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 $\textbf{HoTop}^*$ be the homotopy category of pointed topological spaces. In the following, the word "isomorphism" shall always mean isomorphism in $\textbf{HoTop}^*$, i.e. pointed homotopy equivalence. All constructions like cone or suspensions are pointed/reduced.

A triangle $X\to Y\to Z\to \Sigma X$ is called distinguished if it is isomorphic in $\textbf{HoTop}^*$ to a triangle of the form $X\stackrel{f}{\to} Y\hookrightarrow\text{C}f\to\Sigma X$, where $\text{C}f\to\Sigma X$ is the map collapsing $Y$ to a point.


Let $\ \ \matrix{X & \to & Y & \to & Z & \to & \Sigma X\cr\downarrow\alpha &&\downarrow\beta&&\downarrow\gamma &&\downarrow&\Sigma\alpha\cr X^{\prime} & \to & Y^{\prime} & \to & Z^{\prime} & \to & \Sigma X^{\prime}}\ \ $ be a morphism of distinguished triangles such that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are isomorphisms. Is it true that $\gamma$ is an isomorphism, too?


For a morphism of triangles as above (where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are not necessarily isomorphisms), the morphism $\gamma^*: [Z^{\prime},-]\to [Z,-]$ is equivariant with respect to $[\Sigma\alpha]^*: [\Sigma X^{\prime},-]\to [\Sigma X,-]$. (edit: this is wrong -- see below) Therefore, I thought one could apply theorem 6.5.3 in Hoveys book on Model Categories. Unfortunately, there seems to be a gap at the end of the proof, as already pointed out here.

Therefore, I have the following


(1) Am I misunderstanding something in Hovey's proof of 6.5.3(b), or is there really a gap in it? If it is a gap: Do you have any suggestions on how to fix the proof?

(2) If the proof can't be fixed in this generality: Do you have suggestions on how to prove the statement above only for $\textbf{HoTop}^*$?


(1) The usual proof of this fact for triangulated categories does not work here, because there one uses the fact that $[X,-]$ is abelian-group valued for any $X$ and uses the classical five lemma together with Yoneda to conclude that $\gamma$ is an isomorphism. This doesn't seem to work here.

(2) Since partial morphisms of distinguished triangles in $\textbf{HoTop}^*$ can always be completed to morphisms of triangles, we can reduce to the case where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ both equal the identity. Therefore, we have a commutative diagram (in $\textbf{HoTop}^*$, i.e. a homotopy commutative diagram in $\textbf{Top}^*$)

$\matrix{X & \to & Y & \to & Z & \to & \Sigma X\cr\downarrow & \text{id}_X &\downarrow & \text{id}_Y&\downarrow&\gamma&\downarrow&\text{id}_{\Sigma X}\cr X & \to & Y & \to & Z& \to & \Sigma X}$

and we have to prove that $\gamma$ is a homotopy equivalence.

Hovey's proof

The way Hovey proceeds in his proof is as follows: We know the following things:

(1) $\gamma^*: [Z,-]\to [Z,-]$ is $[\Sigma X,-]$-equivariant

(2) Two maps $c,d\in[Z,W]$ are equal in $[Y,W]$ if and only if they lie in the same $[\Sigma X,W]$-orbit.

From (2) and the commutativity of the middle square it follows that for any $h\in [Z,W]$ there is some $\rho\in[\Sigma X,W]$ such that $\gamma^*(h)=h.\rho$; in other words $\gamma^*$ doesn't change the $[\Sigma X,-]$-orbit.

Now, suppose there are $g,h\in [Z,W]$ such that $\gamma^*(h)=\gamma^*(g)$. Then, again by the commutativity of the middle square, there is some $\alpha\in [\Sigma X,W]$ such that $g = h.\alpha$. Thus, by (1), $\gamma^*(g) = \gamma^*(h).\alpha = \gamma^*(g).\alpha$, and so $\alpha\in\text{Stab}(\gamma^*(g))$.

The point is that Hovey now wants to show that $\text{Stab}(\gamma^*(g))=\text{Stab}(g)$; this would imply $\alpha\in\text{Stab}(g)$, and thus $h = g.\alpha^{-1} = g$ as required. The inclusion $\text{Stab}(\gamma^*(g))\supset\text{Stab}(g)$ is obvious. For the other inclusion, I have no idea how to prove it.

Do you see how one can fix the proof?


I made a mistake in proving that for any morphism of triangles $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$ the morphism $\gamma^*$ is equivariant with respect to $(\Sigma\alpha)^*$. This is wrong.

So what remains is the question on how to fix the proof of theorem 6.5.3 in Hovey's book. Any suggestions?

