MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

Let $Y$ be a connected CW-complex and $X\subset Y$ a connected CW-subcomplex. Suppose that each cell of $X$ is the boundary of a cell of $Y$. Is this enough to conclude that $X$ is contractible in $Y$ (the inclusion map is homotopic to a constant map)? If the answer is no, then which condition could be enough to get the contractibility?

share|cite|improve this question
Since $X\subset Y$ this just means that every cell of $X$ is the boundary of some other cell, which could also be in $X$.Is that what you had in mind? – Jim Conant Jan 28 '11 at 15:08
Yes. But the cells bounded by cells in $X$ are possibly cels of $Y$ and not of $X$. – user12570 Jan 31 '11 at 8:55
up vote 4 down vote accepted

If you mean that every cell in $X$ is the image of the boundary of a cell in $Y$ then the answer is no -- consider for example the standard inclusion $S^1 = RP^1 \hookrightarrow RP^2$. The boundary of the $2$-cell is $RP^1$ (but it runs around twice, so $\pi_1 (RP^2) = \mathbb{Z}/2$ and the $1$-cell represents the generator).

share|cite|improve this answer
Yes, you right. But can you add some mild condition to get the contractibility? – user12570 Jan 31 '11 at 9:56

The condition "each cell of $X$ is the boundary of a cell in $Y$" is very strong.

In particular, it implies that each cell of $X$ is attached to the rest of $X$ by a constant attaching map (otherwise, it would have no chance of being the boundary of something else)

Thus, $X$ is a wedge of spheres.

I think that, at this point, it is easy to see how to finish the argument and answer the question in the affirmative: yes $X$ is contractible in $Y$.

I feel however, that the question asked maybe wasn't the one intended.

share|cite|improve this answer
I regard "each cell of $X$ is the boundary of a cell of $Y$" as ambiguously formulated. – John Klein Jan 28 '11 at 14:09
I don't think it's ambiguous, but I think its (unique, as far as I can see) meaning, the one André Henriques used, might well not be what the OP intended. – Andreas Blass Jul 12 '11 at 14:46

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.