
TL;DR
This paper develops a homotopy theory for finite graphs by constructing a 2-category with homotopies as 2-cells, introducing spider moves to explicitly describe homotopies, and establishing a homotopy category with finite stiff graphs as a skeleton.
Contribution
It introduces a novel homotopy framework for graphs using 2-categories and spider moves, providing explicit descriptions and a skeleton for the homotopy category.
Findings
Finite graphs form a homotopy category with universal properties.
Spider moves explicitly characterize homotopies between finite graphs.
Finite stiff graphs serve as a skeleton of the homotopy category.
Abstract
We show that the category of graphs has the structure of a 2-category with homotopy as the 2-cells. We then develop an explicit description of homotopies for finite graphs, in terms of what we call `spider moves'. We then create a category by modding out by the 2-cells of our 2-category, and use the spider moves to show that for finite graphs, this category is a homotopy category in the sense that it satisfies the universal property for localizing homotopy equivalences. We then show that finite stiff graphs form a skeleton of this homotopy category.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
A Homotopy Category for Graphs
Tien Chih and Laura Scull
Abstract.
We show that the category of graphs has the structure of a 2-category with homotopy as the 2-cells. We then develop an explicit description of homotopies for finite graphs, in terms of what we call ‘spider moves’. We then create a category by modding out by the 2-cells of our 2-category, and use the spider moves to show that for finite graphs, this category is a homotopy category in the sense that it satisfies the universal property for localizing homotopy equivalences. We then show that finite stiff graphs form a skeleton of this homotopy category.
1. Introduction
Homotopy traditionally studies continuous transformations of spaces and maps between them. Translating such a fundamentally continuous concept into a discrete setting such as graphs can be approached in several ways. The first strategy used was to create a ’Hom complex’, a polyhedral complex which represents information about the morphisms between two graphs. This complex can then be turned into a topological space, and the homotopy of this space encodes information about homotopy of graphs [HomTG, MoreFolding, Kosolov1, Kosolov2, Kosolov3, KosolovShort, ProofLovasz]. More recently, Dochtermann has shown that it is possible to define a homotopy for graphs, called - homotopy, using only categorical constructions inside of graphs, and get the same homotopy theory as that provided by simplicial techniques [Docht1]. Others have since developed results strictly within the graph category [Docht2, Demitri, Droz, NoModel]. We follow this second approach and study -homotopy, working strictly with graphs and discrete constructions.
In topological spaces, the existence of the homotopies and their structure gives rise to a 2-categorical structure on spaces, in which the homotopies form 2-cells. In this paper, we show that the category of graphs also has the structure of a 2-category with homotopies of morphisms as the 2-cells, and verify the necessary conditions. We then develop an explicit description of homotopy for finite graphs, based around our notion of ’spider moves’. Our spider moves can be seen as a generalization of the idea of folds, which have been linked to homotopy of graphs by [BonatoCaR, GMDG, HN2004]. We then define a quotient category of our 2-category, and use our spider moves to show that this forms a homotopy category for finite graphs in the sense that it satisfies the universal property for localization of homotopy equivalences. Such a localization is often created via a Quillen model category, which offers extra structure for working with the homotopy category that is created. The existence of model structures for the category of graphs has been studied by [Droz, BoxHomotopy], and a number of different model structures have been defined which localize with respect to various notions of graph homotopy. They do not produce a model structure for the -homotopy that we are studying, and in fact it is shown in [NoModel] that no such model stucture exists that has some subclass of inclusions as cofibrations, ruling out the most natural attempt to generalize existing model structures in other areas of mathematics. Here, we simply provide a direct construction of the localized homotopy category without a model structure. To give some handle on the structure of the localized category, we show that the subcategory formed by stiff graphs forms a skeleton of our homotopy category, and hence the stiff graphs give canonical representatives for finite graphs up to homotopy.
