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

I asked this question here. Can someone tell me if this is right:

claim: There are no retractions $r:X \rightarrow A$

proof: (by contradiction)

(i) If $f:X \rightarrow Y$ is a homotopy equivalence then the induced homomorphism $f_* : \pi_1(X, x_0) \rightarrow \pi_1(Y,f(x_0))$ is an isomorphism.

(ii) If $X$ deformation retracts onto $A \subset X$ then $r$, the retraction from $X$ to $A$, is a homotopy equivalence.

Assume there was a retraction. Then by proposition 1.17. (Hatcher p. 36) the homomorphism induced by the inclusion $i_* : \pi_1(A, x_0) \rightarrow \pi_1(X,x_0)$ would be injective.

But $A$ deformation retracts to a point in $X$ so by (i) $i_*(\pi_1(A, x_0))$ is isomorphic to $\{ e \}$, the trivial group. Therefore $i_*$ cannot be injective. Contradiction. There are no retractions $r: X \rightarrow A$.

Many thanks!!

Edit I've just read this again and I think it's wrong, $i_\ast: 0 \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$ is actually injective! What am I missing? Thanks for your help!

Edit 2 If $r$ is a retraction and $i$ the inclusion then $(r \circ i)_\ast = id$ so $(r \circ i)_\ast$ is an isomorphism which is a contradiction to $(r \circ i)_\ast = 0$?

share|cite|improve this question
Looks good to me. – Aaron Mazel-Gee May 5 '11 at 8:39
@Aaron: thank you! Would you make that comment into an answer? Then I can accept it and this question is answered. – Rudy the Reindeer May 5 '11 at 9:01
In your edit, you make the claim that $i_* : 0 \to \mathbb Z$ is injective. But the domain of $i_*$ is $\pi_1(A,x_0)$, which is the integers, because $A$ is (homeomorphic to) a circle. – Ryan Budney Aug 31 '11 at 16:00
I think somewhere you've mixed-up the domain of $i_*$ and its image in $\pi_1(X,x_0)$. – Ryan Budney Aug 31 '11 at 16:05
One of the most fundamental theorems about the circle is that its fundamental group is infinite cyclic, so it can't be contractible. IMO you're using misleading terminology. That you can contract $A$ to a point in $X$ is not "contractible". Being "contractible" means you can contract $A$ to a point in $A$. You'll get confused less often if you say "$A$ is null-homotopic in $X$" rather than "contractible". – Ryan Budney Sep 2 '11 at 16:27
up vote 3 down vote accepted

Looks good to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

share|cite|improve this answer
(my original answer was short of the min. 30 characters) – Aaron Mazel-Gee May 5 '11 at 9:28

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.