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

This question is inspired by this question about the dependence of K-theory on the order of multiplication in the ring. I did not think long about it, so maybe the answer really lies on the surface; but I do not know.

Let $G$ be a discrete group, $G^{op}$ its opposite group (i.e. the one with reversed multiplication). Let $H \subset G$ be a subgroup, such that $H=[H,H]=[G,G]$. Note that $H^{op} \subset G^{op}$ has the same properties. I denote the Quillen Plus-Construction of a space with fundamental group $G$ with respect to $H$ by $X \mapsto X^+_H$

Question: Is there a homotopy equivalence between $BG_H^+$ and $B(G^{op})_{H^{op}}^+$, such that the induced map on $\pi_1$ is induced by identity $id: G \to G^{op}$.

Note that there is clearly a homotopy equivalence between $BG_H^+$ and $B(G^{op})_{H^{op}}^+$ such that the induced map on $\pi_1$ is induced by the inverse $inv: G \to G^{op}$; but that is not the one I am looking for.

However, this shows that one could also ask:

Question: Is there a homotopy equivalence between $BG_H^+$ and itself, such that the induced map on the abelian group $\pi_1(BG_H^+) = G/H$ is the inversion.

Given the motivation, any good answer in the case $G=GL_{\infty}(R)$ (for some ring) would be interesting too.

EDIT: Johannes Ebert suggested in a comment a strategy to give a negative answer to Question 2 in general. The Kan-Thurston construction gives a way of obtaining every (finite?) cell complex $X$ as the plus-construction on $BG$ with respect to some perfect subgroup $H$. It seems that the only missing piece is a finite cell-complex $X$ with $\pi_1$ abelian and no $\pi_1$-inversion-inducing self-homotopy equivalence. Then, $X = BG^+_H$ for some group $G$ and some perfect subgroup $H \subset G$. However, since $\pi_1 = G/H$ is abelian, we see that $[G,G] \subset H$ and hence, $[H,H] = [G,G]=H$ as required.

Question: Can anybody give an example of such a space?

share|cite|improve this question
I think that the second question for $GL_\infty(R)$ follows directly from the fact that we have a connected $H$-space. – Torsten Ekedahl Nov 19 '10 at 12:11
I see, every connected H-space has an inverse up to homotopy. This solves the problem for $BGL_{\infty}(R)^+$. Thanks for this comment. However, the $H$-space structure is not directly induced by the multiplication of $GL_{\infty}(R)$, so that there is probably no reason to assume that $BG^+_H$ will be an $H$-space in general. – Andreas Thom Nov 19 '10 at 12:38
Of course not every plus-construction is an $H$-space, in fact, it seems to me that an $H$-space structure on $BG^+$ is a rather rare event. The Kan-Thurston theorem says that for any space $X$, there is a group $G$ and a homology isomorphism $BG \to X$, which will be a plus-construction. Take a simply connected $X$ that is manifestly not an $H$-space ($S^2$, for example) and you find a perfect group that does not have an $H$-space structure on its plus-construction. – Johannes Ebert Nov 19 '10 at 16:23
In fact, I would use Kan-Thurston to construct a counterexample to question 2. 1. Find a space with abelian $\pi_1$ that does not admit a self-map inducing the inversion on $\pi_1$. I do not have a counterexample at hand, but would be \emph{really} surprised if such a space does not exist. Step 2. Apply Kan-Thurston to this space and check that the Kan-Thurston map is a plus construction (I believe that this is not obvious if there is some $H_1$ around). – Johannes Ebert Nov 19 '10 at 16:29
@Johannes: The Kan-Thurston map as stated in their paper is in fact a plus construction on $\pi_1$, though indeed it's not always true that a map of spaces inducing a homology isomorphism and a surjection on fundamental groups is a plus construction. – Tyler Lawson Nov 19 '10 at 18:42
up vote 4 down vote accepted

To answer the final question, here is how you can construct a space with no self-equivalence inducing negation on (abelian) $\pi_1$.

If $X \to Y$ is a homotopy equivalence, then for any basepoint it induces isomorphisms $\pi_n(X) \to \pi_n(Y)$ commuting with the action of $\pi_1$. In particular, if we can construct abelian groups $A$ and $B$ with an action of $A$ on $B$ such that there is no isomorphism $\phi: B \to B$ such that ${}^a \phi(b) = \phi({}^{(-a)}b)$, then we can use these to construct the desired space; let $X$ be the homotopy orbit space $K(B,2) \times_A EA$, which has $\pi_1 = A$ and $\pi_2 = B$ with the given action.

If $B$ is cyclic, all endomorphisms commute and so it suffices to construct an action so that ${}^a b = {}^{(-a)}b$ does not hold for all $a, b$.

"Minimal" examples include the action of $\mathbb{Z}/4$ on $\mathbb{Z}/5$ with generator $x \mapsto 2x$ (not isomorphic to $x \mapsto 3x$) and the action of $\mathbb{Z}/3$ on $\mathbb{Z}/7$ with generator $x \mapsto 2x$ (not isomorphic to $x \mapsto 4x$).

share|cite|improve this answer

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.