So, today I am going to talk about the Brown representability theorem. This is a central fact in algebraic topology, proved in the 1950s by Edgar Brown in a paper in the Annals. It states that under mild conditions a contravariant functor on the homotopy category of pointed CW complexes is representable. As we saw yesterday, this guarantees the existence of Eilenberg-Maclane spaces. More importantly, it guarantees—at least for CW complexes—things like universal bundles. I will have more to say about these applications in the future. First, let us try to understand the result itself.
So let be a contravariant functor to the category of pointed sets. We require that
satisfy two axioms below. First, like any representable functor, it should send coproducts to products. Since the coproduct in
is the wedge sum, we require that (for
ranging over some index set)
under the canonical map that arises by taking the product (over
) of the maps
.
Second, we require that satisfy the following Mayer-Vietoris axiom. If
for subcomplexes
, then if
and
“glue together,” i.e. become the same element of
, they both come from a fixed element of
. This is a sheaf-theoretic condition.
The first observation is that any representable functor must satisfy the coproduct axiom and the Mayer-Vietoris (i.e. sheafish) axiom. The coproduct axiom is automatic for any category.
The sheaf axiom is less trivial. Let as before. Suppose that
is represented by a pointed complex
. Given “gluable” elements
and
, by assumption the restrictions
are equivalent (i.e. homotopic). This does not immediately mean we can glue the maps. However, by the homotopy extension property for CW pairs, we can homotope
to some
such that
become equal (not merely homotopic) on
. Together these define a map
that becomes equivalent to
.
These axioms are not too difficult to check in many interesting cases. For instance, they are true for singular cohomology. This is why the following is highly important:
Theorem 1 (Brown) If
is a contravariant functor satisfying the coproduct and Mayer-Vietoris axioms, then
is representable.
This is the result that I would like to begin to prove today.
-universal elements
The idea behind the proof of Brown representability is that one is working with CW complexes. CW complexes are built up in a piece-by-piece manner from the comparatively simple objects of -cells. And in a sense, the way to construct the representing object is to construct it for the spheres.
To prove Brown representability, we will need to find a space and an element
such that if
is any space, then the elements of
are in bijection with the
for
ranging over the homotopy classes of maps
.
As I stated above, the strategy will be to do this for the spheres. Namely, we shall find a space such that the above claim is true for the spheres of any dimension. We shall then show that the space will work as a representing object in general.
Definition 2 Let
be a pair with
and
. The pair is said to be
-universal if the map
sending
to
is bijective for
and epimorphic for
. A pair is
-universal if it is
-universal for all
.
The point is that we will find a universal pair, and show that this is indeed a representing object (a “universal object” in the categorical sense).
The process of finding universal elements is contained in the following lemma. It is an approach that comes up over and over: to add enough spheres to make the map surjective, and then to attach various cells to reduce the number of homotopy classes of maps.
Now, to make notation clearer, let us note that is a presheaf on the category
, that is a contravariant functor to
. Motivated by standard notation, let us fix the following convention: if
is a subcomplex of a CW complex, and
, we write
for the pull-back of
to
.
Lemma 3 Let
be a
-universal pair. Then there is a space
obtained by attaching cells and an
-universal element
such that
.
Proof: The first thing to note that is that is a group in a natural way. This actually formally follows from general nonsense. In fact,
sends coproducts in
to products, so
sends cogroup objects to group objects in
(i.e. groups). This group structure is deduced from the cogroup law in
. This is the same way that
has a group structure.
In particular, we find that the map
is a group homomorphism. To say that it is injective is thus to say that it has trivial kernel.
We already know that this injectivity is true for . We want to attach various
-cells to make this true for
.
Namely, we let be a collection of maps
that forms a system of representatives for the kernel of
. We can assume that the
are cellular. We attach
-cells to
by these maps
to get a new space
. Doing so makes all the maps
nullhomotopic in
.
The claim is that extends to the bigger space
. The way to see this is that
is the (reduced) mapping cone of
. Now we will use a general fact:
Lemma 4 Suppose
satisfies the Mayer-Vietoris axiom Let
be a cellular map in
. Suppose
pulls back to the trivial (basepoint) of
. Then
extends to the mapping cone
.
This lemma follows by the cover of by
and
.
We see that in our case, there is such that
pulls back to
. The claim is that
is
-universal, and moreover
is injective (thus an isomorphism). Indeed, if pulls
back to the trivial element, we can first assume by homotoping
that
lands inside
, thanks to the cellular approximation theorem. In that case, it follows that
pulls
to the trivial element, so it is one of the
(at least up to homotopy). But these
are trivial in
.
On the other hand, we still have to get an -universal element. We haven’t done that yet.
Namely, we have to get surjectivity on the -level. For this, we just augment the space by wedging along a whole bunch of spheres.
Let be a listing of elements in
. We can form
Let us choose an element extending
such that
(this is what extension means) and
restricted to the
th factor of
is
. This is possible by the coproduct condition.
This last condition means that the inclusion of on the
th factor pulls
back to
. In particular,
is surjective. Since we have adjoined only cells of dimension , the cellular approximation lemma implies that any map
comes from a map
. So
pulls back to the trivial element if only if the associated map
does. As before, we conclude that this implies that
is homotopically trivial in
.
The point is that, using this, we will be able to construct -universal elements by a filtered colimit argument, and we will be able to show that these are actually representing pairs by the Whitehead theorem. This, however, needs to be finished next time.
December 15, 2010 at 11:29 pm
[…] in fact we have proved a pretty general result about representable functors on the pointed homotopy category of CW complexes. Indeed, Brown representability can be used to […]