In a topological space if there exists a loop that cannot be contracted to a point does there exist a simple loop that cannot be contracted also?Are there pairs of highly connected finite CW-complexes with the same homotopy groups?Characterizing the rationalization of spaces.Proving that a space cannot be delooped.Does the holonomy map define a homomorphism $pi_k(X)topi_k-1(Hol(nabla))$?Which homology classes from loop space?When does the free loop space fibration split?Can we algorithmically contract loops in a simply connected space?Is ``factoring through a dendrite loop'' preserved under deletion?Does there exist a Haken manifold where all its incompressible surfaces are non-separating?Approximation of homotopy avoiding a point in $mathbbR^3$
In a topological space if there exists a loop that cannot be contracted to a point does there exist a simple loop that cannot be contracted also?
Are there pairs of highly connected finite CW-complexes with the same homotopy groups?Characterizing the rationalization of spaces.Proving that a space cannot be delooped.Does the holonomy map define a homomorphism $pi_k(X)topi_k-1(Hol(nabla))$?Which homology classes from loop space?When does the free loop space fibration split?Can we algorithmically contract loops in a simply connected space?Is ``factoring through a dendrite loop'' preserved under deletion?Does there exist a Haken manifold where all its incompressible surfaces are non-separating?Approximation of homotopy avoiding a point in $mathbbR^3$
$begingroup$
I'm interested in whether one only needs to consider simple loops when proving results about simply connected spaces.
If it is true that:
In a Topological Space, if there exists a loop that cannot be contracted to a point then there exists a simple loop that cannot also be contracted to a point.
then we can replace a loop by a simple loop in the definition of simply connected.
If this theorem is not true for all spaces, then perhaps it is true for Hausdorff spaces or metric spaces or a subset of $mathbbR^n$?
I have thought about the simplest non-trivial case which I believe would be a subset of $mathbbR^2$.
In this case I have a quite elementary way to approach this which is to see that you can contract a loop by shrinking its simple loops.
Take any loop, a continuous map, $f$, from $[0,1]$. Go round the loop from 0 until you find a self intersection at $x in (0,1]$ say, with the previous loop arc, $f([0,x])$ at a point $f(y)$ where $0<y<x$. Then $L=f([y,x])$ is a simple loop. Contract $L$ to a point and then apply the same process to $(x,1]$, iterating until we reach $f(1)$. At each stage we contract a simple loop. Eventually after a countably infinite number of contractions we have contracted the entire loop. We can construct a single homotopy out of these homotopies by making them maps on $[1/2^i,1/2^i+1]$ consecutively which allows one to fit them all into the unit interval.
So if you can't contract a given non-simple loop to a point but can contract any simple loop we have a contradiction which I think proves my claim.
I'm not sure whether this same argument applied to more general spaces or whether it is in fact correct at all. I realise that non-simple loops can be phenomenally complex with highly non-smooth, fractal structure but I can't see an obvious reason why you can't do what I propose above.
at.algebraic-topology gn.general-topology homotopy-theory
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm interested in whether one only needs to consider simple loops when proving results about simply connected spaces.
If it is true that:
In a Topological Space, if there exists a loop that cannot be contracted to a point then there exists a simple loop that cannot also be contracted to a point.
then we can replace a loop by a simple loop in the definition of simply connected.
If this theorem is not true for all spaces, then perhaps it is true for Hausdorff spaces or metric spaces or a subset of $mathbbR^n$?
I have thought about the simplest non-trivial case which I believe would be a subset of $mathbbR^2$.
In this case I have a quite elementary way to approach this which is to see that you can contract a loop by shrinking its simple loops.
Take any loop, a continuous map, $f$, from $[0,1]$. Go round the loop from 0 until you find a self intersection at $x in (0,1]$ say, with the previous loop arc, $f([0,x])$ at a point $f(y)$ where $0<y<x$. Then $L=f([y,x])$ is a simple loop. Contract $L$ to a point and then apply the same process to $(x,1]$, iterating until we reach $f(1)$. At each stage we contract a simple loop. Eventually after a countably infinite number of contractions we have contracted the entire loop. We can construct a single homotopy out of these homotopies by making them maps on $[1/2^i,1/2^i+1]$ consecutively which allows one to fit them all into the unit interval.