We begin in Section 2 by reviewing the basic definitions and properties of the graph category, including products, exponential objects and walks and their concatenations following [Demitri, AGT, HN2004, Docht1]. In Section 3, we establish that the category of graphs forms a 2-category. In Section 4 we give a concrete description of the structure of a homotopy of graph morphisms, showing that a homotopy with finite domain can be broken down into a sequence of simple ’spider moves’ which move only one vertex at a time. In Section 5 we use our spider moves from Section 4 to show that the quotient of the 2-category constructed is a categorical homotopy category for finite graphs in the sense that it satisfies the universal property for localization of homotopy equivalences. In Section 6, we show that the finite stiff graphs form a skeleton for the new homotopy category and briefly discuss what can be said about the structure of this skeleton in the absence of any model categorical infrastructure.
2. Background
In this section, we give background definitions and notations. We include some basic results which seem like they should be standard, but we were unable to find specific references in the literature, so we include them here for completeness. We will use standard graph theory definitions and terminology following [Bondy, AGT, HN2004], and category theory definitions and terminology from [riehlCTIC, Mac].
2.1. The Graph Category
We work in the category of finite undirected graphs, where we allow at most one edge connecting any pair of vertices. We do allow a (single) loop connecting a vertex to itself.
Definition 2.1**.**
[HN2004] The category of graphs is defined by:
- •
An object is a graph , consisting of a set of vertices and a set of edges connecting them, where each edge is given by an unordered set of two vertices. If two vertices are connected by an edge, we will use notation , or just if the parent graph is clear.
- •
An arrow in the category is a graph morphism . Specifically, this is given by a set map such that if then .
We will work in this category throughout this paper, and assume that ’graph’ always refers to an object in . When we have an invertible graph morphism we will say that and are isomoprhic and write .
Definition 2.2**.**
[Demitri] Given a homomorphism , we define the image to be the subgraph of where and . Thus we specifically consider to contain only edges which are images of edges in .
Definition 2.3**.**
[HN2004, Demitri] The (categorical) product graph is defined by:
- •
A vertex is a pair where and .
- •
An edge is defined by for and .
Example 2.4**.**
Let be the graph on two adjacent looped vertices: and . Let with and . Then is isomorphic to the cyclic graph :
[TABLE]
Lemma 2.5**.**
[HN2004]* If is looped, i.e. , then there is an inclusion given by which is a graph morphism.*
Proof.
If is looped then in if and only if in . Thus the subgraph is isomorphic to .
∎
Definition 2.6**.**
[Docht1] The exponential graph is defined by:
- •
A vertex in is a set map [not necessarily a graph morphism].
- •
There is an edge if whenever , then .
Example 2.7**.**
Let and be the following graphs:
[TABLE]
Then the exponential graph is illustrated below, where the row indicates the image of [math] and the column the image of . So for example the vertex in the spot represents the vertex map .
[TABLE]
Observation 2.8**.**
If is looped in , this means exactly that if , then . Thus a set map is a graph morphism if and only if .
Lemma 2.9**.**
If is a graph morphism and then . So induces a graph morphism .
Proof.
Suppose that . So for any , we know that . Since is a graph morphism, . So .
∎
Lemma 2.10**.**
If is a graph morphism and then . So induces a graph morphism .
Proof.
Suppose that ; then we know that . Since in , . So.
∎
Proposition 2.11**.**
[Docht1]* The category is cartesian closed. In particular, we have a bijection*
[TABLE]
2.2. Walks and Concatenation
Definition 2.12**.**
Let be the path graph with vertices such that . Let be the looped path graph with vertices such that and .
[TABLE]
Definition 2.13**.**
A walk in of length is a morphism . A looped walk in of length is a morphism . If and we say is a walk [resp. looped walk] from to .
A walk can be described by a list of vertices giving the images of the vertices , such that . Thus this definition agrees with the usual graph definition of walk. In the looped case, since , we will have and so a looped walk is simply a walk where all the vertices along the walk are looped.
