Is It Possible to Invert a Homotopy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the concept of inverting a homotopy, specifically examining the functions F: X x I → Y and G: Y x I → X. The participants highlight that while homotopy is an equivalence relation, inverting a deformation retract presents challenges, particularly in contractible spaces. Key references include Hatcher's definitions and notes on homotopy equivalence, emphasizing the importance of continuous projection maps and the transitive nature of homotopic compositions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of homotopy theory and equivalence relations
  • Familiarity with continuous functions and deformation retracts
  • Knowledge of Hatcher's "Algebraic Topology" (specifically Corollary 0.21)
  • Basic comprehension of parameterization in topology
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Hatcher's "Algebraic Topology" for deeper insights into homotopy equivalences
  • Explore the concept of deformation retracts in more detail
  • Research the implications of cardinality in contractible spaces
  • Examine the properties of homotopic compositions and their transitive nature
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, particularly those specializing in topology, educators teaching homotopy theory, and students seeking to understand the complexities of homotopy inversions and equivalences.

Ben2
Messages
37
Reaction score
9
Homework Statement
From Hatcher, "Algebraic Topology" p. 3 line 32: "...[T]hree graphs [two circles connected with a line segment, a horizontal figure 8 and an ellipse bisected by a vertical line segment] are all homotopy equivalent since they are deformation retracts of the same space..."
Relevant Equations
##F(x,t) = f_t(x)##, fg\cong\\mathbb{1}##, ##X\congY##, where the author's "congruence" sign has an additional line segment
For F: X x I-->Y, defined by F(x,t) = y, next define G: Y x I-->X by G(y,u) = x. Then for t = u, we have
F[G(y,t),t] = F{G[F(x,t),t]}, which will ideally be ##\mathbb{1}##. Given Hatcher's definitions pp. 2-3, to me it's not clear how to "invert" a homotopy without an inverse function--let alone how to "invert" a deformation retract. The latter seems to be a set of continuous projection maps. Thanks again for all feedback!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Please wrap your Latex for easier viewing.
Well, if your parameter on ##I## goes from ##0## to ##1##, your inverse would go from ##1## to ##0##, for one.
There may be issues for some contractible spaces, by cardinality alone, i.e., if you contract to a point, you won't be able to invert. Otherwise, " Homotopic" is an equivalence relationship, so that if X is homotopic to Y, then Y is homotopic to X.
 
Thanks very much.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: WWGD
I agree with WWGD that the point is simply that a deformation retract is a homotopy equivalence, so the issue is that the latter is an equivalence relation (hence symmetric and transitive).
Maybe Hatcher, Cor.0.21, p.16 will be helpful.

Actually, transitivity seems to follow directly from the fact that compositions of homotopic maps are also homotopic., e.g. as on p.2 of these notes:
https://web.northeastern.edu/suciu/U565/U565sp10-homotopy.pdf
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: WWGD
Thanks to all for the references.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: WWGD

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K