Is taking adjunction space compatible with topological product?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I am reading John W. Milnor, Morse Theory, though it might be a bit difficult, and I was showing in Lemma 3.6 that $kcirc l$ is homotopic to identity map. (Until here is for those who have the specified book.) There, I found I have to construct a homotopy $(D^lambdacup_varphiX)times [0, 1]to D^lambdacup_varphiX$.



In order to define this continuous map, it seems to me that if homeomorphism like $(Xcup_varphiY)times Zapprox (Xtimes Z)cup_varphitimes id_Z(Ytimes Z)
$ holds, then it is easier to define the map because I can make a better use of the universal mapping property. And, this is apparently true according to my intuition. Therefore, I would like to ask if that holds. Any comments appreciated.







share|cite|improve this question



















  • I'm not sure what your notation means, but in general quotient maps are not respected by products. If $Ato B$ is a quotient map, the induced map $Atimes Cto Btimes C$ need not be, but if $C$ is locally compact Hausdorff it will be.
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Jul 26 at 10:11










  • Thank you very much!
    – neander
    Jul 26 at 10:16














up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I am reading John W. Milnor, Morse Theory, though it might be a bit difficult, and I was showing in Lemma 3.6 that $kcirc l$ is homotopic to identity map. (Until here is for those who have the specified book.) There, I found I have to construct a homotopy $(D^lambdacup_varphiX)times [0, 1]to D^lambdacup_varphiX$.



In order to define this continuous map, it seems to me that if homeomorphism like $(Xcup_varphiY)times Zapprox (Xtimes Z)cup_varphitimes id_Z(Ytimes Z)
$ holds, then it is easier to define the map because I can make a better use of the universal mapping property. And, this is apparently true according to my intuition. Therefore, I would like to ask if that holds. Any comments appreciated.







share|cite|improve this question



















  • I'm not sure what your notation means, but in general quotient maps are not respected by products. If $Ato B$ is a quotient map, the induced map $Atimes Cto Btimes C$ need not be, but if $C$ is locally compact Hausdorff it will be.
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Jul 26 at 10:11










  • Thank you very much!
    – neander
    Jul 26 at 10:16












up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











I am reading John W. Milnor, Morse Theory, though it might be a bit difficult, and I was showing in Lemma 3.6 that $kcirc l$ is homotopic to identity map. (Until here is for those who have the specified book.) There, I found I have to construct a homotopy $(D^lambdacup_varphiX)times [0, 1]to D^lambdacup_varphiX$.



In order to define this continuous map, it seems to me that if homeomorphism like $(Xcup_varphiY)times Zapprox (Xtimes Z)cup_varphitimes id_Z(Ytimes Z)
$ holds, then it is easier to define the map because I can make a better use of the universal mapping property. And, this is apparently true according to my intuition. Therefore, I would like to ask if that holds. Any comments appreciated.







share|cite|improve this question











I am reading John W. Milnor, Morse Theory, though it might be a bit difficult, and I was showing in Lemma 3.6 that $kcirc l$ is homotopic to identity map. (Until here is for those who have the specified book.) There, I found I have to construct a homotopy $(D^lambdacup_varphiX)times [0, 1]to D^lambdacup_varphiX$.



In order to define this continuous map, it seems to me that if homeomorphism like $(Xcup_varphiY)times Zapprox (Xtimes Z)cup_varphitimes id_Z(Ytimes Z)
$ holds, then it is easier to define the map because I can make a better use of the universal mapping property. And, this is apparently true according to my intuition. Therefore, I would like to ask if that holds. Any comments appreciated.









share|cite|improve this question










share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question









asked Jul 26 at 10:01









neander

63




63











  • I'm not sure what your notation means, but in general quotient maps are not respected by products. If $Ato B$ is a quotient map, the induced map $Atimes Cto Btimes C$ need not be, but if $C$ is locally compact Hausdorff it will be.
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Jul 26 at 10:11










  • Thank you very much!
    – neander
    Jul 26 at 10:16
















  • I'm not sure what your notation means, but in general quotient maps are not respected by products. If $Ato B$ is a quotient map, the induced map $Atimes Cto Btimes C$ need not be, but if $C$ is locally compact Hausdorff it will be.
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Jul 26 at 10:11










  • Thank you very much!
    – neander
    Jul 26 at 10:16















I'm not sure what your notation means, but in general quotient maps are not respected by products. If $Ato B$ is a quotient map, the induced map $Atimes Cto Btimes C$ need not be, but if $C$ is locally compact Hausdorff it will be.
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jul 26 at 10:11




I'm not sure what your notation means, but in general quotient maps are not respected by products. If $Ato B$ is a quotient map, the induced map $Atimes Cto Btimes C$ need not be, but if $C$ is locally compact Hausdorff it will be.
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jul 26 at 10:11












Thank you very much!
– neander
Jul 26 at 10:16




Thank you very much!
– neander
Jul 26 at 10:16















active

oldest

votes











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',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
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%2f2863276%2fis-taking-adjunction-space-compatible-with-topological-product%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest



































active

oldest

votes













active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes










 

draft saved


draft discarded


























 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2863276%2fis-taking-adjunction-space-compatible-with-topological-product%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest













































































Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the equation of a 3D cone with generalised tilt?

Color the edges and diagonals of a regular polygon

Relationship between determinant of matrix and determinant of adjoint?