With the above notations, the following assertions are equivalent:
(i) The pair (X,A) has the homotopy extension property;
(ii) For every topological space Y and every continuous mapping g: Cyl(i)→Y, there exists a continuous mapping g′:X×I→Y such that g=g′∘j;
(iii) The injection j has a continuous retraction;
(iv) The mapping j is strict and there exists a contraction of X×I onto the image of j.
Suppose that the pair (X,A) has the homotopy extension property. Let g: Cyl(i)→Y be a continuous mapping; put σ=g∘αi and f=g∘βi. The mapping f:X→ Y is continuous and σ:A×I→Y is a homotopy whose end is the mapping f∣A. There therefore exists a homotopy g′:X×I→Y with end f extending σ. We have g′∘j(αi(a,s))=g′(a,s)=σ(a,s)=g(αi(a,s)) and g′∘j(βi(x))= g′(x,1)=f(x)=g(βi(x)) for a∈A,s∈I and x∈X. Consequently, g′∘j=g, whence (ii).
Conversely, suppose that assertion (ii) is satisfied, and let us prove that the pair (X,A) has the homotopy extension property. Let Y be a topological space, let f:X→Y be a continuous mapping and let σ:A×I→Y be a homotopy whose end is equal to f∣A. There exists a unique continuous mapping g: Cyl(i)→Y such that g∘αi=σ and g∘βi=f (III, p. 238, prop. 4). Any mapping g′:X×I→Y such that g=g′∘j is then a homotopy with end f extending σ.
The equivalence of assertions (ii) and (iii) is a particular case of lemma 1 of III, p. 235.
Suppose that the injection j: Cyl(i)→X×I admits a continuous retraction r. The mapping j therefore defines a homeomorphism of Cyl(i) onto the subspace T=(A×I)∪(X×{1}) of X×I(loc. cit.). It is therefore strict.
Put ρ= pr1∘j∘r and θ= pr2∘j∘r. If x∈A or if s=1, we have ρ(x,s)=x and θ(x,s)=s For (x,s)∈X×I and t∈I, put
σ((x,s),t)=(ρ(x,(1−t)+st),(1−t)s+tθ(x,s))
The mapping σ:(X×I)×I→X×I is continuous. For (x,s)∈X×I, we have
σ((x,s),0)=(ρ(x,1),s)=(x,s)
and
σ((x,s),1)=(ρ(x,s),θ(x,s))=j∘r(x,s)
for x∈X and t∈I, we have
σ((x,1),t)=(ρ(x,1),(1−t)+tθ(x,1))=(x,1)
whereas, for (x,s)∈A×I and t∈I, we have
σ((x,s),t)=(x,(1−t)s+ts)=(x,s)
Hence σ is a contraction of X×I onto T. This shows that assertion (iii) implies assertion (iv).
The implication (iv)⇒(iii) is obvious.
Bourbaki sets the proof directly after the statement, and the corpus does not separate them, so what is above is the statement and its proof together.
Nothing.
Nothing.