Necessary condition on homology group for a set to be contractible The Next CEO of Stack OverflowAlgebraic TopologyWhat is the necessary and sufficient condition for a CW-complex to have its homology groups torsion-free?Fundamental group of the Poincaré Homology SphereNecessary condition for removing a simplex and changing homotopy type.Does trivial fundamental group imply contractible?Homology of Eilenberg-MacLane $K(pi,1)$ in terms of group homology and TorHomology of contractible spaceFundamental group generators of null homology manifoldsHomology group of $mathbbS^1 vee mathbbRP^2$ and covering spacesDo contractible homology manifolds have one end?

Is it okay to majorly distort historical facts while writing a fiction story?

Is a linearly independent set whose span is dense a Schauder basis?

Upgrading From a 9 Speed Sora Derailleur?

Could a dragon use its wings to swim?

My boss doesn't want me to have a side project

Traveling with my 5 year old daughter (as the father) without the mother from Germany to Mexico

Is a distribution that is normal, but highly skewed, considered Gaussian?

MT "will strike" & LXX "will watch carefully" (Gen 3:15)?

What did the word "leisure" mean in late 18th Century usage?

How exploitable/balanced is this homebrew spell: Spell Permanency?

Why was Sir Cadogan fired?

Is it reasonable to ask other researchers to send me their previous grant applications?

Is there a rule of thumb for determining the amount one should accept for a settlement offer?

That's an odd coin - I wonder why

Gauss' Posthumous Publications?

Can a PhD from a non-TU9 German university become a professor in a TU9 university?

Finitely generated matrix groups whose eigenvalues are all algebraic

"Eavesdropping" vs "Listen in on"

How can I replace x-axis labels with pre-determined symbols?

Which acid/base does a strong base/acid react when added to a buffer solution?

How to find if SQL server backup is encrypted with TDE without restoring the backup

Why does freezing point matter when picking cooler ice packs?

How to show a landlord what we have in savings?

My ex-girlfriend uses my Apple ID to login to her iPad, do I have to give her my Apple ID password to reset it?



Necessary condition on homology group for a set to be contractible



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowAlgebraic TopologyWhat is the necessary and sufficient condition for a CW-complex to have its homology groups torsion-free?Fundamental group of the Poincaré Homology SphereNecessary condition for removing a simplex and changing homotopy type.Does trivial fundamental group imply contractible?Homology of Eilenberg-MacLane $K(pi,1)$ in terms of group homology and TorHomology of contractible spaceFundamental group generators of null homology manifoldsHomology group of $mathbbS^1 vee mathbbRP^2$ and covering spacesDo contractible homology manifolds have one end?










4












$begingroup$


We call a topological space is contractible iff it is homotopic to a point. Since homology group is homotopy invariant, we can see that under any abelian group as coefficients set, a topological space $(X, tau)$ has $H_1(X) = 0$ if $X$ is contractible.



Now, can we find a necessary condition on the homology group of $X$ that can imply X is contractible using some abelian groups as coefficients? The reason why I want to focus on $H_1(X)$ is because, if a space is not contractible, then there will be a 1-chain that can not be deformed to a point while a 2-face can always be deformed to a point.



I noticed that when using $mathbbQ$ as the coefficients, "$H_1(X) = 0$" can not imply $X$ is contractible. The conterexample is the projective plane of order 2, $mathbbP^2$. When using $mathbbZ$ as coefficients, then for any $n >= 2$, $S^n$ (the n-sphere) has homology 1-group equal to $0$ but all of them are not contractible.



Could anyone find an abelian group $G$ such that I can conclude "using $G$ as the coefficients set, $H_1(X) = 0$ implies $X$ is contractible"?
Furthermore, if no matter what coefficients set I use, $H_1(X)$ is always $0$, can I conclude that $X$ is contractible?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$
















    4












    $begingroup$


    We call a topological space is contractible iff it is homotopic to a point. Since homology group is homotopy invariant, we can see that under any abelian group as coefficients set, a topological space $(X, tau)$ has $H_1(X) = 0$ if $X$ is contractible.



    Now, can we find a necessary condition on the homology group of $X$ that can imply X is contractible using some abelian groups as coefficients? The reason why I want to focus on $H_1(X)$ is because, if a space is not contractible, then there will be a 1-chain that can not be deformed to a point while a 2-face can always be deformed to a point.



