MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $K$ be an abstract simplicial complex on the (finite) vertex set $V$. The geometric realization $|K|$ is typically defined (see Spanier's book for instance) as the collection of functions $\alpha:V \to \mathbb{R}$ so that (a) the support of each $\alpha$ is a simplex, and (b) the sum $\sum_{v \in V}\alpha(v)$ equals $1$. Now each (closed) simplex $\sigma$ is realized as the collection of $\alpha \in K$ so that $\alpha(v) \neq 0$ implies $v \in \sigma$. From this one knows the star of each simplex.

A simplicial approximation of $f:|K| \to |L|$ is a simplicial map $g:K \to L$ so that $f(\text{star }\sigma) \subset \text{star }g(\sigma)$ for each simplex $\sigma \in K$. It is a standard result that the Piecewise Linear map induced by $g$ is homotopy equivalent to $f$

Now consider the case where $K$ is not abstract, but rather $V$ is an open cover of some topological space $X$. So, each simplex corresponds to an actual topological space, i.e., a non-empty intersection of some finite open sets in $X$. Let's call this $X_\sigma$.

My question is this:

What is the relation between $|K|$ and $X$, more specifically between $|\sigma|$ and $X_\sigma$ for each simplex $\sigma \in K$?

Here is some idea of what type of answer I am hoping for:

In the case where $X$ is paracompact and $V$ is a contractible cover, the nerve theorem applies and I know that $X$ and $|K|$ are homotopy equivalent. But is there a more general relationship between these two notions of realization of which the Nerve theorem is a consequence?

Furthermore, is there some functoriality to the nerve theorem? That is, assume you are given contractible covers $U$ and $V$ of $X$ and $Y$ generating the nerves $K$ and $L$. Given a function $f : X \to Y$ and a simplicial map $g:K \to L$, is there some magic analogoue of the star condition like $f(X_\sigma) \subset Y_{g(\sigma)}$ that makes $g$ induce a map homotopy equivalent to the composite $|K| \to X \to Y \to |L|$ where the maps on the edge come from the nerve theorem and the map in the middle is $f$?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 2 down vote accepted


What is the relation between $|K|$ and $X$, more specifically between $|\sigma|$ and $X_\sigma$ for each simplex $\sigma \in K$?

It seems to me that one can build an intermediate space $Y$ and a diagram $$ |K| \leftarrow Y \rightarrow X $$ which is natural in both the cover and in $X$ (where if we have a map $X\to X'$ the covering for $X$ should be the inverse image of the covering elements for $X'$). The space $Y$ is given by the realization of the nerve of the topological poset $\cal P$ whose elements are pairs $(U,x)$ in which $U$ is a finite collection of intersection of open sets in the covering $V$, and $x$ is a point of $U$.

There are then forgetful maps $Y \to |K|$ as well as $Y \to X$.

To see this, note that $X$ can be regarded as a topological category (or poset) whose objects are points of $X$ and only identity morphisms. Then ${\cal P} \to X$ is just the forgetful functor and it induces the map $Y \to X$ on realization (the realization of $X$ when considered as a topological poset is $X$ as a space). There is also a forgetful functor from ${\cal P}$ to the nerve of the covering which induces the map $Y \to |K|$.

If every non-empty finite intersection of members of $V$ is contractible, then the maps $Y \to |K|$, $Y \to X$ are weak equivalences.

share|cite|improve this answer
In your pairs $(U,x)$ do you require $x \in U$? – Pinying Nov 22 '12 at 11:40
yes. I've edited to take that into account. – John Klein Nov 22 '12 at 12:36
The map $Y\to X$ looks like it's going to be a weak equivalence in general, so that (in an up-to-homotopy way) you have an indirect map $X\to |K|$ in any case. – Tom Goodwillie Nov 22 '12 at 14:20
@Tom: That's a cofinality type argument, right? – John Klein Nov 23 '12 at 4:50
Thank you. If you have any ideas about the functoriality question, please also write them down. In any case, I will accept this nice answer! – Pinying Nov 26 '12 at 2:12

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.