So, last time we were talking about Brown representability. We were, in particular, trying to show that a contravariant functor on the homotopy category of pointed CW complexes satisfying two natural axioms (a coproduct axiom and a Mayer-Vietoris axiom) was actually representable. The approach thus far was to construct pairs which were “partially universal,” that is universal for a finite set of spheres, by a messy attaching procedure.
There is much work left to do. The first is to show that we can get a pair which is universal for all the spheres. This will use a filtered colimit argument. However, we don’t know that sends filtered colimits into filtered limits, just that for coproducts. In fact, generally
will not do this, but it will do something close. So we will have to appeal to a mapping telescope argument which will, incidentally, use the Mayer-Vietoris property.
Next, we will have to show that a pair which is universal for the spheres is universal for all spaces. This will use a bit of diagram-chasing and the fact that, to some extent, CW complexes are determined by the ways you can map spheres into them. This is the Whitehead theorem.
Let’s get to work.
2. The mapping telescope argument
Given a space and
, we have shown how to extend the pair
to an
-universal pair for any
. We’d now like to do the same for an
-universal element. This is going to require some kind of filtered colimit condition. A priori, we never assumed anything about filtered colimits in the axioms. But from the wedge axiom, we actually get that.
The following is the form that condition takes:
Lemma 6 Let
be inclusions of subcomplexes in
, with
the limit. Then the canonical map
is a surjection of pointed sets.
In general it is not a bijection, even for singular cohomology (the kernel has to do with the derived functors of the inverse limit).
Proof: Suppose is a family of elements with
such that
. We have to piece these together into one element of
.
We shall use a trick of considering a “mapping telescope.” I believe this trick is due to Milnor; it will make the direct limit homotopy equivalent to something which looks more like a coproduct. Namely, we start with the reduced mapping cylinder with the usual attaching (and with
quotiented to a point, where
is the basepoint). We then attach this to the mapping cylinder of
, and so on.
Let us be precise about this. Namely, we consider the infinite disjoint union
where the elements and
are identified, as well as anything involving the basepoint
.
There are two subcomplexes that we will need. Namely,
is the subcomplex consisting of the
for
even, and
for
odd. Then
is homotopy equivalent to
and
is homotopy equivalent to
. Further
. Moreover,
.
There is an element which restricts to each of the even
, and an element
which restricts to each of the odd
. The intersections glue on
by hypothesis on the
. We get an element
which restricts to each of the
on
.
I claim now that is actually homotopy equivalent to
, in a way compatible with the
and
. Then the element
will correspond to the element of
that we want. In particular, we now will show that the mapping telescope is the direct limit, up to homotopy equivalence. This is going to imply the lemma.
Namely, we have a natural projection that extends the projections
. We need to construct a map in the reverse direction.
To do this, first consider the inclusion of on the first part of the mapping cylinder. Inductively, given
, let us suppose that we have a map
which is homotopic to the inclusion
. We will extend this to
. Namely, we have the inclusion
on
. The restriction
is homotopic to
. The homotopy extension property implies that we can homotope
to something which agrees with
on
. We call this homotoped map
.
Putting together all the , we get a map in the other direction,
. We saw by construction that
is homotopic to the identity, and same for
. We want to say the same for the direct limit of these maps. For this we prove:
Lemma 7 Suppose
is a direct system of spaces such that the maps
are cofibrations. Suppose
is a pair of compatible systems of maps, such that
. Then
is homotopic to
.
After we prove this lemma, we will be done with the initial lemma.
Proof: We shall construct by an infinite composition (which will be well-defined).
First, there is a homotopy from
. The homotopy extension property implies that we can extend this to a homotopy
from
to some
. Here
agrees with
on
but may otherwise be arbitrary.
Next, is homotopic to
. Since
agree on
, we can take the homotopy stationary on
by a basic property of cofibrations (which I will not prove here). We can extend this map to a homotopy of
. Let us call this map
. Then
homotopes
to some
while being stationary on
, where
agrees with
on
.
Similarly, we can homotope into some
while not touching
, where
agrees with
on
. And so on. We get an infinite sequence of homotopies
. If we splice all these together such that the homotopy
is carried out in the time
, we get a homotopy
from
. The fact that
has the weak topology and the
become stationary on any fixed
for
large implies that
is continuous, and it is a homotopy from
to
.
As a result, we find:
Proposition 8 Let
be a pair. Then there is a
-universal pair
such that
is a subcomplex and
.
Proof: Indeed, we know that we can find a tower of pairs of
-universal elements (where the tower means that
is a subcomplex of
and
). If we consider the direct limit
and an element
that pulls back to all the
(by the above lemma), we find that the map
is a bijection for all , because the homotopy groups commute with filtered colimits, by compactness of
and
.
3. -universal pairs
We are now going to show that an -universal pair
is in fact a universal object for the functor. Namely, we need to show that any element
can be obtained by pulling back
by a unique (up to homotopy)
. We are going to show existence and uniqueness in one fell swoop, with the following.
Lemma 9 Let
be an
-universal pair. Let
and
. Suppose
is a subcomplex of
and
restricts to
. Then there is a
extending
which pulls
back to
. That is, we can draw a diagram
Proof: Right now, we still have a diagram
in which we can form the push-out (which is a CW complex since is a relative CW complex):
Here is covered by the two subcomplexes
, whose intersection is
. Moreover, there are elements
that pull back to the same thing on
. The Mayer-Vietoris axiom implies that there is
pulling back to each of
.
Now, there is a bigger complex and a
-universal element
that restricts to
on
. Let us draw a diagram:
This means that pulls back to
. I claim that this is enough to make
a homotopy equivalence. Indeed, in the maps
the second arrow and the composite are isomorphisms, so the first one is too. Thus is an isomorphism on the homotopy groups, thus by the Whitehead theorem a homotopy equivalence. Composing a homotopy inverse of this with
, we find a way to make the diagram
homotopy commutative (where is the usual map). By the homotopy extension property, we can make it actually commutative by homotoping
. The claim is that
sends
back to
. This follows from the fact that
pulls back to
and
pulls
back to
. This completes the lemma.
Finally, we can prove the Brown representability theorem.
Proof: In fact, we are going to prove that if is an
-universal pair, then the map
sending
to
is a bijection. This will imply that
is a representing pair.
To do this, let us first see surjectivity. The above lemma with the one-point space
shows that, given
, there exists
such that
. We now want to show that
is unique up to homotopy. So suppose
pull
back to the same thing, and consider the “reduced product”
where
is the basepoint.
We have a map out of the “boundary”
into
.
applied to the boundary is
(it’s a coproduct) and
pulls back to something in
which extends to something in
(alternatively, is in the diagonal). The lemma again implies that
extends to the whole reduced product, which states that
are homotopic.
Leave a Reply