    I noticed that when using $mathbbQ$ as the coefficients, "$H_1(X) = 0$" can not imply $X$ is contractible. The conterexample is the projective plane of order 2, $mathbbP^2$. When using $mathbbZ$ as coefficients, then for any $n >= 2$, $S^n$ (the n-sphere) has homology 1-group equal to $0$ but all of them are not contractible.



    Could anyone find an abelian group $G$ such that I can conclude "using $G$ as the coefficients set, $H_1(X) = 0$ implies $X$ is contractible"?
    Furthermore, if no matter what coefficients set I use, $H_1(X)$ is always $0$, can I conclude that $X$ is contractible?










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$














      4












      4








      4





      $begingroup$


      We call a topological space is contractible iff it is homotopic to a point. Since homology group is homotopy invariant, we can see that under any abelian group as coefficients set, a topological space $(X, tau)$ has $H_1(X) = 0$ if $X$ is contractible.



      Now, can we find a necessary condition on the homology group of $X$ that can imply X is contractible using some abelian groups as coefficients? The reason why I want to focus on $H_1(X)$ is because, if a space is not contractible, then there will be a 1-chain that can not be deformed to a point while a 2-face can always be deformed to a point.



      I noticed that when using $mathbbQ$ as the coefficients, "$H_1(X) = 0$" can not imply $X$ is contractible. The conterexample is the projective plane of order 2, $mathbbP^2$. When using $mathbbZ$ as coefficients, then for any $n >= 2$, $S^n$ (the n-sphere) has homology 1-group equal to $0$ but all of them are not contractible.



      Could anyone find an abelian group $G$ such that I can conclude "using $G$ as the coefficients set, $H_1(X) = 0$ implies $X$ is contractible"?
      Furthermore, if no matter what coefficients set I use, $H_1(X)$ is always $0$, can I conclude that $X$ is contractible?










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      We call a topological space is contractible iff it is homotopic to a point. Since homology group is homotopy invariant, we can see that under any abelian group as coefficients set, a topological space $(X, tau)$ has $H_1(X) = 0$ if $X$ is contractible.



      Now, can we find a necessary condition on the homology group of $X$ that can imply X is contractible using some abelian groups as coefficients? The reason why I want to focus on $H_1(X)$ is because, if a space is not contractible, then there will be a 1-chain that can not be deformed to a point while a 2-face can always be deformed to a point.



      I noticed that when using $mathbbQ$ as the coefficients, "$H_1(X) = 0$" can not imply $X$ is contractible. The conterexample is the projective plane of order 2, $mathbbP^2$. When using $mathbbZ$ as coefficients, then for any $n >= 2$, $S^n$ (the n-sphere) has homology 1-group equal to $0$ but all of them are not contractible.



      Could anyone find an abelian group $G$ such that I can conclude "using $G$ as the coefficients set, $H_1(X) = 0$ implies $X$ is contractible"?
      Furthermore, if no matter what coefficients set I use, $H_1(X)$ is always $0$, can I conclude that $X$ is contractible?







      algebraic-topology simplicial-complex






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 2 days ago









      Sanae KochiyaSanae Kochiya

      676




      676




















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3












          $begingroup$

          The first homology group is far from enough to detect contractibility, since spaces can have non-vanishing higher homology groups.



          It's not even enough to have $H_n(X;G)$ vanish for every $n$ and $G$. For one thing there are spaces which are weakly contractible (i.e. all their homotopy vanish and hence their homology as well) but which are not contractible, like the Warsaw Circle.



          By Whitehead's Theorem a weakly contractible space which is not contractible cannot have the homotopy type of a CW complex, so we can ask if vanishing homology is enough to conclude that a CW complex is contractible. This still is not enough, because we can take the $2$-skeleton $S$ of the Poincare homology $3$-sphere, which is a finite $2$-dimensional CW complex whose homology groups vanish with any coefficients, but $pi_1(S)$ has order $120$ so it's not contractible.



