Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Show that $f:X \rightarrow Y$ is a homotopy equivalence if there exist maps $g,h:Y \rightarrow X$ such that $fg \simeq \mathbb{1}$ and $hf \simeq \mathbb{1}$.

Why isn't this trivial. Surely if f is a homotopy equivalence we get the maps for free with say g=h.

share|cite|improve this question
You are assuming you have these maps, not that you have a homotopy equivalence. The problem then is that you want to conclude that you can take $h=g$, which is not a priori obvious. – Alex Youcis Mar 4 '12 at 19:46
To add on Alex's comment, the implication is IF exists $h,g$ etc. THEN $f$ is homotopy equivalence. What you are asking is the other way around, you assume that $f$ is homotopy equivalence and take $g=h$; you need to prove the other direction. – Asaf Karagila Mar 4 '12 at 19:49
@AsafKaragila It still seems really trivial. – danielr1234 Mar 4 '12 at 19:52
So you have g,h and identity. Then surely, by definition f is a homotopy. – danielr1234 Mar 4 '12 at 19:53
No one said that Chapter 0 exercises are difficult, most times these exercises are meant to let you play with the definition a bit and try some easy things so you can slowly wade into the material later on. – Asaf Karagila Mar 4 '12 at 19:53
up vote 3 down vote accepted

This answer assumes the following theorem, so if it's not something you feel you can use you'll need to prove it first:

If $f_1,g_1\colon X\to Y$ are homotopic, and $f_2,g_2\colon Y\to Z$ are homotopic, then the compositions $f_2\circ f_1$ and $g_2\circ g_1$ are also homotopic.

Assuming this theorem, we show that if $fg\backsimeq1$ and $hf\backsimeq1$ then $g\backsimeq h$, so $1\backsimeq fg\backsimeq fh$ and $f$ is by definition a homotopy equivalence (with inverse homotopy equivalence $h$). To do this, we use the above theorem and the associativity of composition to find:

$$h=h\circ 1\backsimeq h(fg)=(hf)g\backsimeq 1\circ g=g$$

So $g\backsimeq h$ and we have the result as above.

share|cite|improve this answer
How do you prove the thing you are using. Hatcher asks to prove something like that earlier. – danielr1234 Mar 4 '12 at 20:21
Reasonable question - does Hatcher not prove it himself? It's a fairly important theorem for a lot of the rest of the book (assuming you're talking about Algebraic Topology and not some other Hatcher book). If I recall correctly, you can prove the result I mentioned directly, by taking a homotopy $H_1$ from $f_1$ to $g_1$, and a homotopy $H_2$ from $f_2$ to $g_2$, and "composing them" to get the homotopy you want. The inverted commas are because you'll need to fiddle with $H_1$ a bit (i.e. make it map to $Y\times I$ instead of just $Y$) so that $H_2\circ H_1$ is defined. – Matthew Pressland Mar 4 '12 at 20:37

If you are familiar with categories then this can help:

$f:X\rightarrow Y$ is a homotopy equivalence in category $\mathbf{Top}$ is exactly the same statement as: $\left[f\right]:X\rightarrow Y$ is an isomorphism in category $\mathbf{hTop}$.

$g,h\in\mathbf{Top}\left(Y,X\right)$ with $fg\simeq1$ and $hf\simeq1$ is exactly the same statement as: $\left[g\right],\left[h\right]\in\mathbf{hTop}\left(Y,X\right)$ with $\left[f\right]\left[g\right]=1$ and $\left[h\right]\left[f\right]=1$.

Based on the last result we find: $\left[g\right]=\left[1\right]\left[g\right]=\left(\left[h\right]\left[f\right]\right)\left[g\right]=\left[h\right]\left(\left[f\right]\left[g\right]\right)=\left[h\right]\left[1\right]=\left[h\right]$.

Then we have $\left[f\right]\left[g\right]=1$ and $\left[g\right]\left[f\right]=\left[h\right]\left[f\right]=1$ or equivalently: $\left[f\right]$ is an isomorphism.

The last statement is exactly the same statement as: $f$ is a homotopy equivalence.

share|cite|improve this answer
+1 I like your categorical point of view – magma Sep 27 '13 at 8:04
Ja, dat was me al duidelijk (= that was allready clear to me).:) – drhab Sep 27 '13 at 8:19
@magma Thanks for edits. Oh, I am so clumsy... – drhab Sep 27 '13 at 8:24
You are welcome. I have't received your email yet :-) – magma Sep 27 '13 at 8:41

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.