition
Given 1-separated {x1 , . . . , xN } ⊆ Rn . Then there is a p with deg
p ≤ Cn N 1/n and zero set Z such that Hn−1 (Z ∩ B(xj , 1)) ≥ Cn for all j.
Consider the map
(Z Z )
F : p 7→ 1− 1
{p>0}∩B(xj ,1) {p<0}∩B(xj ,1)
j

defined on Xd,n = { polys of degree ≤ d in n real variables}.

Clearly F is continuous, homogeneous of degree 0 and odd.
So we can think of F as
F : SM → RN
where SM – with M + 1 = n+d ∼ d n – is the unit sphere of Xd,n .


n
So by Borsuk–Ulam, if M ≥ N, then F vanishes at some p.
For such p (which we can choose with deg p ≤ Cn N 1/n ) we have
Hn−1 (Z ∩ B(xj , 1)) ≥ Cn for all j.
() 38 / 43
 A question

We’ve seen that given N  n 1-separated unit balls B in Rn , then there

exists an algebraic hypersurface Z such that
(i) deg Z ≤ Cn N 1/n
and
(ii) Hn−1 (Z ∩ B) ≥ Cn
for all B.
What about a version of this “with multiplicities”?
That is, given 1-separated unit balls Bj in Rn and given Mj ≥ 1, can we
find an algebraic hypersurface Z such that
 1/n
X
(i) deg Z ≤ Cn  Mjn 
j

and
(ii) Hn−1 (Z ∩ Bj ) ≥ Cn Mj
for all j?
() 40 / 43
 A question

Proposition
Given 1-separated unit balls Bj in Rn and given Mj ≥ 1, we can find an
algebraic hypersurface Z such that
 1/n
X
(i) deg Z ≤ Cn  Mjn 
j

and
(ii) Hn−1 (Z ∩ Bj ) ≥ Cn Mj
for all j

Proof.
Chop each Bj into Mjn equal sub-balls and apply the same strategy: we
−(n−1)
obtain Mjn contributions of Mj to Z ∩ Bj and the total number of
constraints is j Mjn .
P

() 41 / 43
 A question

A Qusetion
Let Se (Z ) be the component of surface area of Z in the direction
perpendicular to the unit vector e. Let {ej (Q)} be any approximate
orthonormal basis and let Sj (Q) = Sej (Z ∩ Q).
By the G.M./A.M. inequality we have
n
Y n
X
Sj (Q)1/n ≤ Cn Sj (Q) ∼ Hn−1 (Z ∩ Q)
j=1 j=1

because the directions involved in the Sj are approximately

orthonormal.
So a harder task is, given M, to find a polynomial p of degree at most
n 1/n , with zero set Z , such that
P

Cn Q M(Q)
n
Y
M(Q) ≤ Cn Sj (Q)1/n for all Q ∈ supp M.
j=1

() 42 / 43
 A question

Algebraic geometry and algebraic topology

Something close to this is indeed true and is a consequence of work of

Guth on the multilinear Kakeya problem.
However, the argument currently relies upon the whole machinery of
algebraic topology. Some of the tools needed:

Z2 -cohomology
Covering spaces
Cup products
Lusternik–Schnirelmann theory
Commutative diagrams and long exact sequences

Is there an “elementary” proof of this result appealing directly to

Borsuk–Ulam?

() 43 / 43