          However there is an affirmative answer to your question that involves the fundamental group. If $X$ is a CW complex such that $pi_1(X) = 0$ and $H_n(X;mathbbZ)=0$ for $n > 1$, then it follows by Whitehead's Theorem and the Hurewicz Theorem that $X$ is contractible.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your detailed explanation. My unfamiliarity with CW complex and corollaries with Whitehead' s theorem (I have not heard the version you mentioned) is the reason why I had this problem.
            $endgroup$
            – Sanae Kochiya
            yesterday


















          3












          $begingroup$

          A counterexample is the sphere $S^2$, whose first homology group will vanish for any coefficients, but which is not contractible (because its second homology group doesn't vanish).






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your response. Do you mind direct me to the proof of your statement?
            $endgroup$
            – Sanae Kochiya
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            For any abelian group of coefficients $A$, we have $H_1(S^2, A) = H_1(S^2, mathbbZ) otimes A$, e.g. by the universal coefficient theorem (since there's no torsion in the other homology groups).
            $endgroup$
            – hunter
            yesterday


















          0












          $begingroup$

          This is a very good question because this is exactly what early algebraic topologists cared about! The general case is no; there are no conditions on homology that are sufficient to say a space is contractible. The double comb space (https://topospaces.subwiki.org/wiki/Double_comb_space) is a space whose homology (and homotopy) groups are all trivial with coefficients in any group. It also is not contractible meaning it is not homotopy equivalent to a point.



          But when you have a great question, a counterexample should not dissuade you. Can we put restrictions on a space so that trivial homology (with coefficients in integers) implies it is contractible? The answer is yes. If we restrict to CW complexes, you can prove that any map that induces an isomorphism on all homotopy groups must be a homotopy equivalence. This is called Whitehead's theorem. One of its corollaries is that between simply connected CW complexes, any map that induces isomorphisms on homology groups is a homotopy equivalence. This means that a simply connected CW complex with trivial homology is contractible since the map to a point induces isomorphisms on homology.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, I am not very familiar with CW complex and I could have figured this out by myself ....
            $endgroup$
            – Sanae Kochiya
            yesterday











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3168982%2fnecessary-condition-on-homology-group-for-a-set-to-be-contractible%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes








          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          3












          $begingroup$

          The first homology group is far from enough to detect contractibility, since spaces can have non-vanishing higher homology groups.



          It's not even enough to have $H_n(X;G)$ vanish for every $n$ and $G$. For one thing there are spaces which are weakly contractible (i.e. all their homotopy vanish and hence their homology as well) but which are not contractible, like the Warsaw Circle.



          By Whitehead's Theorem a weakly contractible space which is not contractible cannot have the homotopy type of a CW complex, so we can ask if vanishing homology is enough to conclude that a CW complex is contractible. This still is not enough, because we can take the $2$-skeleton $S$ of the Poincare homology $3$-sphere, which is a finite $2$-dimensional CW complex whose homology groups vanish with any coefficients, but $pi_1(S)$ has order $120$ so it's not contractible.



          However there is an affirmative answer to your question that involves the fundamental group. If $X$ is a CW complex such that $pi_1(X) = 0$ and $H_n(X;mathbbZ)=0$ for $n > 1$, then it follows by Whitehead's Theorem and the Hurewicz Theorem that $X$ is contractible.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your detailed explanation. My unfamiliarity with CW complex and corollaries with Whitehead' s theorem (I have not heard the version you mentioned) is the reason why I had this problem.
            $endgroup$
            – Sanae Kochiya
            yesterday















          3












          $begingroup$

          The first homology group is far from enough to detect contractibility, since spaces can have non-vanishing higher homology groups.



          It's not even enough to have $H_n(X;G)$ vanish for every $n$ and $G$. For one thing there are spaces which are weakly contractible (i.e. all their homotopy vanish and hence their homology as well) but which are not contractible, like the Warsaw Circle.



          By Whitehead's Theorem a weakly contractible space which is not contractible cannot have the homotopy type of a CW complex, so we can ask if vanishing homology is enough to conclude that a CW complex is contractible. This still is not enough, because we can take the $2$-skeleton $S$ of the Poincare homology $3$-sphere, which is a finite $2$-dimensional CW complex whose homology groups vanish with any coefficients, but $pi_1(S)$ has order $120$ so it's not contractible.



