The Comb Space Is Contractible โ Or Is It?
Consider the closed cone over the Hawaiian Earring (sometimes called the "cone" construction). Actually, let's focus on something more elementary and surprising:
Let ...
No โ here is the clean problem:
Define the closed topologist's comb as:
as a subspace of .
(a) Is path-connected?
(b) Is contractible (i.e., is the identity map null-homotopic)?
(c) Yet, is the point a "strong deformation retract" of any neighborhood of it in ?
The surprise: answer (a) and (b) first โ you will find both are yes โ then explain why (c) is no, and what this reveals about the difference between contractibility and local contractibility.
Answer: 2026-06-16_pm
Key Idea / Intuition
The comb space looks like it should behave nicely โ it is connected, simply connected, and even contractible. But the "top of the left spine," the point , has no contractible neighborhood: any neighborhood of must contain points on the high teeth for large , and no path from those points can reach and then contract back, because the teeth are isolated from each other near the top. This is a perfect illustration that contractible locally contractible, and it explains why the comb space is a standard counterexample in topology.
Formal Proof / Solution
Part (a): Path-Connectedness
We show any point can be connected to by a path.
- Points on the base : go along the base to , then up the left spine to .
- Points on a tooth : travel down the tooth to , along the base to , then up the left spine.
- Points on the left spine : travel directly up or down the spine.
All these are explicit continuous paths, so is path-connected.
Part (b): Contractibility
Define a homotopy in two stages:
Stage 1 (): "Comb down all teeth to the base." Define
At this is the identity; at every point is mapped to , i.e., the base .
Check it stays in : For a point on a tooth, . For , it goes to . For , it stays on the base. โ
Stage 2 (): "Slide everything along the base to , then up the spine to ."
Combining, for all points. Since each piece is continuous and they agree on overlaps, is a contraction of to the point . Thus is contractible.
Part (c): Has No Contractible Neighborhood
Claim: Every open neighborhood of in is not locally path-connected (and in particular cannot deformation retract onto ).
Take any open ball for small . For large enough that , the point lies on the tip of the -th tooth.
Key observation: Any path starting at that reaches must at some time pass through the base (since the only connection between different teeth and the spine is through the base ). Explicitly:
- The tooth is connected only to the rest of via on the base.
- So any path from to must dip down to at some point.
But then the path leaves (since the base is at distance from vertically when ).
Therefore, within , the points for large cannot be connected to by a path staying in . Hence is not path-connected, and certainly admits no deformation retraction of onto .
The Lesson
| Property | Comb Space | |---|---| | Connected | โ | | Path-connected | โ | | Contractible | โ (global homotopy exists) | | Locally contractible at | โ | | Locally path-connected at | โ |
This shows: contractible spaces need not be locally contractible. The global homotopy "cheats" by routing everything through the base, but no local neighborhood of the spine-tip can do the same. This is why CW complexes or ANRs (absolute neighborhood retracts) are better-behaved: they are always locally contractible.
Written to: questions/Q103_comb_contractible_not_locally.md
Answer written to: questions/A103_comb_contractible_not_locally.md