Homotopy Definitions: Homeomorphisms, Homotopies & Retracts

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Silviu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definitions
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definitions and relationships between homeomorphisms, homotopies, and deformation retracts within the context of topology. Participants explore the nuances of these concepts, their applications, and implications in various scenarios, including loops and paths in topological spaces.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants define a homeomorphism as a continuous bijection between two topological spaces, emphasizing that both the function and its inverse must be continuous.
  • Others clarify that a homotopy exists between two maps and involves a continuous transformation from one map to another over a unit interval.
  • There is a discussion about whether homotopy applies only to loops, with some participants suggesting that it can apply to more general paths.
  • Participants propose that a deformation retract allows for continuous transformation without requiring bijectivity, positioning it between homeomorphism and homotopy.
  • Some participants provide examples illustrating the concepts, such as the deformation retract of Euclidean space and homotopies of loops on a sphere.
  • There is a debate regarding the homotopy of loops on a sphere, with some arguing that any loop avoiding a point is homotopic to a constant loop, while others question the details of the proof.
  • Several participants discuss the continuity of specific homotopies and the conditions under which certain paths can be homotoped.
  • Some participants express the need for clarity on the continuity of specific mappings and the implications of piecewise geodesics in homotopy arguments.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the definitions and implications of homeomorphisms, homotopies, and deformation retracts. While there is some agreement on the basic definitions, the application and nuances of these concepts remain contested, particularly regarding homotopy and its conditions.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions reference specific examples and proofs that may depend on particular assumptions or definitions, which are not universally agreed upon. The continuity of certain mappings and the properties of paths in topological spaces are also points of contention.

Silviu
Messages
612
Reaction score
11
Hello! I want to make sure I understand these definitions (mainly the difference between them), so please let me know if what I am saying is correct. So a ##\textbf{homeomorphism}## between 2 topological spaces, means that the 2 can be continuously deformed from one to another, while keeping a bijection between them (so a disk and a smaller disk inside it are homeomorphic, but a disk and a circle inside it are not). Then ##\textbf{homotopy}## means that 2 loops can be continuously deformed from one to another (not necessary bijectively - a circle and a point inside it are homotopic, for a simply connected space). Also, does homotopy applies just to loops, like 1 dimensional objects? And lastly the notion of ##\textbf{deformation retract}## means that 2 topologically spaces can be continuously transformed from one to another (not necessary in a bijective way - so a point is the deformation retract of a sphere). So a deformation retract is like midway between homotopy and homeomorphism (i.e. you can work not only with loops, but you don't need bijectivity)? Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
- A homeomorphism is a continuous bijection between two topological spaces whose inverse is also continuous. You can think of this as a continuous deformation but the language is unusual.

- A homotopy is something that exists between two maps. if ##f## and ##g## map the topological space ##X## into the topological space ##Y## then a homotopy between them is a continuous map from ##X## cartesian product the unit interval ##F:X×I→Y## where ##F(x,0) = f(x)## and ##F(x,1) = g(x)##. ##f## and ##g## are said to be homotopic. Intuitively one imagines the image of ##f## continuously flowing into the image of ##g##.

A loop is a map from the unit interval into a space whose values at 0 and 1 are equal or if you like a map from a circle into a space. Two loops ##l_1## and ##l_2## are homotopic if there is a homotopy ##F:S^1×I→X## with ##F(t,0) = l_1(t)## and ##F(t,1) = l_2(t)##. Usually these loops are chosen to have a common end point in which case the end point is kept fixed during the homotopy.

- A subspace ##Y## of a space ##X## is called a deformation retract of ##X## if there is a homotopy ##F:X×I→X## that is the identity map at time zero, its image at time one is contained in ##Y## and ##F(y,1) = y## for all ##y∈Y##. So at time 1 ##X## is mapped into ##Y## while ##Y## itself is kept fixed.

- There is also the idea of a retract(as opposed to a deformation retract).

- It occurs to me that you are thinking of homotopy groups of a space. If so, then homotopic loops keeping endpoints fixed form a group called the fundamental group. There are higher homotopy groups which are made of homotopic maps of spheres into a space. These higher homotopy groups are all abelian.

Here are a couple examples/exercises:

- Any point in Euclidean space is a deformation retract of all of Euclidean space.
- Any loop on a sphere is homotopic to the contant loop.(This isn't easy).
- A circle is a deformation retract of an annulus.
- a circle is no a retract of the disk. (Think of the circle as the boundary of the disk.)
- Let X be ##R^3## minus the z-axis and the unit circle in the xy-plane. Let ##Y## be a small torus around the unit circle, small enough so that it does not touch the z-axis. Show that ##Y## is deformation retract of ##X##.
 
Last edited:
any loop on the sphere that misses a point is homotopic to a constant, but by compactness, any loop can be decomposed into a finite sequence of loops, each segment of which lies in a small piece of the sphere, hemnce each of which can be straightened into a geodesic. thus any loop ios homotopic to a finite sequence of geodesics, hence one missing most points.
 
To restate your proof.

The compactness argument subdivides the closed loop into a finite number of segments each lying in coordinate domain on the sphere. Each segment is homotopic to a geodesic arc so the union of these geodesic arcs is homotopic to the entire curve. But a piecewise geodesic is not space filling and so is null homotopic.

How does one know that the geodesic arc is homotopic to the segment of the loop?
 