So if you can't contract a given non-simple loop to a point but can contract any simple loop we have a contradiction which I think proves my claim.
I'm not sure whether this same argument applied to more general spaces or whether it is in fact correct at all. I realise that non-simple loops can be phenomenally complex with highly non-smooth, fractal structure but I can't see an obvious reason why you can't do what I propose above.
at.algebraic-topology gn.general-topology homotopy-theory
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm interested in whether one only needs to consider simple loops when proving results about simply connected spaces.
If it is true that:
In a Topological Space, if there exists a loop that cannot be contracted to a point then there exists a simple loop that cannot also be contracted to a point.
then we can replace a loop by a simple loop in the definition of simply connected.
If this theorem is not true for all spaces, then perhaps it is true for Hausdorff spaces or metric spaces or a subset of $mathbbR^n$?
I have thought about the simplest non-trivial case which I believe would be a subset of $mathbbR^2$.
In this case I have a quite elementary way to approach this which is to see that you can contract a loop by shrinking its simple loops.
Take any loop, a continuous map, $f$, from $[0,1]$. Go round the loop from 0 until you find a self intersection at $x in (0,1]$ say, with the previous loop arc, $f([0,x])$ at a point $f(y)$ where $0<y<x$. Then $L=f([y,x])$ is a simple loop. Contract $L$ to a point and then apply the same process to $(x,1]$, iterating until we reach $f(1)$. At each stage we contract a simple loop. Eventually after a countably infinite number of contractions we have contracted the entire loop. We can construct a single homotopy out of these homotopies by making them maps on $[1/2^i,1/2^i+1]$ consecutively which allows one to fit them all into the unit interval.
So if you can't contract a given non-simple loop to a point but can contract any simple loop we have a contradiction which I think proves my claim.
I'm not sure whether this same argument applied to more general spaces or whether it is in fact correct at all. I realise that non-simple loops can be phenomenally complex with highly non-smooth, fractal structure but I can't see an obvious reason why you can't do what I propose above.
at.algebraic-topology gn.general-topology homotopy-theory
$endgroup$
I'm interested in whether one only needs to consider simple loops when proving results about simply connected spaces.
If it is true that:
In a Topological Space, if there exists a loop that cannot be contracted to a point then there exists a simple loop that cannot also be contracted to a point.
then we can replace a loop by a simple loop in the definition of simply connected.
If this theorem is not true for all spaces, then perhaps it is true for Hausdorff spaces or metric spaces or a subset of $mathbbR^n$?
I have thought about the simplest non-trivial case which I believe would be a subset of $mathbbR^2$.
In this case I have a quite elementary way to approach this which is to see that you can contract a loop by shrinking its simple loops.
Take any loop, a continuous map, $f$, from $[0,1]$. Go round the loop from 0 until you find a self intersection at $x in (0,1]$ say, with the previous loop arc, $f([0,x])$ at a point $f(y)$ where $0<y<x$. Then $L=f([y,x])$ is a simple loop. Contract $L$ to a point and then apply the same process to $(x,1]$, iterating until we reach $f(1)$. At each stage we contract a simple loop. Eventually after a countably infinite number of contractions we have contracted the entire loop. We can construct a single homotopy out of these homotopies by making them maps on $[1/2^i,1/2^i+1]$ consecutively which allows one to fit them all into the unit interval.
So if you can't contract a given non-simple loop to a point but can contract any simple loop we have a contradiction which I think proves my claim.
I'm not sure whether this same argument applied to more general spaces or whether it is in fact correct at all. I realise that non-simple loops can be phenomenally complex with highly non-smooth, fractal structure but I can't see an obvious reason why you can't do what I propose above.
at.algebraic-topology gn.general-topology homotopy-theory
at.algebraic-topology gn.general-topology homotopy-theory
edited 7 hours ago
user64494
2,1219 silver badges18 bronze badges
2,1219 silver badges18 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
Ivan MeirIvan Meir
1413 silver badges5 bronze badges
1413 silver badges5 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Here is an example of topological space $X$, embeddable as compact subspace of $mathbfR^3$, that is not simply connected, but in which every simple loop is homotopic to a constant loop.