Definition 2.14**.**
Given a walk from to , and a walk from to , we define the concatenation of walks by
[TABLE]
Since we are assuming that , defines a length walk from to . In vertex list form, the concatenation Contatenation of looped walks is defined in the same way.
Example 2.15**.**
Consider the graph below, and let be a length 1 looped walk and a length 2 looped walk .
[TABLE]
Then is a length 3 looped walk .
[TABLE]
Observation 2.16**.**
For any vertex , there is a constant length [math] walk from to defined by . Then for any other walk from to , and . If is looped, we can similarly define a constant looped walk at .
It is also straightforward to compare definitions and see both of the following:
Lemma 2.17**.**
Contatenation of [ordinary or looped] walks is associative: when the endpoints match up to make concatenation defined, we have
Lemma 2.18**.**
Contatenation of [ordinary or looped] walks is distributive: when and are graph homomorphisms, then and .
3. Graphs as a 2-Category
In this section, we show that has the structure of a 2-category as defined in [riehlCTIC] with -homotopies between morphisms as 2-cells.
We define homotopy between graph morphisms via the graph . Because we use a looped interval graph, we have a graph inclusion for each vertex of .
Definition 3.1**.**
[Docht1] Given , we say that is -homotopic to , written , if there is a map such that and . We will say is a length homotopy.
This is defined as -homotopy in [Docht1] to distinguish it from other graph homotopy notions considered in that paper, such as -homotopy, and the usual notion of homotopy of spaces or simplicial complexes. Since this is the only version of homotopy that we will consider in this paper, we will also refer to it simply as ’homotopy’.
Observation 3.2**.**
[Docht1] By Propostion 2.11, a morphism is equivalent to a morphism . Since all the vertices of are looped, they can only be mapped to looped vertices in which correspond to graph morphisms by Lemma 2.11. So the restriction of to always gives a graph morphism, and a length -homotopy corresponds to a sequence of graph morphisms such that . Thus we can think of a -homotopy from to as a looped walk in the exponential object . We will switch between these two views of homotopy as convenient.
Observation 3.3**.**
[Docht1] defines an equivalence relation on morphisms .
Example 3.4**.**
Suppose we have the graph G=P_{2}$$a$$b$$c
Consider the maps where and . We abbreviate these morphisms by listing the images of vertices and in order, so and .
[TABLE]
We can define a homotopy from to , where and . Since are both looped in , the subgraphs and are both isomorphic to . It is easy to verify that is a graph homomorphism and thus is a length 1 homotopy.
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.5**.**
Suppose that . If , then ; and if , then .
Proof.
Since , there is a length homotopy from to in . Then defines a length homotopy from to by Lemma 2.9. Similarly, defines a length homotopy from to by Lemma 2.10.
∎
Definition 3.6** (Concatenation of Homotopies).**
Given and , we define using the concatenation of looped walks in of Definition 2.14.
Example 3.7**.**
Let and with vertices labeled as below.
[TABLE]
Let be defined by . Again, we will abbreviate this morphism by listing the images of in order, so . Let be defined by , and let be defined by . One can check that .
[TABLE]
Since we have a length homotopy defined by . Similarly, and so we have a homotopy defined by . Then is defined by the looped walk in , depicted in Figure 1 below.
Proposition 3.8**.**
The concatenation operation on homotopies is unital and associative.
Proof.
The constant homotopy defines a unit by Observation 2.16, and associativity is given by Lemma 2.17.
∎
We now define another composition of homotopies.
Definition 3.9** (Composition of Homotopies).**
Suppose that and . Given and , we define from to as follows: let denote the homotopy from to , and denote the homotopy from to , as defined in Lemma 3.5. Then
[TABLE]
Example 3.10**.**
As in Example 3.7, let and let be defined by , and by , with the length 1 homotopy .
[TABLE]
Let be defined by and let be defined by , with the length 1 homotopy .
[TABLE]
Then is a length homotopy defined by the looped walk . Concretely, both and are given by the map and is defined by . Thus is a length homotopy defined by the walk .