Thank you.

share|cite|improve this question
You broke all of your LaTeX again. – Harry Gindi Jan 19 '10 at 10:55
Should be fixed now. – Hanno Becker Jan 19 '10 at 11:07
up vote 5 down vote accepted

This is false for spaces.

Let $X = S^0, Y = S^1$, and $f:X \to Y$ be the trivial map. Then $Z = Cf$ is $S^1 \vee S^1$. Then $[X,Y]$ is trivial, so then the the truth of this statement would imply: If you have a map $g: Z \to Z$ which is the identity on the first circle, and such that the induced map $S^1 \to S^1$ after collapsing the first circle is homotopic to the identity, then $g$ is a homotopy equivalence.

The map $g$ is a based map from a wedge of two circles to itself, which has fundamental group $F$, the free group on two generators, with generators $x, y$ corresponding to the two circle factors. A self-map is determined up to homotopy by a pair of elements in $x', y' \in F$. The condition that the first circle is mapped by the identity says $x = x'$, and the condition that the induced map on quotients is homotopic to the identity says that the image of $y'$ in $F/\langle x \rangle$ is the same as the image of $y$.

So: Suppose you have a pair of elements $x$ and $y'$ in $F = \langle x,y \rangle$ such that $y \equiv y'$ in $F/\langle x \rangle$. Then do $x$ and $y'$ freely generate $F$?

And the answer is no. For example, if $y' = (y x)^3 y^{-2}$, then $y' \equiv y$ after taking the quotient, but the pair $x, (y x)^3 y^{-2}$ don't generate the free group. This is believeable, but rather than being vague let's give a proof for completeness.

There is a group homomorphism $F \to S_3$ sending $x$ to the 2-cycle $(1 2)$ and $y$ to $(1 3)$. This homomorphism is surjective because these generate the group, but $y'$ maps to the trivial element because the image of $yx$ has order 3 and the image of $y$ has order 2. Therefore, $x$ and $y'$ don't generate $S_3$, and so they can't generate $F$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Yes! I knew an easy example had to exist. Thanks Tyler! – Chris Schommer-Pries Jan 19 '10 at 14:03
Thank you, Tyler! I also found the reason for my confusion concerning the proposition in Hoveys book: I made a horrible mistake when trying to prove that for any map of triangles $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$ the map $\gamma^*$ is equivariant with respect to $(\Sigma\alpha)^*$. This is simply wrong. – Hanno Becker Jan 20 '10 at 20:00
There have been some revisions/edits to this question, and now I am confused about what the question is. I think Tyler definitely answered one version of the question, so I suggest that you accept his answer and re-ask the revised version as a new MO question. In any event you'll get more interest with a new question. – Chris Schommer-Pries Jan 21 '10 at 2:28
@Chris: Ok, I'll do that. – Hanno Becker Jan 22 '10 at 7:30

Here are some comments on Tyler's nice example, which answers the question of whether a map from a CW complex $Z$ to itself is a homotopy equivalence if it restricts to a homotopy equivalence from a subcomplex $A$ to itself and it induces a homotopy equivalence $Z/A\to Z/A$. The example shows the answer is no in general, but it is yes if $Z$ is simply-connected since the hypotheses imply that the map induces an isomorphism on the homology of $Z$ so Whitehead's theorem applies. More generally the answer is yes if the fundamental group of $Z$ is abelian and acts trivially on all the higher homotopy groups of $Z$ since Whitehead's theorem also holds in this generality. (For a textbook proof see Proposition 4.74 of my algebraic topology book.)

Tyler's example generalizes in the following way. Let $Z=S^1 \vee S^n$ for $n>1$, so $\pi_nZ=\{\mathbb Z}[t,t^{-1}]$, the Laurent polynomials, with $\pi_1Z$ acting by multiplication by powers of $t$. (Look in the universal cover of $Z$ to see this.) Let $g:Z\to Z$ be the identity on $S^1$ and on $S^n$ let it represent a Laurent polynomial $p(t)$ such that $p(1)=\pm 1$, for example $p(t)=2t-1$. Then $g$ is a homotopy equivalence on $A=S^1$ and on the quotient $Z/A=S^n$, but $g$ need not induce an isomorphism on $\pi_nZ$ so $g$ need not be a homotopy equivalence, for example when $p(t)=2t-1$ since in this case the cokernel of $g$ on $\pi_n$ is the quotient module ${\mathbb Z}[t,t^{-1}]/(2t-1)$, which is just the dyadic rationals.

share|cite|improve this answer
I must mention that judicious choice of elements p(t) of pi_n(Z) as an attaching map for a cell allow you to construct maps S^1 -> W which are isomorphisms on pi_1 and on all homology groups, but not homotopy equivalences. – Tyler Lawson Jan 20 '10 at 18:17

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.