3

I am trying to prove Theorem 51.3 from Munkres, that is:

Let $f$ be a path in $X$ and let $a_0, \dotsc, a_n$ be numbers such that $0 = a_0 < a_1 < \dotsb < a_n = 1$. Let $f_i\colon I \to X$ be the path that equals the positive linear map of $I$ onto $[a_{i-1}, a_i]$ followed by $f$. Then \begin{equation*} [f] = [f_1] * \dotsb * [f_n]. \end{equation*}

I have considered a proof by induction. I have done the base case which follows directly, but I'm struggling with the induction step. Since the homotopy of paths is an equivalence relation, it would be equivalent to proving that $f$ and $f_{1} * f_{2} \dots * f_{n+1}$ are path homotopic given that $[f] = [f_1] * \dotsb * [f_n]$.

Perhaps my understanding of the problem is a bit skewed, I have tried drawing a picture to make sense of how to prove the theorem by inducition but that hasn't helped me. Any help is appreciated.

JLGL
  • 1,055
  • 3
  • 11
  • I think by induction is the wrong approach. Here's a breakdown of definitions.

    We want $f_i$ to be the $i^{th}$ segment of the path $f$. The easiest way to do this is to restrict the domain of $f$ by looking at $f:[a_{i-1},a_i]\rightarrow X$. However, Munkres defines all paths to have a domain of $I=[0,1]$

    So what this theorem is stating is "break the path into $n$ subpaths. Then the homotopy equivalence of the entire path is the concatenation of each subpath's equivalence."

    I think if you can prove the $n=2$ and $n=3$ cases, you will see it generalize easily!

    – Jacob Apr 15 '24 at 15:15
  • The idea is just to say that the formal concatenation of paths does what it intuitively should. A path and the joining of its subpaths, should "morally" be equal; if you understand equality to mean homotopic. – FShrike Apr 15 '24 at 17:41

1 Answers1

3

The expression $[f_1] * \ldots * [f_n]$ only makes sense because Munkres has proved in Theorem 51.2 that $*$ is associative. The following considerations will prove this again.

Let us consider arbitrary paths $f_1, \ldots, f_n : I \to X$ such that $f_{i-1}(1) = f_i(0)$ for $i=2,\ldots, n$. For any partition $\mathbf a = (a_0,\ldots, a_n)$ of $I$ with $0 = a_0 < a_1 < \ldots < a_n = 1$ we define $$f_\mathbf a : I \to X, f_{\mathbf a}(t) = f_i \Big( \frac{t-a_{i-1}}{a_i -a_{i-1}} \Big) \text{ for } t \in [a_{i-1},a_i] .$$ This is a well-defined continuous map.

Theorem. The path-homotopy equivalence class $[f_\mathbf a]$ does not depend on the choice of the partition $ \mathbf a$.

Let us start with a simple lemma.

Lemma. Each map $u : I \to I$ with $u(0) = 0$ and $u(1) = 1$ is homotopic to the identity map rel. $\{0,1\}$.

Proof. Define $H : I \times I \to I, H(s,t) = (1-t) u(s) + ts$. This is a homotopy from $u$ to $id$ which keeps the points $0, 1$ fixed. $\phantom{xx} \square$

We now prove the Theorem.

Let $\mathbf b = (b_0,\ldots, b_n)$ be another partition of $I$.

Define $u : I \to I$ by $$u(t) = b_{i-1} + \frac{b_i- b_{i-1}}{a_i - a_{i-1}}(t- a_{i-1}) \text { for } t \in [a_{i-1},a_i] .$$ This is a well-defined continuous map which maps $[a_{i-1},a_i]$ affinely onto $[b_{i-1},b_i]$. We have $$f_\mathbf a = f_\mathbf b \circ u.$$ In fact, for $t \in [a_{i-1},a_i]$ we get $$(f_\mathbf b \circ u)(t) = f_\mathbf b \left(b_{i-1} + \frac{b_i- b_{i-1}}{a_i - a_{i-1}}(t- a_{i-1})\right)= f_i\left(\frac{b_{i-1} + \frac{b_i- b_{i-1}}{a_i - a_{i-1}}(t- a_{i-1}) - b_{i-1}}{b_i - b_{i-1}}\right) \\ = f_i\left(\frac{t- a_{i-1}}{a_i - a_{i-1}} \right) = f_\mathbf a (t) .$$

Since $u \simeq id$ rel. $\{0,1\}$, we see that $$f_\mathbf a = f_\mathbf b \circ u \simeq f_\mathbf b \circ id = f_\mathbf b \text{ rel. } \{0,1\} . \phantom{xx} \square $$ Corollary. The product $*$ is associative on path-homotopy equivalence classes.