[TABLE]
We could equally well have chosen to define the composition as . This is not the same homotopy; however, we will show that the two resulting homotopies are themselves homotopic. To make this notion precise, we observe that a -homotopy from to is defined as a looped walk in given by . Then for [looped or unlooped] walks, we define the notion of homotopy rel endpoints. The idea of fixing a subspace and allowing only homotopies which are constant on this subspace is a common one from homotopy theory, and when the fixed subspace is , this is referred to as homotopy rel [Hatcher]. In our case, we will take the subspace to be the end vertices of the path graph .
Let be any graph. Recall that a looped vertex of the exponential object represents a length walk in , and similarly a looped vertex of represents a looped walk in . Such an is given by . Define by and . Note that these are NOT graph homomorphisms, just maps of vertex sets. Thus is a walk from to if and .
Definition 3.11**.**
Suppose that are walks in from to . We say and are homotopic rel endpoints if they are homotopic in the subgraph
[TABLE]
Thus two walks and are homotopic rel endpoints if there is a looped walk of walks in given by where each walk starts at and ends at .
For looped walks, we make the same definitions in .
Now we apply this notion to -homotopies, viewed as looped walks in .
Definition 3.12**.**
Two -homotopies from to are themselves homotopic if they are homotopic rel endpoints viewed as looped walks in .
Proposition 3.13**.**
Suppose that and . Given and , the two homotopies defined by and are homotopic.
Proof.
First, suppose that both and are length homotopies, so that there are edges and . We consider the two length homotopies , and . We want to show that these are homotopic. In fact, we claim that they are connected by an edge in . Since has edges connecting and , this requires that and for . So there are four conditions to check. Decoding them, they are: and . Each of these holds by Lemma 3.5. Lastly, we consider the loops : for we have , and since these are looped vertices, . For , we have and . If , then and hence , verifying the last condition. Observe that this length homotopy fixes the endpoints, and thus we have a homotopy of homotopies (that is, the homotopies are homotopic rel endpoints).
[TABLE]
Now if and are homotopies of length and , each of them is defined by a looped walk and . Since each successive pair is connected, the outer edges of each square are connected by an edge, ie a length 1 homotopy, and we can repeatedly swap squares and get a length homotopy rel endpoints between and .
[TABLE]
∎
Proposition 3.14**.**
The composition operation on homotopies is unital and associative.
Proof.
Unital: If is the constant homotopy at , then is just constant at , and by Observation 2.16. Similarly if is the constant homotopy at , then and .
Associative: Suppose we have homotopies and . Then the distributive property of Lemma 2.18 and the associative property of Lemma 2.17 give:
[TABLE]
∎
Recall that our aim is to show that forms a 2-category as defined in [riehlCTIC]. We want our 2-cells to be defined by -homotopies of morphisms, but this does not satisfy the required properties. However, since a homotopy is defined by a looped walk given by a map , we have a notion of when two such maps are themselves homotopic, as in Definiton 3.12. In order to get a 2-category, we will define our 2-cells to be homotopy classes of -homotopies.
We begin by showing that concatenation and composition operations are well defined up to homotopy. We will use the following more general result about homotopies of walks:
Lemma 3.15**.**
If and are looped walks of length in from to , and are homotopic rel endpoints, then if is a walk from to , then rel endpoints; and if is a walk from to , then rel endpoints.
Proof.
We have and representing vertices in , and a length homotopy from to . So is defined by a looped walk in . Now suppose that is a walk from to . Define a sequence in , where each of these is a walk from to . We claim that each successive pair of these is connected by an edge in . The requirement for this edge to exist is that given any edge in , we have . By definition of concatenation, if these are defined by and , which are connected in since ; if , these are defined by and , which are connected since is a walk in . Thus rel endpoints. The other case follows by an analogous argument. ∎
Corollary 3.16**.**
If are homotopic as homotopies (ie homotopic rel endpoints) and as homotopies, then .
