14 \begin{rem}

    14 \begin{rem}

    15 We can't quite do the same with all $\cV_k$ just equal to $\cU$, but we can get by if we give ourselves arbitrarily little room to maneuver, by making the blobs we act on slightly smaller.

    15 We can't quite do the same with all $\cV_k$ just equal to $\cU$, but we can get by if we give ourselves arbitrarily little room to maneuver, by making the blobs we act on slightly smaller.

    16 \end{rem}

    16 \end{rem}

    17 \begin{proof}

    17 \begin{proof}

    18 This follows from Remark \ref{rem:for-small-blobs} following the proof of 

    18 This follows from Remark \ref{rem:for-small-blobs} following the proof of 

    20 \end{proof}

    20 \end{proof}

    21 

    21 

    22 \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:small-blobs}]

    22 \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:small-blobs}]

    23 We begin by describing the homotopy inverse in small degrees, to illustrate the general technique.

    23 We begin by describing the homotopy inverse in small degrees, to illustrate the general technique.

    24 We will construct a chain map $s:  \bc_*(M) \to \bc^{\cU}_*(M)$ and a homotopy $h:\bc_*(M) \to \bc_{*+1}(M)$ so that $\bdy h+h \bdy=i\circ s - \id$. The composition $s \circ i$ will just be the identity.

    24 We will construct a chain map $s:  \bc_*(M) \to \bc^{\cU}_*(M)$ and a homotopy $h:\bc_*(M) \to \bc_{*+1}(M)$ so that $\bdy h+h \bdy=i\circ s - \id$. The composition $s \circ i$ will just be the identity.

    25 

    25 

    26 On $0$-blobs, $s$ is just the identity; a blob diagram without any blobs is compatible with any open cover. 

    26 On $0$-blobs, $s$ is just the identity; a blob diagram without any blobs is compatible with any open cover. 

    31 Nevertheless, we'll begin introducing nomenclature at this point: for configuration $\beta$ of disjoint embedded balls in $M$ we'll associate a one parameter family of homeomorphisms $\phi_\beta : \Delta^1 \to \Homeo(M)$ (here $\Delta^m$ is the standard simplex $\setc{\mathbf{x} \in \Real^{m+1}}{\sum_{i=0}^m x_i = 1}$). For $0$-blobs, where $\beta = \eset$, all these homeomorphisms are just the identity.

    31 Nevertheless, we'll begin introducing nomenclature at this point: for configuration $\beta$ of disjoint embedded balls in $M$ we'll associate a one parameter family of homeomorphisms $\phi_\beta : \Delta^1 \to \Homeo(M)$ (here $\Delta^m$ is the standard simplex $\setc{\mathbf{x} \in \Real^{m+1}}{\sum_{i=0}^m x_i = 1}$). For $0$-blobs, where $\beta = \eset$, all these homeomorphisms are just the identity.

    32 

    32 

    33 When $\beta$ is a collection of disjoint embedded balls in $M$, we say that a homeomorphism of $M$ ``makes $\beta$ small" if the image of each ball in $\beta$ under the homeomorphism is contained in some open set of $\cU$. Further, we'll say a homeomorphism ``makes $\beta$ $\epsilon$-small" if the image of each ball is contained in some open ball of radius $\epsilon$.

    33 When $\beta$ is a collection of disjoint embedded balls in $M$, we say that a homeomorphism of $M$ ``makes $\beta$ small" if the image of each ball in $\beta$ under the homeomorphism is contained in some open set of $\cU$. Further, we'll say a homeomorphism ``makes $\beta$ $\epsilon$-small" if the image of each ball is contained in some open ball of radius $\epsilon$.

