Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

It is well known that, if $A \subset X$ is a reasonable contractible subspace, then the quotient map $X \to X/A$ is a homotopy equivalence ("reasonable" means that the pair $(X,A)$ has the homotopy extension property, e.g. if it is a CW pair). For example, it's proposition 0.17 in Hatcher's celebrated Algebraic Topology.

It seems to me that this result should be a consequence of the following result, which seems true but for which I've been unable to find a proof or a reference.

Proposition? If $X$ is Hausdorff and $\sim$ is an equivalence relation whose classes $C$ are contractible and such that every pair $(X, C)$ has the homotopy extension property, then the quotient map $X \to X/\sim$ is a homotopy equivalence.

The classical result would of course be a direct corollary of this one.

So, is this proposition true?

share|improve this question
When you say classes contractible you also assume connected? What about the quotient maps from spheres to projective spaces? –  Sigur Nov 15 '13 at 15:50
Yes: for me, contractibility implies connectedness. –  PseudoNeo Nov 15 '13 at 16:24
Contractible means connected for everyone. It's defined as "homotopy equivalent to a point." –  Grumpy Parsnip Nov 18 '13 at 14:24
Great question, by the way. –  Grumpy Parsnip Nov 18 '13 at 14:55

1 Answer 1

I think there's something wrong with your statement that $(X,A)$ has the homotopy extension property if $X$ is Hausdorff and $A$ is closed. Take the Hawaiian earring space $E$ and form a new space $X$ by joining two copies of $E$ by an edge from the wedge point to the wedge point. Then contracting the central edge to get a new space $E\vee E$ is not a homotopy equivalence. For example, it is not surjective on the fundamental group. There are loops in $E\vee E$ which travel back and forth over each copy of $E$ infinitely many times. However there are no such paths in $X$ since they would have to travel over the central edge infinitely many times.

Hatcher assumes $(X,A)$ are a CW pair, which is a far stronger condition.

share|improve this answer
I think you can get away with $A$ have a contractible neighbourhood. –  Dan Rust Nov 19 '13 at 2:00
Oh, drat. You're right, of course. I wanted to avoid technicalities, but I can't. I will modify the question. Thank you very much. –  PseudoNeo Nov 19 '13 at 13:32
@PseudoNeo: Okay, thanks for the revised version. –  Grumpy Parsnip Nov 19 '13 at 13:54
@PseudoNeo: Thanks for the bonus. I guess it's good not to let it evaporate. The revised question is quite interesting, but I haven't had the time to think about it. –  Grumpy Parsnip Nov 26 '13 at 16:42

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.