Let X′ be a normal topological space, let X be a subspace of X′, let A be a closed subspace of X′ contained in X, and let U be a neighbourhood of A in X.
Let Y and Z be topological spaces; let f:X×{1}×Y→ X×{1}×Z be an X×{1}-morphism and let g:U×I×Y→U×I×Z be a U×I-morphism which coincides with f on U×{1}×Y.
There then exists an X×I-morphism h:X×I×Y→X×I×Z which coincides with f on X×{1}×Y and with g on A×I×Y.
Moreover, if f and g are homeomorphisms, one can choose a homeomorphism h having the required properties.
Let U′ be an open neighbourhood of A in X′ such that U′∩X⊂U. Since the space X′ is normal, there exists an open neighbourhood V′ of A in X′ such that A⊂V′⊂V′⊂U′ (TG, IX, p. 41). Replacing U by V′∩X if necessary, we may thus suppose that U is closed in X. Let us then take up again the notation of Prop. 1 and of its proof; let r:X×I→ Cyl(iU) be a continuous mapping such that jU∘r(x)=x for every point x∈jA(Cyl(iA)).
Put also f′= pr3∘f and g′= pr3∘g. Since f′ and g′ coincide on U×{1}×Y, there exists a unique mapping
φ: Cyl(iU)×Y→ Cyl(iU)×Z
such that φ(α(x,t),y)=(α(x,t),g′(x,t,y)) for (x,t,y)∈U×I×Y and φ(β(x),y)=(β(x),f′(x,1,y)) for (x,y)∈X×Y. Since U is closed in X, the canonical surjection π of (U×I)∪X onto Cyl(iU) is universally strict (III, p. 239, remark 2). Since the mapping φ∘(π× IdY) is continuous, the mapping φ is continuous. It is therefore a morphism of Cyl(iU)-spaces, and even an isomorphism if f and g are homeomorphisms.
Let then h:X×I×Y→X×I×Z be the mapping r∗(φ) deduced from φ by the base change r. It is given by h(x,t,y)= (x,t, pr2(φ(r(x,t),y))) for (x,t,y)∈X×I×Y. It is a morphism of X×I-spaces, and even an isomorphism if φ is one. For (x,t,y)∈ A×I×Y, one has r(x,t)=(x,t), whence
h(x,t,y)=(x,t, pr2(φ(x,t,y)))=(x,t,g′(x,t,y))=g(x,t,y),
which proves that h coincides with g on A×I×Y. Analogously, for x∈X and y∈Y, we have r(x,1)=(x,1), hence
h(x,1,y)=(x,1, pr2(φ(x,1,y)))=(x,1,f′(x,1,y))=f(x,1,y)
so that h coincides with f on X×{1}×Y. The corollary is thus proved.
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.