Lemma 3.17**.**
If and then .
Proof.
Start with . Now by Lemma 3.5, we have a homotopy , and hence by Lemma 3.15 a homotopy . Then Lemma 3.15 also says that , and so . Thus we have as homotopies.
∎
Theorem 3.18**.**
We can define a 2-category as follows:
- •
Objects [0-cells] are given by objects of , the finite undirected graphs.
- •
Arrows [1-cells] are given by the arrows of , the graph morphisms
- •
Given , a 2-cell from to is a homotopy rel endpoints class of -homotopies such that .
- •
Vertical composition is defined using concatenation
- •
Horizontal composition is defined using composition
Proof.
We have shown that vertical and horizontal composition are well-defined in Corollary 3.16 and Lemma 3.17, and that these operations are associative and unital in Propositions 3.8 and 3.14. Therefore what remains is to check the interchange law.
Our set-up is as follows: we have maps and , with two cells and :
We want to show that . Unravelling the definitions here shows that , while using the distributivity of Lemma 2.18. Since concatenation is associative, we are comparing with . Therefore it suffices to show that . But this is exactly Proposition 3.13.
∎
4. Structure of Homotopies for Finite Graphs
In this section, we develop a more explicit description of -homotopies between graph morphisms when is a finite graph. We show that such graph homotopies can always be defined ’locally’, shifting one vertex at a time. We imagine a spider walking through the graph by moving one leg at a time.
Definition 4.1**.**
Let be graph morphisms. We say that and are a spider pair if there is a single vertex of , say , such that for all . If is unlooped there are no additional conditions, but if , then we require that . When we replace with we refer to it as a spider move.
Lemma 4.2**.**
If and are a spider pair, then .
Proof.
For any we need to verify that that . If then and so this follows from the fact that is a graph morphism. If for , then since and is a graph morphism; similarly, . Lastly, if , then we have asked that . Therefore have an edge in the exponential graph .
∎
Example 4.3**.**
Let and be the graphs from Example 2.7:
[TABLE]
Let be defined by , and . So are a spider pair, and we see that the morphisms are adjacent in the exponential object .
[TABLE]
We now prove that all homotopies with finite domain can be decomposed as a sequences of spider moves, moving one vertex at a time.
Proposition 4.4** (Spider Lemma).**
If and is a finite graph, and , then there is a finite sequence of morphisms such that each successive pair is a spider pair.
Proof.
Since is a finite graph, we can label its vertices . Then for , we define:
[TABLE]
First we check that each is a graph morphism. Suppose ; we need to show that . If then for both vertices, and so since is a morphism, . Similarly if then on both vertices. Lastly, if and , we know that in , so by the structure of edges in the exponential object, . Thus .
It is clear that each pair agrees on every vertex except . So to show this is a spider pair, we only need to check that if is looped, then . But since , we know that if then .
∎
Corollary 4.5**.**
Whenever with finite and , there is a finite sequence of spider moves connecting and .
Thus we can see explicitly what -homotopies of graph morphisms betweem finite graphs can do.
Example 4.6**.**
Let as in Example 3.7. The morphisms and are adjacent in . They are not a spider pair since and . However, if we define ; then there is a spider move to , and another from to , giving a sequence of spider moves from to , shown in Figure 4.1.
A special case of the spider moves can be used to analyze homotopy equivalences. In the literature, homotopy has been linked to the idea of a fold or a dismantling [HN2004, GMDG, Docht1, MoreFolding]. This can be seen as a special case of our more general spider moves.
Definition 4.7**.**
If is a graph, we say that a morphism is a fold if and the identity map are a spider pair.
Proposition 4.8**.**
If is a fold, then is a homotopy equivalence, where is as defined in Definition 2.2.
Proof.
Since and form a spider pair, the map is the identity on every vertex except one, call it . If then is the identity and we are done.