    34 

    34 

    35 On a $1$-blob $b$, with ball $\beta$, $s$ is defined as the sum of two terms. Essentially, the first term ``makes $\beta$ small", while the other term ``gets the boundary right". First, pick a one-parameter family $\phi_\beta : \Delta^1 \to \Homeo(M)$ of homeomorphisms, so $\phi_\beta(1,0)$ is the identity and $\phi_\beta(0,1)$ makes the ball $\beta$ small --- in fact, not just small with respect to $\cU$, but $\epsilon/2$-small, where $\epsilon > 0$ is such that every $\epsilon$-ball is contained in some open set of $\cU$. Next, pick a two-parameter family $\phi_{\eset \prec \beta} : \Delta^2 \to \Homeo(M)$ so that $\phi_{\eset \prec \beta}(0,x_1,x_2)$ makes the ball $\beta$ $\frac{3\epsilon}{4}$-small for all $x_1+x_2=1$, while $\phi_{\eset \prec \beta}(x_0,0,x_2) = \phi_\beta(x_0,x_2)$ and $\phi_{\eset \prec \beta}(x_0,x_1,0) = \phi_\eset(x_0,x_1)$. (It's perhaps not obvious that this is even possible --- see Lemma \ref{lem:extend-small-homeomorphisms} below.) We now define $s$ by

    35 On a $1$-blob $b$, with ball $\beta$, $s$ is defined as the sum of two terms. Essentially, the first term ``makes $\beta$ small", while the other term ``gets the boundary right". First, pick a one-parameter family $\phi_\beta : \Delta^1 \to \Homeo(M)$ of homeomorphisms, so $\phi_\beta(1,0)$ is the identity and $\phi_\beta(0,1)$ makes the ball $\beta$ small --- in fact, not just small with respect to $\cU$, but $\epsilon/2$-small, where $\epsilon > 0$ is such that every $\epsilon$-ball is contained in some open set of $\cU$. Next, pick a two-parameter family $\phi_{\eset \prec \beta} : \Delta^2 \to \Homeo(M)$ so that $\phi_{\eset \prec \beta}(0,x_1,x_2)$ makes the ball $\beta$ $\frac{3\epsilon}{4}$-small for all $x_1+x_2=1$, while $\phi_{\eset \prec \beta}(x_0,0,x_2) = \phi_\beta(x_0,x_2)$ and $\phi_{\eset \prec \beta}(x_0,x_1,0) = \phi_\eset(x_0,x_1)$. (It's perhaps not obvious that this is even possible --- see Lemma \ref{lem:extend-small-homeomorphisms} below.) We now define $s$ by

   117 As in the $k=1$ case, the first term, corresponding to $i(b) = \eset$, makes the all balls in $\beta$ $\cV_1$-small. However, if this were the only term $s$ would not be a chain map, because we have no control over $\restrict{\phi_{\beta}}{x_0 = 0}(\bdy b)$. This necessitates the other terms, which fix the boundary at successively higher codimensions.

   117 As in the $k=1$ case, the first term, corresponding to $i(b) = \eset$, makes the all balls in $\beta$ $\cV_1$-small. However, if this were the only term $s$ would not be a chain map, because we have no control over $\restrict{\phi_{\beta}}{x_0 = 0}(\bdy b)$. This necessitates the other terms, which fix the boundary at successively higher codimensions.

   118 

   118 

   119 It may be useful to look at Figure \ref{fig:erectly-a-tent-badly} to help understand the arrangement. The red, blue and orange $2$-cells there correspond to the $m=0$, $m=1$ and $m=2$ terms respectively, while the $3$-cells (only one of each type is shown) correspond to the terms in the homotopy $h$.

   119 It may be useful to look at Figure \ref{fig:erectly-a-tent-badly} to help understand the arrangement. The red, blue and orange $2$-cells there correspond to the $m=0$, $m=1$ and $m=2$ terms respectively, while the $3$-cells (only one of each type is shown) correspond to the terms in the homotopy $h$.

   120 \begin{figure}[!ht]

   120 \begin{figure}[!ht]

   121 $$\mathfig{0.5}{smallblobs/tent}$$

   121 $$\mathfig{0.5}{smallblobs/tent}$$

   123 \label{fig:erectly-a-tent-badly}

   123 \label{fig:erectly-a-tent-badly}

   124 \end{figure}

   124 \end{figure}

   125 

   125 

   126 Now

   126 Now

   127 \begin{align*}

   127 \begin{align*}