Namely, start from the Hawaiian earring $H$, with its singular point $w$. Let $C$ be the cone over $H$, namely $C=Htimes [0,1]/Htimes0$. Let $w$ be the image of $(w,1)$ in $C$. Finally, $X$ is the bouquet of two copies of $(C,w)$; this is a path-connected, locally path-connected, compact space, embeddable into $mathbfR^3$.
It is classical that $X$ is not simply connected: this is an example of failure of a too naive version of van Kampen's theorem.
However every simple loop in $X$ is homotopic to a constant loop. Indeed, since the joining point $win X$ separates $Xsmallsetminusw$ into two components, such a loop cannot pass through $w$ and hence is included in one of these two components, hence one of the two copies of the cone $C$, in which it can clearly be homotoped to the sharp point of the cone.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Thanks Anton Petrunin for the picture!
$endgroup$
– YCor
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank you for this excellent example. I have a question which is that I can see why any simple loop must be on one cone and can then be contracted, but why can't non-simple loops that presumably must pass through w have their loops dropped down and passed over their respective cone points and then moved back up to w (I'm assuming w is the point where all the circles meet) and hence contract to a point.
$endgroup$
– Ivan Meir
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Roughly, let $a_n$ be the $n$-th loop based at $w$ in the first copy of $H$ and $b_n$ the one in the second copy. Then the "infinite product" $prod_n a_nb_n$ is not homotopic to a constant loop.
$endgroup$
– YCor
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
By n-th loop do you mean a loop around the n-th circle so $a_nb_n$ is a figure of eight passing through w and the product is a bunch of these attached at w. (Apologies if these are basic questions)
$endgroup$
– Ivan Meir
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Every finite simplicial complex is weakly homotopy equivalent to a finite space. Therefore there are finite spaces with nontrivial loops; and these are obviously not embedded.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
;
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f337942%2fin-a-topological-space-if-there-exists-a-loop-that-cannot-be-contracted-to-a-poi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Here is an example of topological space $X$, embeddable as compact subspace of $mathbfR^3$, that is not simply connected, but in which every simple loop is homotopic to a constant loop.
Namely, start from the Hawaiian earring $H$, with its singular point $w$. Let $C$ be the cone over $H$, namely $C=Htimes [0,1]/Htimes0$. Let $w$ be the image of $(w,1)$ in $C$. Finally, $X$ is the bouquet of two copies of $(C,w)$; this is a path-connected, locally path-connected, compact space, embeddable into $mathbfR^3$.
It is classical that $X$ is not simply connected: this is an example of failure of a too naive version of van Kampen's theorem.
However every simple loop in $X$ is homotopic to a constant loop. Indeed, since the joining point $win X$ separates $Xsmallsetminusw$ into two components, such a loop cannot pass through $w$ and hence is included in one of these two components, hence one of the two copies of the cone $C$, in which it can clearly be homotoped to the sharp point of the cone.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Thanks Anton Petrunin for the picture!
$endgroup$
– YCor
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank you for this excellent example. I have a question which is that I can see why any simple loop must be on one cone and can then be contracted, but why can't non-simple loops that presumably must pass through w have their loops dropped down and passed over their respective cone points and then moved back up to w (I'm assuming w is the point where all the circles meet) and hence contract to a point.
$endgroup$
– Ivan Meir
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Roughly, let $a_n$ be the $n$-th loop based at $w$ in the first copy of $H$ and $b_n$ the one in the second copy. Then the "infinite product" $prod_n a_nb_n$ is not homotopic to a constant loop.
$endgroup$
– YCor
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
By n-th loop do you mean a loop around the n-th circle so $a_nb_n$ is a figure of eight passing through w and the product is a bunch of these attached at w. (Apologies if these are basic questions)
$endgroup$
– Ivan Meir
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is an example of topological space $X$, embeddable as compact subspace of $mathbfR^3$, that is not simply connected, but in which every simple loop is homotopic to a constant loop.