If , then . Consider to be the inclusion map. Then the composition is the identity on . Now consider . Since is just the inclusion of the image, . By Lemma 4.2, .
∎
We identify when we have a potential fold by a condition on neighborhood of vertices. In [GMDG] [Docht1] folds are defined using this condition. We denote the neighbourhood of a vertex by .
Proposition 4.9**.**
Suppose that is a set map of vertices such that is the identity on all vertices except one. Explicitly there exists a vertex , and for all . Let . Then is a fold if and only if .
Proof.
First, suppose that is a fold, and hence a graph morphism. Let ; then , and so . If , then and , so and hence . If then so by the looped condition for spider pair, we assume that . So and . Hence the neighbourhood condition is satisfied.
Conversely, suppose that is a set map of vertices satisfying the neighbourhood condition. To show that is a morphism, we check that it preserves all connections. If and , then , and so . If and , then , so and hence . Lastly, if is looped, then , so . But then , and consequently must be looped as well. Thus .
To see that is a fold, we know that if , we have that if and only if . So we just need to check that the extra condition on looped vertices holds. If then and so . ∎
Example 4.10**.**
Let and let be defined by .
[TABLE]
The vertex that does not fix is , and . Hence the neighborhood condition of Proposition 4.9 holds here, and this is a fold map.
The fact that a fold, as defined using the neighbourhood condition, gives a homotopy equivalence is proved in [Kosolov3] by looking at the polyhedral Hom complex. Propositions 4.8 and 4.9 offer an alternate approach which is internal to graphs.
5. Defining a Homotopy Category for Finite Graphs
For this section, we restrict to finite graphs and consider the full sub-category of consisting of graphs with a finite set of vertices. We will be applying Proposition 4.4 to decompose homotopies as a sequence of spider moves, and so will require a finite set of vertices in our domains.
Since our 2-cells are defined by homotopies, known to be an equivalence relation on morphisms [Docht1], we can make the following definition.
Definition 5.1**.**
We define the homotopy category by modding out the 2-cells in the 2-category . The objects of are the same as the objects of , finite graphs, and the arrows of are given by equivalence classes of graph morphisms, where and are equivalent if they have a 2-cell between them, that is, if they are -homotopic. This also defines a natural projection functor which takes any graph to , and any morphism to its homotopy class .
Since all the 2-cells of have become isomorphisms in , the result is an ordinary 1-category. We will show that this is a homotopy category for in the sense that it satisfies the universal property for localizing homomotopy equivalences as described in the following result.
Theorem 5.2**.**
Given any functor such that takes homotopy equivalences to isomorphisms, then there is a unique functor such that .
[TABLE]
Proof.
It is clear that needs to have for any and for any Since , we have that is well defined on . It remains to show that is well defined on : that is, given , we always have . By Proposition 4.4, it suffices to show that whenever are a spider pair.
Let be a spider pair. Then there is a vertex such that for all . Define a new graph as follows:
[TABLE]
Thus the new vertex is attached to the same vertices as , and is looped if and only if is looped.
Let be the inclusion defined by for . Let be the inclusion defined by for each and . Since in , this is a graph morphism.
Define by
[TABLE]
We claim that is a graph morphism: suppose . If , then agrees with , so since is a graph morphism, Now suppose that and . Then and . Then since is a graph morphism, so . Lastly, if then , which will be looped since was looped and is a graph morphism.
It is clear from the definition that and . Define by
[TABLE]
This is a fold by Proposition 4.9 since . Moreover, .
So notice that . Similarly . Since is a homotopy equivalence, is an isomorphism and thus .
Finally, we conclude that
[TABLE]
Thus, given , we have that and is well defined.
∎
6. A Skeleton for the Homotopy Category
Because we have created a homotopy category without a model structure, we look for another way to describe the structure of . In this section, we will show that finite stiff graphs represent all finite graphs up to homotopy. More precisely, we show that the finite stiff graphs form a skeleton of the homotopy category in the following sense.
