Let $X$ be a "nice" Hausdorff space (probably a compact complete metric space). Suppose that $A_1,A_2$ and $A_3$ are compact, path-connected subsets of $X$ such that:

  • $A_i \cap A_j \ne \varnothing$ is path-connected for all $i,j$; and
  • $A_1 \cap A_2 \cap A_3 = \varnothing$.

Is the space $A_1 \cup A_2 \cup A_3$ not contractible, and if so how would you go about showing it?

Also, what are the minimum conditions that can be put on "nice"?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Presumably you also intend that $A_i \cap A_j$ is nonempty? $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Oct 2 '17 at 23:41
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Intuitively, this seems like an obstruction that the first Čech cohomology group should be able to detect. $\endgroup$ – Alex Provost Oct 2 '17 at 23:45
  • $\begingroup$ @Robert: the obvious way of interpreting those constructions produces a nonempty triple intersection $A_1 \cap A_2 \cap A_3$, namely the point at which your petals or radii meet. And the obvious way of fixing that problem produces empty double intersections. So can you clarify what you mean? I don't think it is "of course" entirely possible that the union is contractible. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Oct 2 '17 at 23:55
  • $\begingroup$ @Robert: yes, and a triangle is not contractible. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Oct 3 '17 at 0:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ My suggestion would be the following candidate for a noncontractible loop. Let $x_{0}\in A_{1}\cap A_{2}$, $x_{1}\in A_{1}\cap A_{3}$ and $x_{2}\in A_{2}\cap A_{3}$. Compose a path in $A_{1}$ from $x_{0}$ to $x_{1}$, a path in $A_{3}$ from $x_{1}$ to $x_{2}$, and a path in $A_{2}$ from $x_{2}$ to $x_{0}$. That gives you a loop $p$ based at say $x_{0}$. If it is contractible, then at some point in the corresponding path homotopy that image is entirely in $A_{1}\cup A_{2}$. I would try looking there for a contradiction. $\endgroup$ – Robert Thingum Oct 3 '17 at 0:13

It suffices to assume that $X$ is normal (which is stronger than Hausdorff but weaker than metrizable). In particular, any two disjoint closed subsets can be separated by a continuous function (Urysohn's Lemma). Furthermore, you do not need the subsets $A_i$ to be compact, only closed; also, you do not need $A_i\cap A_j$ to be path-connected, only nonempty. I will write a proof as a sequence of lemmas, let me know if you have hard time proving any of these.

Assumption: $X$ is normal, $A_1, A_2, A_3$ are closed, nonempty, path-connected, such that $A_i\cap A_j\ne \emptyset$ for all $1\le i, j\le 3$ and $$\ A_1\cap A_2 \cap A_3=\emptyset. $$

Lemma 1. Given three closed subsets $A_1, A_2, A_3$, as above, $$ \exists~ a_i\in A_i - (A_j \cup A_k) $$ for any triple $\{i, j, k\}=\{1, 2, 3\}$.

Lemma 2. There exist open neighborhoods $U_1, U_2, U_3$ of the subsets $A_1, A_2, A_3$ in $X$ such that $$ U_1\cap U_2 \cap U_3=\emptyset. $$

Lemma 3. (Urysohn) There exist non-negative continuous functions $\chi_i$, on $X$ such that $\chi_i=1$ on $A_i$ and $\chi_i=0$ on $X- U_i$, $i=1, 2, 3$.

Given these functions, I will define a partition of unity on $$ A= A_1\cup A_2 \cup A_3, $$ $$ \eta_i= \frac{\chi_i}{\chi_1 + \chi_2 + \chi_3}, $$ subordinate to the covering of $A$ by the subsets $U_i\cap A_i$, $i=1, 2, 3$.

The key fact is that the nerve of the above covering is isomorphic to the boundary (topological circle) $S$ of the standard 2-dimensional simplex $$ \Delta= \{(t_1, t_2, t_3)\in {\mathbb R}_{\ge 0}^3: t_1+t_2+t_3=1\}. $$ (If you do not know what a "nerve" is, just think of this sentence as defining $S$ and $\Delta$.)

Define the "map-to-nerve" map $$ f: A\to \Delta, \quad f(a)= (\eta_1, \eta_2, \eta_3). $$ The image of this map is contained in $S$ and $$ f(a_1)= b_1=(1, 0, 0), \ f(a_2)=b_2=(0,1,0),\ f(a_3)=b_3=(0, 0, 1). $$

In addition to the map $f$ we define a map $g: S\to A$ which sends each $b_i$ to $a_i$ and whose restriction to each line segment $[b_i, b_{i+1}]$ ($i$ is taken modulo $3$) is a path in $A_i\cup A_{i+1}$ connecting $a_i$ to $a_{i+1}$. Here I am using path-connectivity of $A_i\cup A_{i+1}$.

Lemma 4. The composition $h:= f\circ g: S\to S$ is homotopic to the identity map. (Hint: Use the fact that the restriction of $h$ to each segment $[b_{i}, b_{i+1}]$ fixes the boundary of this segment and its image is disjoint from $b_{i-1}$.)

We are now ready to prove:

Theorem. $\pi_1(A)\ne \{1\}$, in particular, $A$ is not contractible.

Proof. I claim that the map $g: S\to A$ is not null-homotopic. Suppose to the contrary that this map extends to a continuous map $G: \Delta\to A$. The composition $f\circ G: \Delta\to S$ is homotopic to the identity when restricted to $S$. But this would imply that $\pi_1(S)=1$, which is a contradiction. qed

In fact, you do not need path-connectivity of $A_i$'s, only connectivity. But a proof would require Chech cohomology which you probably are not familiar with.

Edit. Here is a sketch of an argument which assumes mere connectivity of the sets $A_i$, instead of path-connectivity. I will show that $$ \check{H}_1(A)\ne 0. $$ One defines Chech homology groups of a topological space $T$ as the inverse limit $$ \lim_{\leftarrow} H_1(C_\gamma) $$ where $C_\gamma$'s are nerves of open covers of $T$ where the order is given by the refinement relation of the open covers. The simplicial complexes $C_\gamma(A_i)$ associated with the sets $A_i$ are not just connected but path-connected. Therefore, instead of constructing maps of intervals to $A_i\cup A_j$ as in the above proof, one constructs maps to the nerves of the open covers. As above, one verifies that all the maps $$ S\to C_\gamma(A) $$ are not null-homologous. However, more care (in choosing the maps $S\to C_\gamma(A)$) is needed to ensure that these maps define an element of the inverse limit $$ \lim_{\leftarrow} H_1(C_\gamma(A)). $$ In the end, you prove that $\check{H}_1(A)\ne 0$. Since the Chech homology is homotopy-invariant, it follows that $A$ is non-contractible.

One can also argue using the Chech fundamental group or the Chech cohomology, whatever is feel more comfortable with.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your response! Assuming that a do know a little Čech cohomology (but am by no means an expert) how would you remove the path-connectivity assumption from the $A_i$'s? I assume you would have to consider refinements of the open cover you've constructed, but I don't see how you would build maps from the nerves of the covers back into $A$. $\endgroup$ – Zorngo Oct 5 '17 at 0:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Zorngo: I will add an explanation a bit later. $\endgroup$ – Moishe Kohan Oct 5 '17 at 14:39

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.