1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Homotopy Problem

  1. Feb 11, 2007 #1
    I was asked to proove that R^m\R^k (m>k) has the same type of homotopy that S^(m-k-1) .
    I know I can use two criterias : the definition and the rectract criterium. The latter is more appealing because of it's "simplicity" but the function

    r:[0,1]*X --> X given by (1-t)x + tx/norm(x) yields no results and is in fact a pretty bad choice ...

    I have tried in vain to use the definition but I can't find the two functions that will satisfy the conditions.

    Please help , I have beem thinking for too long now.

    Thanks in advance.

  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 11, 2007 #2
    If I use the definition (i.e. there existe f : R^m\R^k --> S^(m-k-1)
    and g: S^(m-k-1) --> R^m\R^k
    such as f o g is homotopic to the identity ( of S^(m-k-1) )
    and g o f is homotopic to the identity (of R^m\R^k) .

    To proove such homotopies , is the function h:[0,1]*X --> X given by (1-t)ID + tx/norm(x) sufficient to proove my point ?
    here ID is the Identity. If I am not mistaking, it is the same for both spaces...

    The reason I keep using such a function is that we are in R^n .
    Is that a good idea ?

    Thanks for any help

    Last edited: Feb 11, 2007
  4. Feb 11, 2007 #3


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    That'll give you a retraction of R^n-R^k onto a subset of S^(n-1), namely S^(n-1)-S^(k-1). Can you show this is homotopy equivalent to S^(n-k-1)?
  5. Feb 11, 2007 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Hi Gagle,

    We're probably in the same class. You're the guy with the ponytail?

    We've seen in class, using the "retract lemma" that [itex]\mathbb{R}^{m-k}\setminus \{0\}\simeq \mathbb{S}^{m-k-1}[/itex], right?

    And we also know that [itex]\simeq[/itex] is an equivalence relation on the set of all topological spaces. This means that [itex]\simeq[/itex] is transitive, so if we can show that [itex]\mathbb{R}^m\setminus \mathbb{R}^k \simeq \mathbb{R}^{m-k}\setminus \{0\}[/itex], then it is also true that [itex]\mathbb{R}^m\setminus \mathbb{R}^k \simeq \mathbb{S}^{m-k-1}[/itex] and we will have won.

    Now, obviously, we cannot use the retract lemma to prove this because neither [itex]\mathbb{R}^{m-k}\setminus \{0\}[/itex] or [itex]\mathbb{R}^m\setminus \mathbb{R}^k[/itex] is a subset of the other.

    So we must fall back on the original definition of "homotopy type". That is to say, we must find continuous functions f and g such that their compositions are respectively homotopic to the identity on [itex]\mathbb{R}^{m-k}\setminus \{0\}[/itex] and on [itex]\mathbb{R}^m\setminus \mathbb{R}^k[/itex].

    Try it this way and if you don't get it I can lend you my solution tomorrow. (I'm the guy sitting behind the guy with the ponytail :tongue:)
  6. Feb 11, 2007 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    P.S. I created a thread on #1 of the "problem sheet" at https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=155623 in case you haven't noticed.

    The solution we found is based on the fact that there exists a bijection btw R and R². I don't know about you, but before today I had always thought that there existed NO bijection btw these two sets. But then again, this result is considered one of the basic result of set theory so I guess M. Cornea though we knew about it. He told me the other day that where he went to school [Romania], they learn calculus early in (their equivalent of our) secondary school and by the end of secondary school they've covered algebra up to fields and modules [the equivalent of Algebra 2 at UdeM].

    But if you found a another solution, I'd be glad to hear it.
  7. Feb 11, 2007 #6
    Thanks a Ton Quasar ! And yes, I'm the guy sitting in front of you :P
    In the mean time, I had considered that approach. The details ought to come.

    EDIT : I got the first question right but thanks for your help. It assured me of my reasoning.
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2007
  8. Feb 13, 2007 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    The solution:

    The first thing is to identify what [itex]\mathbb{R}^m\setminus\mathbb{R}^k[/itex] means. Obviously this does not make sense formally because [itex]\mathbb{R}^k[/itex] is not a subset of [itex]\mathbb{R}^m[/itex]. But it is easy to figure out what M. Cornea meant if you consider the two cases that have a natural geometrical interpretation, namely [itex]\mathbb{R}^2\setminus\mathbb{R}[/itex] and [itex]\mathbb{R}^3\setminus\mathbb{R}^2[/itex]. The first is the plane minus the real line... that is to say, [itex]\mathbb{R}^2\setminus\{(x,0)\in\mathbb{R}^2:x\in \mathbb{R}\}[/itex]. The second is 3D space minus the Oxy plane, that is, [itex]\mathbb{R}^3\setminus\{(x,y,0)\in\mathbb{R}^3:x,y\in\mathbb{R}\}[/itex]. This easily generalizes to [itex]\mathbb{R}^m\setminus\mathbb{R}^k:=\mathbb{R}^m\setminus\{(x_1,...,x_k,0,...0)\in\mathbb{R}^m:x_1,...x_k\in\mathbb{R}\}[/itex]

    Alright, so now picking up where post #4 ended, we must find continuous functions [itex]f:\mathbb{R}^m\setminus\mathbb{R}^k\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{m-k}\setminus \{0\}[/itex] and [itex]g:\mathbb{R}^{m-k}\setminus \{0\}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m\setminus\mathbb{R}^k[/itex] such that

    [tex]h_1:g\circ f\simeq \mbox{id}_{\mathbb{R}^m\setminus\mathbb{R}^k}[/tex]
    [tex]h_2:f\circ g\simeq\mbox{id}_{\mathbb{R}^{m-k}\setminus \{0\}}[/tex]

    (for some homotopies h_1 and h_2 to be determined also). Consider [itex]f(x_1,...,x_m)=(x_{k+1},...x_m)[/itex] and [itex]g(x_1,...,x_{m-k})=(0,...,0,x_1,...,x_{m-k})[/itex]. These functions are obviously continuous. Remains to match them with a pair of homotopies.

    Consider [itex]h_1:\mathbb{R}^m\setminus\mathbb{R}^k\times [0,1]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m\setminus\mathbb{R}^k[/itex] and [itex]h_2:\mathbb{R}^{m-k}\setminus\{0\}\times [0,1]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{m-k}\setminus\{0\}[/itex] defined by

    [tex]h_1(x_1,...,x_m,t)=(g\circ f)(x_1,...,x_m)+t(x_1,...,x_k,0,...,0)[/tex]

    [tex]h_2(x_1,...,x_{m-k},t)=(f\circ g)(x_1,...,x_{m-k})[/tex]

    (Indeed, [itex]f\circ g[/itex] is already the identity on [itex]\mathbb{R}^{m-k}\setminus\{0\}[/itex], so the trivial homotopy does the trick).
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Homotopy Problem
  1. Homotopy equivalence (Replies: 0)

  2. Homotopy Classes (Replies: 2)