Proof. Consider $f_1, f_2, f_3: I \to X$ such that $f_1(1) = f_2(0)$ and $f_2(1) = f_3(0)$. With $\mathbf a =(0,\frac 1 2, \frac 3 4, 1)$ and $\mathbf b =(0,\frac 1 4, \frac 1 2, 1)$ we have $f_\mathbf a = f_1 * (f_2 * f_3)$ and $f_\mathbf b = (f_1 * f_2) * f_3$. We conclude $$[f_1] *([f_2] * [f_3]) = [f_1 * (f_2 * f_3)] = [f_\mathbf a] = [f_\mathbf b] = [(f_1 * f_2) * f_3] = ([f_1] * [f_2]) * [f_3] .\phantom{x} \square$$

Given $f_1,\ldots, f_n$ as above, a representative $F$ of $[f_1] * \ldots * [f_n]$ can be constructed by successively computing $F_1 = f_1$, $F_{i+1} = F_i * f_{i+1}$. Then $F = F_n$ is the desired path. By construction (formally we have to use induction to prove it), we get $F = f_\mathbf p$ with $\mathbf p = (p_0,\ldots,p_n)$, where $p_0 = 0$ and $p_i = 2^{i-n}$ for $i = 1,\ldots, n$. For $n = 2$ this means $\mathbf p = (0, \frac 1 2,1)$, for $n = 3$ it means $\mathbf p = (0, \frac 1 4, \frac 1 2,1)$, etc.

Corollary. Let $\mathbf a = (a_0,\ldots,a_n)$ be any partition of $I$. Then $[f_1] * \ldots * [f_n] = [f_\mathbf a]$.

Proof. $[f_1] * \ldots * [f_n] = [f_\mathbf p] = [f_\mathbf a]$. $\phantom{xx} \square$

Let us now prove Munkres's Theorem 51.3.

Munkres takes the "positive linear" map of $I$ onto $[a_{i-1},a_i]$ which is $$\phi_i : I \to [a_{i-1},a_i], \phi_i(t) = a_{i-1} + t(a_i - a_{i-1}) $$ and then defines $$f_i = f \mid_{[a_{i-1},a_i]} \circ \phi_i .$$

We have proved above that $$[f_1] * \ldots * [f_n] = [f_\mathbf a] .$$ On $[a_{i-1},a_i]$ we have $$f_\mathbf a(t) = f_i\Big(\frac{t-a_{i-1}}{a_i -a_{i-1}}\Big) = f\Big(\phi_i\Big(\frac{t-a_{i-1}}{a_i -a_{i-1}}\Big)\Big) = f\Big(a_{i-1} + \frac{t-a_{i-1}}{a_i -a_{i-1}}(a_i - a_{i-1} \Big) = f(t) .$$ This shows that $f_\mathbf a = f$, i.e. $$[f_1] * \ldots * [f_n] = [f] .$$

Paul Frost
  • 87,968
  • For the proof of your lemma, I believe you want $H(s,t) = (1-t)s+tu(s)$ instead. Something did not seem right with how it was defined, so I asked GPT4o to give me a path-homotopy, and then I checked that it was correct on endpoints. The function you defined gives \begin{align} H(s,0) &= u(s)\ H(s,1) &= t\ H(0,t) &= 1\ H(1,t) &= u(1)\ &= 1. \end{align} – Ben123 Oct 27 '24 at 12:23
  • Also, if $n = 3$ then with $p_i = 2^{i-n}$ I claim that you get $\left(\frac{1}{8},\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{2},1\right)$, which does not seem to be what you want, since you want $p_0 = 0$. – Ben123 Oct 27 '24 at 12:37
  • I mean, it is unclear, since you don't define $p_i$ for $i = 0$. I suspect you want $p_0 \equiv 0$. But then you would still get $\left(0,\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{2},1\right)$. But this seems more correct, yes. – Ben123 Oct 27 '24 at 13:00
  • 2
    @Ben123 Thank you. Indeed I had two typos (in the definition of $H$ and in $\mathbf p$ for $n = 3$). I defined $p_i$ for $i = 1,\ldots,n$ and omitted $p_0$ because it is implicit in the concept of a partition that $p_0 = 0$. I made an update. – Paul Frost Oct 27 '24 at 13:26