That seems to be what it says on page 108 of Basic Topology by M. A. Armstrong. There, it says
In 'homotoping' the identity map $1_X$ to a constant map $c_p$, we may be forced to move the point p during the homotopy, i.e., there may not be a homotopy relative to $\{p\}$ from $1_X$ to $c_p$. For example, take the 'comb space' shown in Fig. 5.10 as X, and take p to be the point (0, 1/2). There is no homotopy from $1_X$ to $c_p$ which keeps p fixed. (Why not?)
"Why not?" indeed! I do not understand why he says we might be forced to move p.
For one thing, the definition of contractible does not mention that the homotopy from the identity function to $c_p$ needs to be relative to $\{p\}$, but for the sake of argument, let us keep that constraint.
Moreover, it seems to me that you can construct a homotopy that is relative to $\{p\}$ in aforementioned case involving the comb space as follows:
- Collapse all of the teeth, except the left most one down to the "spine" (i.e. $I \times \{0\}$). This leaves you with an L shape.
- You can then collapse the "spine" of the comb to the bottom of the one remaining tooth. Then, you are left with a single line segment containing the point that you want to collapse down to.
- This space is convex; therefore, you can collapse down to p by straight lines.
Am I misunderstanding that section of text? Or does it not make sense? Or is there something else that's going wrong?
PS: It seems odd to me that Armstrong defines the comb space as having height 1/2 instead of 1, which seems to be how various sources on the Web do it, but I suppose that makes no difference.