Working through "Topology Without Tears", and Sidney Morris defines homeomorphism on p 91:
Let $(X,T)$ and $(Y,T_1)$ be topological spaces. Then they are said to be homeomorphic if there exists a function $f: X \rightarrow Y$ which has the following properties:
(i) $f$ is one-to-one (that is $f(x_1)=f(x_2)$ implies $x_1=x_2$)
(ii) $f$ is onto (that is, for any $y\in Y$ there exists an $x\in X$ such that $f(x)=y$)
(iii) for each $U \in T_1, f^{-1} (U) \in T$, and
(iv) for each $V \in T, f(V) \in T_1$
For an example, there are functions that are homeomorphic from $(-1,1) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, like $f(x)=e^x – e^{–x}$ and $f(x)=ln(1+x) – ln(1–x)$. Alternatively, the map $f(x)=\frac{x^2}{1-x^2}$ does not allow for a homeomophism as it is not onto (ii from the definition).
Graphically, the map that doesn't allow for the homemorphism looks like a parabola (even) in that domain while the map that does allow for the homeomorphism looks odd.
Are my functions (and logic) respectively correct? Thanks.
If you're looking for homeomorphisms of $\mathbb{R}$, then certainly even maps are a no-no, because they violate injectivity.
That said, an homeomorphism of $\mathbb{R}$ need not have some special kind of symmetry (so it need not 'look odd'). Any continuous, strictly monotonic map on $(-1,1)$ which blows up near each endpoint defines an homeomorphism of $\mathbb{R}$.