Namely, start from the Hawaiian earring $H$, with its singular point $w$. Let $C$ be the cone over $H$, namely $C=Htimes [0,1]/Htimes0$. Let $w$ be the image of $(w,1)$ in $C$. Finally, $X$ is the bouquet of two copies of $(C,w)$; this is a path-connected, locally path-connected, compact space, embeddable into $mathbfR^3$.
It is classical that $X$ is not simply connected: this is an example of failure of a too naive version of van Kampen's theorem.
However every simple loop in $X$ is homotopic to a constant loop. Indeed, since the joining point $win X$ separates $Xsmallsetminusw$ into two components, such a loop cannot pass through $w$ and hence is included in one of these two components, hence one of the two copies of the cone $C$, in which it can clearly be homotoped to the sharp point of the cone.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Thanks Anton Petrunin for the picture!
$endgroup$
– YCor
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank you for this excellent example. I have a question which is that I can see why any simple loop must be on one cone and can then be contracted, but why can't non-simple loops that presumably must pass through w have their loops dropped down and passed over their respective cone points and then moved back up to w (I'm assuming w is the point where all the circles meet) and hence contract to a point.
$endgroup$
– Ivan Meir
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Roughly, let $a_n$ be the $n$-th loop based at $w$ in the first copy of $H$ and $b_n$ the one in the second copy. Then the "infinite product" $prod_n a_nb_n$ is not homotopic to a constant loop.
$endgroup$
– YCor
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
By n-th loop do you mean a loop around the n-th circle so $a_nb_n$ is a figure of eight passing through w and the product is a bunch of these attached at w. (Apologies if these are basic questions)
$endgroup$
– Ivan Meir
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is an example of topological space $X$, embeddable as compact subspace of $mathbfR^3$, that is not simply connected, but in which every simple loop is homotopic to a constant loop.
Namely, start from the Hawaiian earring $H$, with its singular point $w$. Let $C$ be the cone over $H$, namely $C=Htimes [0,1]/Htimes0$. Let $w$ be the image of $(w,1)$ in $C$. Finally, $X$ is the bouquet of two copies of $(C,w)$; this is a path-connected, locally path-connected, compact space, embeddable into $mathbfR^3$.
It is classical that $X$ is not simply connected: this is an example of failure of a too naive version of van Kampen's theorem.
However every simple loop in $X$ is homotopic to a constant loop. Indeed, since the joining point $win X$ separates $Xsmallsetminusw$ into two components, such a loop cannot pass through $w$ and hence is included in one of these two components, hence one of the two copies of the cone $C$, in which it can clearly be homotoped to the sharp point of the cone.
$endgroup$
Here is an example of topological space $X$, embeddable as compact subspace of $mathbfR^3$, that is not simply connected, but in which every simple loop is homotopic to a constant loop.
Namely, start from the Hawaiian earring $H$, with its singular point $w$. Let $C$ be the cone over $H$, namely $C=Htimes [0,1]/Htimes0$. Let $w$ be the image of $(w,1)$ in $C$. Finally, $X$ is the bouquet of two copies of $(C,w)$; this is a path-connected, locally path-connected, compact space, embeddable into $mathbfR^3$.
It is classical that $X$ is not simply connected: this is an example of failure of a too naive version of van Kampen's theorem.
However every simple loop in $X$ is homotopic to a constant loop. Indeed, since the joining point $win X$ separates $Xsmallsetminusw$ into two components, such a loop cannot pass through $w$ and hence is included in one of these two components, hence one of the two copies of the cone $C$, in which it can clearly be homotoped to the sharp point of the cone.
edited 6 hours ago
Anton Petrunin
27.4k5 gold badges84 silver badges203 bronze badges
27.4k5 gold badges84 silver badges203 bronze badges
answered 6 hours ago
YCorYCor
30.6k4 gold badges91 silver badges147 bronze badges
30.6k4 gold badges91 silver badges147 bronze badges
2
$begingroup$
Thanks Anton Petrunin for the picture!
$endgroup$
– YCor
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank you for this excellent example. I have a question which is that I can see why any simple loop must be on one cone and can then be contracted, but why can't non-simple loops that presumably must pass through w have their loops dropped down and passed over their respective cone points and then moved back up to w (I'm assuming w is the point where all the circles meet) and hence contract to a point.