          However there is an affirmative answer to your question that involves the fundamental group. If $X$ is a CW complex such that $pi_1(X) = 0$ and $H_n(X;mathbbZ)=0$ for $n > 1$, then it follows by Whitehead's Theorem and the Hurewicz Theorem that $X$ is contractible.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your detailed explanation. My unfamiliarity with CW complex and corollaries with Whitehead' s theorem (I have not heard the version you mentioned) is the reason why I had this problem.
            $endgroup$
            – Sanae Kochiya
            yesterday













          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          The first homology group is far from enough to detect contractibility, since spaces can have non-vanishing higher homology groups.



          It's not even enough to have $H_n(X;G)$ vanish for every $n$ and $G$. For one thing there are spaces which are weakly contractible (i.e. all their homotopy vanish and hence their homology as well) but which are not contractible, like the Warsaw Circle.



          By Whitehead's Theorem a weakly contractible space which is not contractible cannot have the homotopy type of a CW complex, so we can ask if vanishing homology is enough to conclude that a CW complex is contractible. This still is not enough, because we can take the $2$-skeleton $S$ of the Poincare homology $3$-sphere, which is a finite $2$-dimensional CW complex whose homology groups vanish with any coefficients, but $pi_1(S)$ has order $120$ so it's not contractible.



          However there is an affirmative answer to your question that involves the fundamental group. If $X$ is a CW complex such that $pi_1(X) = 0$ and $H_n(X;mathbbZ)=0$ for $n > 1$, then it follows by Whitehead's Theorem and the Hurewicz Theorem that $X$ is contractible.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          The first homology group is far from enough to detect contractibility, since spaces can have non-vanishing higher homology groups.



          It's not even enough to have $H_n(X;G)$ vanish for every $n$ and $G$. For one thing there are spaces which are weakly contractible (i.e. all their homotopy vanish and hence their homology as well) but which are not contractible, like the Warsaw Circle.



          By Whitehead's Theorem a weakly contractible space which is not contractible cannot have the homotopy type of a CW complex, so we can ask if vanishing homology is enough to conclude that a CW complex is contractible. This still is not enough, because we can take the $2$-skeleton $S$ of the Poincare homology $3$-sphere, which is a finite $2$-dimensional CW complex whose homology groups vanish with any coefficients, but $pi_1(S)$ has order $120$ so it's not contractible.



          However there is an affirmative answer to your question that involves the fundamental group. If $X$ is a CW complex such that $pi_1(X) = 0$ and $H_n(X;mathbbZ)=0$ for $n > 1$, then it follows by Whitehead's Theorem and the Hurewicz Theorem that $X$ is contractible.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered yesterday









          WilliamWilliam

          3,0201227




          3,0201227











          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your detailed explanation. My unfamiliarity with CW complex and corollaries with Whitehead' s theorem (I have not heard the version you mentioned) is the reason why I had this problem.
            $endgroup$
            – Sanae Kochiya
            yesterday
















          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your detailed explanation. My unfamiliarity with CW complex and corollaries with Whitehead' s theorem (I have not heard the version you mentioned) is the reason why I had this problem.
            $endgroup$
            – Sanae Kochiya
            yesterday















          $begingroup$
          Thank you for your detailed explanation. My unfamiliarity with CW complex and corollaries with Whitehead' s theorem (I have not heard the version you mentioned) is the reason why I had this problem.
          $endgroup$
          – Sanae Kochiya
          yesterday




          $begingroup$
          Thank you for your detailed explanation. My unfamiliarity with CW complex and corollaries with Whitehead' s theorem (I have not heard the version you mentioned) is the reason why I had this problem.
          $endgroup$
          – Sanae Kochiya
          yesterday











          3












          $begingroup$

          A counterexample is the sphere $S^2$, whose first homology group will vanish for any coefficients, but which is not contractible (because its second homology group doesn't vanish).






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your response. Do you mind direct me to the proof of your statement?
            $endgroup$
            – Sanae Kochiya
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            For any abelian group of coefficients $A$, we have $H_1(S^2, A) = H_1(S^2, mathbbZ) otimes A$, e.g. by the universal coefficient theorem (since there's no torsion in the other homology groups).
            $endgroup$
            – hunter
            yesterday















          3












          $begingroup$

          A counterexample is the sphere $S^2$, whose first homology group will vanish for any coefficients, but which is not contractible (because its second homology group doesn't vanish).






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your response. Do you mind direct me to the proof of your statement?
            $endgroup$
            – Sanae Kochiya
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            For any abelian group of coefficients $A$, we have $H_1(S^2, A) = H_1(S^2, mathbbZ) otimes A$, e.g. by the universal coefficient theorem (since there's no torsion in the other homology groups).
            $endgroup$
            – hunter
            yesterday













          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          A counterexample is the sphere $S^2$, whose first homology group will vanish for any coefficients, but which is not contractible (because its second homology group doesn't vanish).






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          A counterexample is the sphere $S^2$, whose first homology group will vanish for any coefficients, but which is not contractible (because its second homology group doesn't vanish).







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered yesterday









          hunterhunter

          15.5k32640




          15.5k32640











          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your response. Do you mind direct me to the proof of your statement?
            $endgroup$
            – Sanae Kochiya
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            For any abelian group of coefficients $A$, we have $H_1(S^2, A) = H_1(S^2, mathbbZ) otimes A$, e.g. by the universal coefficient theorem (since there's no torsion in the other homology groups).
            $endgroup$
            – hunter
            yesterday
















          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your response. Do you mind direct me to the proof of your statement?
            $endgroup$
            – Sanae Kochiya
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            For any abelian group of coefficients $A$, we have $H_1(S^2, A) = H_1(S^2, mathbbZ) otimes A$, e.g. by the universal coefficient theorem (since there's no torsion in the other homology groups).
            $endgroup$
            – hunter
            yesterday















          $begingroup$
          Thank you for your response. Do you mind direct me to the proof of your statement?
          $endgroup$
          – Sanae Kochiya
          yesterday




          $begingroup$
          Thank you for your response. Do you mind direct me to the proof of your statement?
          $endgroup$
          – Sanae Kochiya
          yesterday












          $begingroup$
          For any abelian group of coefficients $A$, we have $H_1(S^2, A) = H_1(S^2, mathbbZ) otimes A$, e.g. by the universal coefficient theorem (since there's no torsion in the other homology groups).
          $endgroup$
          – hunter
          yesterday




          $begingroup$
          For any abelian group of coefficients $A$, we have $H_1(S^2, A) = H_1(S^2, mathbbZ) otimes A$, e.g. by the universal coefficient theorem (since there's no torsion in the other homology groups).
          $endgroup$
          – hunter
          yesterday











          0












          $begingroup$

          This is a very good question because this is exactly what early algebraic topologists cared about! The general case is no; there are no conditions on homology that are sufficient to say a space is contractible. The double comb space (https://topospaces.subwiki.org/wiki/Double_comb_space) is a space whose homology (and homotopy) groups are all trivial with coefficients in any group. It also is not contractible meaning it is not homotopy equivalent to a point.



          But when you have a great question, a counterexample should not dissuade you. Can we put restrictions on a space so that trivial homology (with coefficients in integers) implies it is contractible? The answer is yes. If we restrict to CW complexes, you can prove that any map that induces an isomorphism on all homotopy groups must be a homotopy equivalence. This is called Whitehead's theorem. One of its corollaries is that between simply connected CW complexes, any map that induces isomorphisms on homology groups is a homotopy equivalence. This means that a simply connected CW complex with trivial homology is contractible since the map to a point induces isomorphisms on homology.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, I am not very familiar with CW complex and I could have figured this out by myself ....
            $endgroup$
            – Sanae Kochiya
            yesterday















          0












          $begingroup$

          This is a very good question because this is exactly what early algebraic topologists cared about! The general case is no; there are no conditions on homology that are sufficient to say a space is contractible. The double comb space (https://topospaces.subwiki.org/wiki/Double_comb_space) is a space whose homology (and homotopy) groups are all trivial with coefficients in any group. It also is not contractible meaning it is not homotopy equivalent to a point.



          But when you have a great question, a counterexample should not dissuade you. Can we put restrictions on a space so that trivial homology (with coefficients in integers) implies it is contractible? The answer is yes. If we restrict to CW complexes, you can prove that any map that induces an isomorphism on all homotopy groups must be a homotopy equivalence. This is called Whitehead's theorem. One of its corollaries is that between simply connected CW complexes, any map that induces isomorphisms on homology groups is a homotopy equivalence. This means that a simply connected CW complex with trivial homology is contractible since the map to a point induces isomorphisms on homology.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, I am not very familiar with CW complex and I could have figured this out by myself ....
            $endgroup$
            – Sanae Kochiya
            yesterday













          0












          0








          0





          $begingroup$

          This is a very good question because this is exactly what early algebraic topologists cared about! The general case is no; there are no conditions on homology that are sufficient to say a space is contractible. The double comb space (https://topospaces.subwiki.org/wiki/Double_comb_space) is a space whose homology (and homotopy) groups are all trivial with coefficients in any group. It also is not contractible meaning it is not homotopy equivalent to a point.



          But when you have a great question, a counterexample should not dissuade you. Can we put restrictions on a space so that trivial homology (with coefficients in integers) implies it is contractible? The answer is yes. If we restrict to CW complexes, you can prove that any map that induces an isomorphism on all homotopy groups must be a homotopy equivalence. This is called Whitehead's theorem. One of its corollaries is that between simply connected CW complexes, any map that induces isomorphisms on homology groups is a homotopy equivalence. This means that a simply connected CW complex with trivial homology is contractible since the map to a point induces isomorphisms on homology.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          This is a very good question because this is exactly what early algebraic topologists cared about! The general case is no; there are no conditions on homology that are sufficient to say a space is contractible. The double comb space (https://topospaces.subwiki.org/wiki/Double_comb_space) is a space whose homology (and homotopy) groups are all trivial with coefficients in any group. It also is not contractible meaning it is not homotopy equivalent to a point.



          But when you have a great question, a counterexample should not dissuade you. Can we put restrictions on a space so that trivial homology (with coefficients in integers) implies it is contractible? The answer is yes. If we restrict to CW complexes, you can prove that any map that induces an isomorphism on all homotopy groups must be a homotopy equivalence. This is called Whitehead's theorem. One of its corollaries is that between simply connected CW complexes, any map that induces isomorphisms on homology groups is a homotopy equivalence. This means that a simply connected CW complex with trivial homology is contractible since the map to a point induces isomorphisms on homology.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered yesterday









          Connor MalinConnor Malin

          584111




          584111











          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, I am not very familiar with CW complex and I could have figured this out by myself ....
            $endgroup$
            – Sanae Kochiya
            yesterday
















          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, I am not very familiar with CW complex and I could have figured this out by myself ....
            $endgroup$
            – Sanae Kochiya
            yesterday















          $begingroup$
          Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, I am not very familiar with CW complex and I could have figured this out by myself ....
          $endgroup$
          – Sanae Kochiya
          yesterday




          $begingroup$
          Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, I am not very familiar with CW complex and I could have figured this out by myself ....
          $endgroup$
          – Sanae Kochiya
          yesterday

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3168982%2fnecessary-condition-on-homology-group-for-a-set-to-be-contractible%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Wikipedia:Vital articles Мазмуну Biography - Өмүр баян Philosophy and psychology - Философия жана психология Religion - Дин Social sciences - Коомдук илимдер Language and literature - Тил жана адабият Science - Илим Technology - Технология Arts and recreation - Искусство жана эс алуу History and geography - Тарых жана география Навигация менюсу

          Bruxelas-Capital Índice Historia | Composición | Situación lingüística | Clima | Cidades irmandadas | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegacióneO uso das linguas en Bruxelas e a situación do neerlandés"Rexión de Bruxelas Capital"o orixinalSitio da rexiónPáxina de Bruselas no sitio da Oficina de Promoción Turística de Valonia e BruxelasMapa Interactivo da Rexión de Bruxelas-CapitaleeWorldCat332144929079854441105155190212ID28008674080552-90000 0001 0666 3698n94104302ID540940339365017018237

          What should I write in an apology letter, since I have decided not to join a company after accepting an offer letterShould I keep looking after accepting a job offer?What should I do when I've been verbally told I would get an offer letter, but still haven't gotten one after 4 weeks?Do I accept an offer from a company that I am not likely to join?New job hasn't confirmed starting date and I want to give current employer as much notice as possibleHow should I address my manager in my resignation letter?HR delayed background verification, now jobless as resignedNo email communication after accepting a formal written offer. How should I phrase the call?What should I do if after receiving a verbal offer letter I am informed that my written job offer is put on hold due to some internal issues?Should I inform the current employer that I am about to resign within 1-2 weeks since I have signed the offer letter and waiting for visa?What company will do, if I send their offer letter to another company