I'm reading "A Guide to the Classification Theorem for Compact Surfaces" by Jean Gallier adn at page 45 is this proposition:
I don't understand how $\beta_k$ and $\delta_k$ are defined. Can someone explain better or reformulate this part? Thanks!
I'm reading "A Guide to the Classification Theorem for Compact Surfaces" by Jean Gallier adn at page 45 is this proposition:
I don't understand how $\beta_k$ and $\delta_k$ are defined. Can someone explain better or reformulate this part? Thanks!
Copyright © 2021 JogjaFile Inc.

Consider any closed path $\beta : [0,1] \to S^1$ based at $1$. Since $[0,1]$ is compact, $\beta$ is uniformly continuous. Hence there exists $\epsilon > 0$ such that $\lvert \beta(s) - \beta(t) \rvert < 2$ if $\lvert s - t \rvert < \epsilon$. Let $n > 1/\epsilon$. Then for each subinterval $I_k = [\frac{k-1}{n},\frac{k}{n}]$, $k=1,\dots,n$, it is impossible that both $-1,1 \in \beta(I_k)$ because $\lvert -1 - 1 \rvert = 2$. Now define $\beta_k(t) = \beta(\frac{k-1+t}{n})$. This is essentially the map $\beta \mid_{I_k}$.
Given two points $z_1,z_2 \in S^1$, let $q = z_2/z_1 \in S^1$ and write $q = e^{it_q}$ with $t_q \in [0,2\pi)$. There are two circular arcs $\delta^\pm : [0,1] \to S^1$ from $z_1$ to $z_2$: $$\delta^+(t) = z_1e^{it_qt}, \delta^-(t) = z_1e^{i(t_q - 2\pi)t} .$$ $\delta^+$ goes counterclockwise and $\delta^-$ clockwise.
If $\zeta \in S^1$ such that $z_1, z_2 \in S^1 \setminus \{ \zeta \}$, then exactly one of the paths $\delta^\pm$ does not pass $\zeta$.
If $\beta_k$ does not pass through $1$, let $\delta_k$ denote the unique circular arc from $\beta_k(0)$ to $\beta_k(1)$ not passing through $1$. The map $h : (0,2\pi) \to S^1 \setminus \{ 1\}, h(\tau) = e^{i\tau}$, is a homeomorphism. Hence the map $$H^k : [0,1] \times[0,1] \to S^1, H^k(t,s) = h((1-s)h^{-1}(\beta_k(t))+sh^{-1}(\delta_k(t))$$ is a homotopy from $\beta_k$ to $\delta_k$ which keeps the endpoints fixed.
The case that $\beta_k$ does not pass through $-1$ is treated similarly.
I think the rest of the proof should be clear, but I do not believe that the proof is elegant.