$\DeclareMathOperator{\id}{id} \newcommand{\R}{\mathbb{R}}$ If $f,g : X \to Y$ are two maps (all maps considered are continuous here), a homotopy between $f$ and $g$ is a map $H : [0,1] \times X \to Y$ such that $H(0,-) = f$ and $H(1,-) = g$. Two spaces $X$ and $Y$ are said to be homotopy equivalent if there exist $f : X \to Y$ and $g : Y \to X$ such that $g \circ f \sim \id_X$ and $f \circ g \sim \id_Y$. This creates an equivalence relation on spaces.

Let $n, m \ge 0$ be two integers. It is very easy to see that $\R^n$ and $\R^m$ are homotopy equivalent, as they are in fact both contractible, and one can write an explicit deformation retraction of $\R^k$ onto the origin: $H(x,t) = tx$ (then $H(0,-)$ is constant and $H(1,-) = \id_{\R^k}$).

But this homotopy is not proper, though: the preimage $H^{-1}(0) = \R^k \times \{0\} \cup \{0\} \times [0,1]$ is not compact. One can easily adapt all the definitions of the first paragraph by defining a notion of proper homotopy between two proper and proper homotopy equivalence between two spaces by requiring all the maps involved to be proper.

Is $\R^n$ properly homotopy equivalent to $\R^m$ for $n \neq m$?

This question is motivated by this other one: $\R \times [0,1]$ is properly homotopy equivalent to $\R$ (the closed interval properly deformation retracts onto a point), so if one can show that $\R$ and $\R^2$ are not properly homotopy equivalent, then $\R^2$ and $\R \times [0,1]$ cannot possibly be homeomorphic.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Any proper map $f\colon X \to Y$ induces a continuous map between the end spaces of $X$ and $Y$, $\epsilon(f) \colon\epsilon(X) \to \epsilon(Y)$ and so this is a functor $\epsilon\colon \mathbf{TOP}\to\mathbf{STONE}$. If $f$ is a homotopy equivalence as well then $\epsilon(f)$ will be an isomorphism. This at least rules out a proper homotopy equivalence between $\mathbb{R}^n$ and $\mathbb{R}$ for $n\geq 2$ as $\mathbb{R}$ has two ends and $\mathbb{R}^n$ has only one. $\endgroup$ – Dan Rust Jun 8 '15 at 14:43
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry I forgot to compose with $\pi_0$. $\epsilon$ is a functor from $\mathbf{TOP}$ to the category $\mathbf{PRO}-\mathbf{TOP}$ of pro-objects in the topological category. $\endgroup$ – Dan Rust Jun 8 '15 at 15:00
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks @Daniel! It at least solves the question asked as motivation, though (but it wouldn't work to prove that $\R^{n+1}$ and $\R^n \times [0,1]$ aren't homeomorphic for $n>1$). $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Jun 8 '15 at 15:02
  • $\begingroup$ It looks like some of the tools mentioned on this page provide a robust set of invariants to use, so maybe a relative form of the "Brown–Grossman homotopy groups" would be the right invariant to look at? $\endgroup$ – Dan Rust Jun 8 '15 at 15:05

The invariants which distinguish the different $\mathbb{R}^n$'s up to proper homotopy are the "homotopy groups at infinity". For example, let's distinguish $\mathbb{R}^2$ from $\mathbb{R}^n$ with $n \ge 3$ by using "simple connectivity at infinity".

For every sequence of nonempty compact sets $K_1 \subset K_2 \subset \cdots \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ whose union equals $\mathbb{R}^2$, there is exactly one component $U_i$ of $\mathbb{R}^2 - K_i$ whose closure is noncompact, we have an inclusion $U_1 \supset U_2 \supset \cdots$, and we have a sequence of injections of fundamental groups of the form $$\pi_1(U_1) \leftarrow \pi_1(U_2) \leftarrow \cdots $$ The inverse limit of this sequence of groups is well-defined up to isoomorphism, and it is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}$.

But if you do the same thing with $\mathbb{R}^n$ where $n \ge 2$, the inverse limit of the sequence of groups will be trivial.

Of course one still has to prove that this inverse limit is a proper homotopy invariant, and one has to prove this for higher homotopy groups, and one has to do the appropriate calculations for the $\mathbb{R}^n$. The upshot is that the first nontrivial homotopy group at infinity for $\mathbb{R}^n$ is the $n-1^{\text{st}}$.

Here is a paper of Davis and Meier where you'll find some details about homotopy groups at infinity.

  • $\begingroup$ Could you comment on why only the $n-1$st homotopy group at infinity for $\mathbb{R}^n$ is non-trivial? My intuition is that we can make the $K_i$ just be increasing closed balls and then the $U_i$ all deformation retract onto an $n-1$ sphere, so the inverse limit of homotopy groups for this sequence of $K_i$ would be the same as those of $S^{n-1}$. If, as you say, the limit is independent of choice of $K_i$, then shouldn't this be a valid calculation? Apologies if the answer is buried in the linked paper, I'm feeling lazy. $\endgroup$ – Dan Rust Jun 8 '15 at 23:26
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielRust: Oops, I miswrote that, I'll correct it. $\endgroup$ – Lee Mosher Jun 9 '15 at 0:12
  • $\begingroup$ Awesome, order is restored. Great answer by the way. $\endgroup$ – Dan Rust Jun 9 '15 at 0:13
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know if I like the answer, since it suggests that we need a new theory for solving the problem. But everybody who carefully studied Poincare duality already has a tool to distinguish $\mathbb R^n$'s up to proper homotopy equivalence. That is why I also don't really like the first sentence "The invariants which..." $\endgroup$ – Daniel Valenzuela Jun 9 '15 at 6:15

In algebraic topology we want to find invariants to distinguish spaces up to certain equivalences. For proper homotopy equivalence one of such is compactly supported cohomology. By Poincaré duality for $0\neq n\neq m$:

$$ H_0(\mathbb R^n) \cong H^n_c(\mathbb R^n) \not \cong H^n_c(\mathbb R^m) =0 $$

  • $\begingroup$ Note that it is actually also easy to compute the relevant groups by definition. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Valenzuela Jun 9 '15 at 2:44
  • $\begingroup$ I know proper maps induce pullbacks on $H^*_c$, but is it clear that cohomology with compact support is preserved by proper homotopy equivalence? I checked a few references, none of them mention that... $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Jun 9 '15 at 7:22
  • $\begingroup$ Okay, I just found a reference that explicitly proved that. Thanks for your answer! $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Jun 9 '15 at 12:07
  • $\begingroup$ I actually think it is even mentioned in Hatcher's Algebraic topology. Maybe under the chapter for cohomology with local coefficients. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Valenzuela Jun 10 '15 at 0:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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