Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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

enter image description here

I'm trying to understand the last bit of the proof. But, it makes no sense as if we defined $G=(H(x), G(R(X))$ won't we get some crazy recursive function. Does he mean $G=(H(x),R(x))$. Also, is there a way to make the induction more rigorous. It just seems to be skimpy and then the last bit shocked me as I don't see how it's valid.

As you would get something crazy like this $G=(H(x),(H(x),(H(x), \ldots )\ldots))$

The paper is this one

share|cite|improve this question
$G$ is supposed to be already defined on the image of $R$, and then it is extended using the formula $G(x)=(H(x),G(R(x)))$ (here $G(R(x))$ is already known) – user8268 Apr 22 '12 at 16:36
It makes sense alright. The author assumes $G$ to be already defined on the outside walls of the cube $I^n$ but not on the upper lid. To define the map on the entire cube, he starts by collapsing the cube onto the hollow box where $G$ is already defined,and then uses the already existng part of $G$ to send the cube into the total space of the fibering. – Olivier Bégassat Apr 22 '12 at 16:39
This discussion is pretty clearly about the homotopy lifting property and not the homotopy extension property, so I guess there's a typo in the statement of the Proposition... Of course this is an application of the homotopy extension property for cubes relative to certain faces. – Dan Ramras Apr 23 '12 at 5:17

Your Answer


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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.