That's just one step away from reasoning form a paradox and patting yourself on the back, how you have proved something (would the same argumentation be as enticing if it were based on misappropriation or misunderstanding like that of using "physics" for arguing for perpetuum mobile?).

My bigger gripe with your reasoning is that using topology 1 and stopping at that (i.e. there are no questions left) precludes (or makes intractable because of combinatorial explosion) reasoning by analogy (symmetry).