Is It Possible to Invert a Homotopy?

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

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of inverting a homotopy, particularly in the context of deformation retracts and homotopy equivalences. Participants reference definitions from Hatcher's work and explore the implications of homotopy as an equivalence relation.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the definition of homotopies and the challenges of inverting them without an inverse function. There are considerations about the implications of contracting spaces and the nature of homotopy equivalences.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing references and engaging with each other's points. Some guidance has been offered regarding the properties of homotopy equivalences, but there is no explicit consensus on the inversion of homotopies.

Contextual Notes

There are references to specific pages in Hatcher's work and external notes, indicating that participants are working within a defined framework of mathematical literature. The discussion also hints at potential limitations related to contractible spaces.

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