How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
A low-dimensional disk can be pushed off a higher cell
Statement
Let be a finite CW complex obtained from its subcomplex by attaching one -cell . If , every continuous , with , has a homotopy to a map into that fixes pointwise throughout. No choice principle is used. In particular, if , the homotopy fixes the boundary. The attaching map need not be injective.
Facts & Assumptions
CW complex with closure finiteness and weak topology and Skeleta, CW subcomplexes, and relative CW complexes give the Hausdorff attachment quotient, its characteristic map and subcomplex. The open cell is the image of the interior disk by a homeomorphism.
Heine-Borel in : with the Euclidean metric a subset of is compact if and only if it is closed and bounded, and the proof by bisection uses no choice principle; the same holds on the real line, For a metric space with its metric topology, compactness in the topological sense is compactness in the metric sense, and the two notions of compact subset coincide, A closed subspace of a compact space is compact, and a finite union of compact subspaces is compact and In a Hausdorff space a point and a disjoint compact set, and two disjoint compact sets, have disjoint open neighbourhoods; hence every compact subset is closed, and in a compact Hausdorff space the compact subsets are exactly the closed ones give compactness of cubes and closed coordinate balls, compactness of their closed subsets and closedness of compact images in .
The exponential law: for a locally compact metric and any spaces and , transposition is a bijection between and with the compact-open topology for the locally compact metric interval identifies continuous with continuous , for arbitrary spaces .
Proof
Given: as stated. Use the coordinate homeomorphism obtained by sending to through the characteristic map. Let denote the closed radius- coordinate ball.
Each is compact by [F2] and the coordinate homeomorphism, hence closed in . Its open-ball interior is open in : the preimage in the attachment disk is open away from its boundary and the preimage in is empty. Consequently and are compact subsets of , and is closed and disjoint from . If is empty, already misses the coordinate origin; retain and proceed to the radial construction below.
Suppose and . There is a positive such that every point within distance of lies outside . To see this without selecting a neighborhood at every point, take all pairs with , , and the relative ball disjoint from . Their balls cover . Compactness gives finitely many such pairs, and the minimum of their radii is a suitable : if is within of , choose a member containing and use the triangle inequality. If is empty any works. Likewise the coordinate map is uniformly continuous. For all pairs , , whose relative radius- ball has images within of , the radius- balls cover . A finite subcover and the minimum radius give such that and imply . Only finite subcovers and finite minima were used.
Subdivide into a finite uniform grid of closed cubes of diameter . Let be the union of cubes meeting and the union of cubes meeting . Every point of is within of , so . A point on the relative boundary of cannot belong to : otherwise a cube outside containing that boundary point would meet and would have been included. Triangulate the grid compatibly by first leaving its vertices, then coning each face from its center over the already triangulated boundary, in increasing dimension. The resulting finite simplices have diameter at most and are subcomplexes of this triangulation.
On let be the affine interpolation of the coordinate values of at these finitely many vertices. On every simplex barycentric coordinates are unique, are nonnegative and sum to one; the formulas agree on faces, hence define a continuous . Define the piecewise affine function to be one at vertices in and zero at the other vertices of . Then on and on the relative boundary of , by step 3.1. The formula takes its values in the coordinate cell. Outside retain . The two prescriptions agree on the boundary and paste continuously on and , a finite closed cover. Since , the homotopy fixes . Write ; on it is the finite piecewise affine map .
The image under of misses the coordinate ball of radius . Outside it misses by definition of . For a point , take a simplex containing it. This simplex is not contained in ; fix a point . Then , while uniform continuity and the diameter bound in step 3.1 give for all . Convexity puts and in the same radius- ball about , so . This estimate applies only to points mapped into ; points mapped to already miss all its coordinate balls.
A finite union of affine subspaces of dimension at most cannot fill a nonempty open ball in . Here is a finite algebraic verification. For each subspace its spanning vectors have rank less than ; row elimination gives a nonzero vector orthogonal to them, so the subspace lies in a hyperplane . For the finite list of nonzero normals, substitute . Each is a nonzero polynomial and has finitely many roots: division by at a root and induction on degree prove that assertion. Choose an integer outside the finite union of root sets. The line meets each affine hyperplane in at most one point. An interval of sufficiently small lies in the specified ball centered at zero and contains a point outside that finite list. Thus for the finitely many affine images of simplices of , some is omitted by ; step 5.1 shows that is omitted by all of . All the linear algebra and selections here are finite.
The cases excluded from the mesh construction also give an omitted point. If is empty use the coordinate origin, as in step 1.1. If , the domain is one point; if its image lies in , the constant homotopy already solves the problem. Otherwise choose one of two fixed distinct points of unequal to that image, leaving unchanged. Thus in every case there is a map homotopic to rel and a point .
Let be the unique characteristic preimage of . For set and This is the positive solution of , by expanding the square. Since is interior and is in the disk, , with equality for on its boundary. The homotopy lies on the ray segment between and its boundary endpoint, stays in the convex disk, never equals , and fixes the boundary. All formulas are continuous since .
The attachment quotient restricted over is still quotient: this subset is open, its inverse image is saturated and open, and any set open in that inverse image is open upstairs, so the quotient test descends it. On its domain, the homotopy given by step 8.1 on the punctured disk and the identity on agrees on the attaching identifications. It descends continuously even with the ordinary product topology on time. Indeed, for any quotient , a map continuous after has a well-defined transpose; [F3] makes its composite with continuous, the quotient test makes the transpose continuous, and [F3] makes continuous. Applied here, this proves a deformation retraction of onto . Compose it with and concatenate with the first homotopy. The result ends in and fixes .
No infinite family of witnesses has been selected. The grid and its triangulation are finite; neighborhood families were taken in their entirety before finite subcovers; omitted-point linear algebra involves only finitely many hyperplanes. The cases and were treated separately. The inequality is used exactly to find proper affine hyperplanes; no equal-dimension claim is made. At times zero and one the stated endpoint maps follow from the explicit formulas. Boundary fibers of a nonregular attaching map remain fixed, so the quotient argument does not require their injectivity. This proves the claimed choice-free relative homotopy.
Depends on
- CW complex with closure finiteness and weak topology
- Skeleta, CW subcomplexes, and relative CW complexes
- Heine-Borel in $\mathbb{R}^n$: with the Euclidean metric a subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$ is compact if and only if it is closed and bounded, and the proof by bisection uses no choice principle; the same holds on the real line
- For a metric space with its metric topology, compactness in the topological sense is compactness in the metric sense, and the two notions of compact subset coincide
- A closed subspace of a compact space is compact, and a finite union of compact subspaces is compact
- In a Hausdorff space a point and a disjoint compact set, and two disjoint compact sets, have disjoint open neighbourhoods; hence every compact subset is closed, and in a compact Hausdorff space the compact subsets are exactly the closed ones
- The exponential law: for a locally compact metric $X$ and any spaces $Z$ and $Y$, transposition is a bijection between $C(X \times Z, Y)$ and $C(Z, C(X,Y))$ with the compact-open topology
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
54 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Hatcher, Algebraic Topology, Lemma 4.10 and proof of Theorem 4.8, pp.349–351 (standard reference, not scraped)