Definition 6.1**.**
[riehlCTIC] A full subcategory of a category is a skeleton of provided
- •
the inclusion is essentially surjective, meaning that every object is isomorphic to an object
- •
no two distinct objects of are isomorphic.
In the literature, graphs that cannot folded are referred to as stiff graphs [GMDG] [BonatoCaR].
Definition 6.2**.**
We say that a graph is stiff if there are no two distinct vertices such that .
Example 6.3**.**
One large family of stiff graphs are cores [Core, HN2004]. Since folds are graph morphisms, a core cannot admit any folds and thus must be stiff. Therefore complete graphs, odd cycles, and all graphs where the only endomorphisms are automorphisms are minimal retracts.
Example 6.4**.**
Another family of pleats is given by cycles of size 6 or greater. It is clear that will admit a fold, but for any greater cycle, distinct vertices can share at most 1 neighbor. The odd cycles are covered under Example 6.3; large even cycles are also stiff.
Let refer to the full subcategory of finite stiff graphs in . Thus the objects of are the finite stiff graphs, and the morphisms are homotopy classes of graph morphisms.
Theorem 6.5**.**
* is a skeleton of in the sense of Definition 6.1.*
We will consider the two conditions of Definition 6.1 separately.
Proposition 6.6**.**
The inclusion is essentially surjective.
Proof.
We proceed via induction on . Note that if , is necessarily stiff. Suppose and is not stiff, then there are distinct vertices such that , and we can define a fold map which takes to and is the identity on all other vertices. By Propositions 4.8 and 4.9, this is a homotopy equivalence. By induction, is homotopy equivalent to a stiff graph, and thus is as well.
∎
To show the second condition, we note that any sequence of folds yields a unique graph up to isomorphism, proved in [HN2004, GMDG, BonatoCaR] in the context of cops and robbers on graphs. In [Docht1] Proposition 6.6, Dochterman applies this and the interpretation of homotopy in the polyhedral Hom complex to show that if and are stiff graphs then and are homotopy equivalent if and only if they are isomorphic, verifying the second condition for the skeleton. Here we offer an alternate proof which does not use the Hom space.
We start with the following.
Lemma 6.7**.**
If is stiff, then is not homotopy equivalent to any proper subgraph of itself.
Proof.
We first show that for a stiff graph , the identity is not homotopic to any other endomorphism. Suppose that . Let , and let . Then , i.e. so . So . By the neighbourhood condition, we conclude that and so .
Then, suppose that is homotopy equivalent to a subgraph of itself . So we have and such that is homotopic to . Then must actually be the identity on . Hence is isomorphic to . ∎
Lemma 6.8**.**
If such that then is homotopy equivalent to .
Proof.
Let denote the inclusion map . Then which is homotopic to . We need to show that is homotopic to where . Suppose that . Then by our definition of in Definition 2.2, this edge is the image of an edge , where . Since , we know that and therefore . So whenever , and so . ∎
Theorem 6.9** ([Docht1], Proposition 6.6).**
If are finite stiff graphs which are homotopy equivalent, then and are isomorphic.
Proof.
Suppose we have graph morphisms such that and . Thus by Proposition 4.4 we have a sequence of maps such that each successive pair is a spider pair. So by Lemma 6.8 is homotopy equivalent to . Since is stiff, it follows that . Similarly , and are isomorphisms.
∎
This completes the proof of Theorem 6.5.
Observation 6.10**.**
Any graph which is not stiff may be folded. Thus, we obtain a homotopy equivalent graph by continuous applying folds as in Lemma 6.6. A consequence of Theorem 6.9 is that one may apply these folds in any arbitrary fashion, and the resulting stiff graphs will be isomorphic. See Figure 6.2 below.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Dr. Demitri Plessas for his previous forays into categorical graph theory, and for his feedback. We also want to thank Dr. Jeffery Johnson for helping us with some of the terminology in this paper. Lastly, we want to thank the referees who pointed us in the direction of the relevant literature.
References