@lavinia Perhaps I'm missing some subtlety, but any two paths in a coordinate patch of ##S^2## with the same endpoints must be endpoint-preserving homotopic since the same is true in ##\mathbb{R}^2##.
 
yes, the local patches are homeomorphic to R^2. In fact a similar argument is then needed to show the piecewise geodesic is homotopic to a constant, since it lies in the complement of one point, which is thus also homeomorphic to R^2, hence contractible.

for the first part, i guess you could retract the plane onto the rectangle above the interval [0,1], and then retract that rectangle onto that interval. This seems to leave the endpoints {0,1} fixed. i admit it is easier to say than to write down.
 
Infrared said:
@lavinia Perhaps I'm missing some subtlety, but any two paths in a coordinate patch of ##S^2## with the same endpoints must be endpoint-preserving homotopic since the same is true in ##\mathbb{R}^2##.
I agree but some detail is left out for the OP.

If one has a space filling curve in ##R^2## how does one know that is is homotopic to say a straight line segment with the same endpoints? It would be nice to write the homotopy down.
 
lavinia said:
If one has a space filling curve in ##R^2## how does one know that is is homotopic to say a straight line segment with the same endpoints? It would be nice to write the homotopy down.

Let ##\gamma_1,\gamma_2## be your two paths agreeing at endpoints. My homotopy is ##(1-t)\gamma_1+t\gamma_2##.

Edit: Of course, I should've also required each coordinate patch to actually contain a geodesic between any two points in it, but this is easy to arrange. Maybe to avoid some technical difficulty (like showing that a piecewise geodesic path is not onto) it would be best to to write my loop ##\gamma## as a finite sequence of loops which are either constant at my basepoint or hit my base point only at their endpoints. Each of the nontrivial parts can be homotoped into a fixed geodesic by basically the argument above (say ##\gamma:[a,b]\to\mathbb{R}^2## is such a part, corresponding to a path ##(a,b)\to\mathbb{R}^2##. The base point condition just becomes ##\lim_{t \to a,b}|\gamma(t)|=\infty##). Arguments are in any topology book, but it's fun to work out for oneself.
 
Last edited:
Infrared said:
Let ##\gamma_1,\gamma_2## be your two paths agreeing at endpoints. My homotopy is ##(1-t)\gamma_1+t\gamma_2##.

The OP might want to know why this map is continuous.

##F(t,s) = (1-t)\gamma_1(s)+t\gamma_2(s)##
 
Last edited:
  • #10
The map ##I^2\to\mathbb{R}^6## given by ##(t,s)\mapsto ((1-s),\gamma_1(t),s,\gamma_2(t))## is continuous when composed with projection onto any factor of the target (since this itself is the composition of a projection, which is continuous, and another continuous function) and thus is continuous by the universal property of product spaces. Then use that scalar multiplication and addition are continuous functions on ##\mathbb{R}^2##.

This is hopefully enough to satisfy the OP.
 
  • #11
Infrared said:
The map ##I^2\to\mathbb{R}^6## given by ##(t,s)\mapsto ((1-s),\gamma_1(t),s,\gamma_2(t))## is continuous when composed with projection onto any factor of the target (since this itself is the composition of a projection, which is continuous, and another continuous function) and thus is continuous by the universal property of product spaces. Then use that scalar multiplication and addition are continuous functions on ##\mathbb{R}^2##.
nice.
 
  • #12
a piecewise geodesic path is contained in a finite union of great circles, hence not onto.
 
  • #13
Thanks, that does it.
 
  • #14
Here is another proof that the sphere is simply connected which illustrates a general method that can be used for any space. This method calculates the fundamental group of a space in terms of two path connected open sets whose intersection is also path connected. The general theorem is called Van Kampen's Theorem. The sphere is a particularly simple case where the two path connected open sets are contractible.

On the sphere choose ##U_1## and ##U_2## to be the sphere minus two antipodal points ##U_1 = S^2- x## and ##U_2 = S^2- (-x)##. Choose the antipodal points so that the base point ##p## of the loop ##γ## lies in the intersection ##U_1∩U_2##. The ##U##'s are both contractible since they are both homeomorphic to the Euclidean plane (Use stereographic projection to prove this.).

Split the unit interval ##[0,1]## into finitely many closed intervals ##[t_{i},t_{i+1}]## such that ##γ([t_{i},t_{i+1}])## lies entirely in one of the two open sets ##U_1## and ##U_2## (maybe both). One can assume without loss of generality that at the end points ##t_{i}## ##γ(t_{i})## is not one of the antipodal points.

For each ##t_{i}## (except for ##0## and ##1##) choose a path ##α_{i}## in ##U_1∩U_2##. from the base point ##p## to ##t_{i}## These paths ##α_{i}## allow one to create a new loop ##ϒ## consisting of a series of loops ##α_{i}γ([t_{i},t_{i+1}])α_{i+1}^{-1}## each of which lies entirely in ##U_1## or ##U_2##. It follows that each of these loops is null homotopic (since the ##U##'s are contractible) and therefore that ##ϒ## is also null homotopic. Further ##ϒ## is homotopic to the original loop ##γ## because ##α_{i}^{-1}α_{i}## is null homotopic and ##ϒ= γ([0,t_1])(α_1^{-1}α_1)γ([t_1,t_2])(α_2^{-1}α_2)...(α_{n-1}^{-1}α_{n-1})γ([t_{n-1},1])##.

- Van Kampen's Theorem describes the fundamental group of a space in terms of the two path connected open sets and their path connected intersection. These sets may have non-trivial fundamental groups. The algebraic statement of Van Kampen's theorem is a little abstract so I won't go into it here unless you want me to or perhaps you can start a new thread.There is also a decent Wikipedia article on it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mathwonk

Similar threads

  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
7K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
16K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K