3
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to show that $S^2 \times S^3$ is not homotopy equivalent to $S^2 \vee S^3 \vee S^5$. My argument is that removing any point from the first space leaves a space which is connected (since it is a 5-manifold, so locally looks like $\mathbb{R}^5$, and removing a point from $\mathbb{R}^5$ leaves a connected space), while removing the point where the second space is wedged together does not. Does this argument work? Also, could I have appealed to cup product structure?

  • 4
    No. $\mathbb{R}^2$ is homotopy equivalent to $\mathbb{R}$, and now you see that your point-method doesn't work.2012-08-01
  • 0
    @ChrisGerig I see we think alike.2012-08-01
  • 0
    Yeah, now I see that it was silly. I was recalling the argument to show that $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{R}^2$ are not homeomorphic.2012-08-01
  • 4
    Yes, you could apply the cup product structure. In the first space, the generators in degrees 2 and 3 multiply to give something in degree 5, while in the second space they multiply to give 0.2012-08-01
  • 1
    @Matt, I believe the *reason* the point-method doesn't work (besides providing that obvious example) is that homotopy-equivalence allows a "continuous deletion of points", with points on the space collapsing down to other points; whereas a homeomorphism forbids that by injectivity (it only "squishes" or "spreads" the points).2012-08-01
  • 1
    There's no well-defined operation of "deleting a point" from a homotopy type -- even a connected one. (Consider the unit interval.)2012-08-02

2 Answers 2

4

Just posting my comment as an answer:

Yes, you could apply the cup product structure. In the first space, the generators in degrees 2 and 3 multiply to give something in degree 5, while in the second space they multiply to give 0.

7

No, the argument does not work. For example, the real line is homotopy equivalent to the plane, yet the line has a cut-point while the plane does not.