$endgroup$
– Ivan Meir
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Roughly, let $a_n$ be the $n$-th loop based at $w$ in the first copy of $H$ and $b_n$ the one in the second copy. Then the "infinite product" $prod_n a_nb_n$ is not homotopic to a constant loop.
$endgroup$
– YCor
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
By n-th loop do you mean a loop around the n-th circle so $a_nb_n$ is a figure of eight passing through w and the product is a bunch of these attached at w. (Apologies if these are basic questions)
$endgroup$
– Ivan Meir
4 hours ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Thanks Anton Petrunin for the picture!
$endgroup$
– YCor
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank you for this excellent example. I have a question which is that I can see why any simple loop must be on one cone and can then be contracted, but why can't non-simple loops that presumably must pass through w have their loops dropped down and passed over their respective cone points and then moved back up to w (I'm assuming w is the point where all the circles meet) and hence contract to a point.
$endgroup$
– Ivan Meir
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Roughly, let $a_n$ be the $n$-th loop based at $w$ in the first copy of $H$ and $b_n$ the one in the second copy. Then the "infinite product" $prod_n a_nb_n$ is not homotopic to a constant loop.
$endgroup$
– YCor
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
By n-th loop do you mean a loop around the n-th circle so $a_nb_n$ is a figure of eight passing through w and the product is a bunch of these attached at w. (Apologies if these are basic questions)
$endgroup$
– Ivan Meir
4 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Thanks Anton Petrunin for the picture!
$endgroup$
– YCor
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thanks Anton Petrunin for the picture!
$endgroup$
– YCor
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank you for this excellent example. I have a question which is that I can see why any simple loop must be on one cone and can then be contracted, but why can't non-simple loops that presumably must pass through w have their loops dropped down and passed over their respective cone points and then moved back up to w (I'm assuming w is the point where all the circles meet) and hence contract to a point.
$endgroup$
– Ivan Meir
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank you for this excellent example. I have a question which is that I can see why any simple loop must be on one cone and can then be contracted, but why can't non-simple loops that presumably must pass through w have their loops dropped down and passed over their respective cone points and then moved back up to w (I'm assuming w is the point where all the circles meet) and hence contract to a point.
$endgroup$
– Ivan Meir
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Roughly, let $a_n$ be the $n$-th loop based at $w$ in the first copy of $H$ and $b_n$ the one in the second copy. Then the "infinite product" $prod_n a_nb_n$ is not homotopic to a constant loop.
$endgroup$
– YCor
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Roughly, let $a_n$ be the $n$-th loop based at $w$ in the first copy of $H$ and $b_n$ the one in the second copy. Then the "infinite product" $prod_n a_nb_n$ is not homotopic to a constant loop.
$endgroup$
– YCor
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
By n-th loop do you mean a loop around the n-th circle so $a_nb_n$ is a figure of eight passing through w and the product is a bunch of these attached at w. (Apologies if these are basic questions)
$endgroup$
– Ivan Meir
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
By n-th loop do you mean a loop around the n-th circle so $a_nb_n$ is a figure of eight passing through w and the product is a bunch of these attached at w. (Apologies if these are basic questions)
$endgroup$
– Ivan Meir
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Every finite simplicial complex is weakly homotopy equivalent to a finite space. Therefore there are finite spaces with nontrivial loops; and these are obviously not embedded.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Every finite simplicial complex is weakly homotopy equivalent to a finite space. Therefore there are finite spaces with nontrivial loops; and these are obviously not embedded.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Every finite simplicial complex is weakly homotopy equivalent to a finite space. Therefore there are finite spaces with nontrivial loops; and these are obviously not embedded.
$endgroup$
Every finite simplicial complex is weakly homotopy equivalent to a finite space. Therefore there are finite spaces with nontrivial loops; and these are obviously not embedded.
answered 1 hour ago
Jeff StromJeff Strom
7,5972 gold badges30 silver badges60 bronze badges
7,5972 gold badges30 silver badges60 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f337942%2fin-a-topological-space-if-there-exists-a-loop-that-cannot-be-contracted-to-a-poi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown