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 $X$ and $Y$ be topological spaces. Assume $Y$ is contractible (hence, path- connected).

Let $f,g: X \to Y$ be continuous maps. At any fixed $x\in X$, there is a path $P_x: [0,1]\to Y$ from $f(x)$ to $g(x)\in Y$ such that $P_x(0)=f(x)$ and $P_x(1)=g(x)$

We define $F: X\times [0,1]\to Y$ by $F(x,t) = P_x(t)$. Now, $$F(x,0)= P_x(0)=f(x), F(x,1)= P_x(1)=g(x)$$ for any $x\in X$ (This is why $F$ is homotopy-like). Clearly, $F$ is continuous at time $0$ and at time $1$. Is $F$ necessarily continuous at any time $t$?

Thanks in advance for any help.

share|cite|improve this question
In your example you make merely a funtion $F$ such that for any $t$ the function $F_t: x \mapsto F(x, t)$ is contnuous, of course this is too weak for have the (global) continuity of $F$. Anyway if you parametrize the paths by the homotopy contraction maps you get a (continuous) homotopy $F$ from $f$ to $g$. Let $G: X \times I\to Y: 1_Y\ \tilde\ \ C(y_0)$ (contraction homotopy from identity map to costant map on the point $y_0$). then join the maps $F(x, t):= G(f(x), 2t)\ t\in[0,1/2]$ and $F(x, t):= G(g(x), 2-2t)\ t\in[1/2,1]$ . – Buschi Sergio Nov 7 '11 at 11:45
Thanks for the remark. – Chulumba Nov 7 '11 at 13:18
up vote 3 down vote accepted

This proof cannot work since then every two maps $X \to Y$, where $Y$ is path-connected, are homotopic - which is false. On the other hand, if $Y$ is contractible, then every map $X \to Y$ is homotopic to a constant map (since this true for the identity $X \to X$), thus every two maps $X \to Y$ are homotopic.

Even if $Y$ is contractible, in your proof the paths $P_x$ may be choosen so arbitrarily that $F$ is not continuous. Indeed, there are maps $F : [0,1] \times [0,1] \to \mathbb{R}$ such that $F(-,0)$, $F(-,1)$ and all $F(t,-)$ are continuous, but $F$ is not.

share|cite|improve this answer
Oh, I see. Thanks Martin. I already knew the other proof you described in the last line. But I was stuck why I could not progress the way I described in my question. – Chulumba Nov 7 '11 at 10:51

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.