Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The homotopy dimension $h \dim X$ of a space $X$ is the minimal dimension of a CW-complex $Z$ homotopy equivalent to $X$.

I am interested in the generalisation to maps $f\colon X\to Y$. Here's what I think it should be:

The homotopy dimension of $f\colon X\to Y$ is the smallest $k$ such that $f$ factorises through a $k$-dimensional CW-complex up to homotopy (meaning there is a $Z$ of dimension $k$ and maps $g\colon X\to Z$ and $h\colon Z\to Y$ with $f\simeq h\circ g$).

Question 1: Is this the "correct" generalisation? My hesitance stems from the fact that, with this definition, $h\dim 1_X$ (the homotopy dimension of the identity map $1_X\colon X\to X$) does not necessarily equal $h\dim X$. Indeed, the former is the smallest dimension of a CW-complex which dominates $X$, and (I believe) Wall has shown that there are spaces for which $h\dim 1_X$ $<$$\infty$ while $h\dim X=\infty$.

Question 2: I am sure that this is a well-known and well-studied notion, and that I am merely using the wrong search terms. Where should I look in the literature to learn more about this concept?

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 7 down vote accepted

Regarding Question 1: No, I do not think that's correct. In my opinion, the definition should be one of the following:

The relative homotopy dimension of $f: X \to Y$ is $\le k$ if and only if there is a factorization of $f$ as $$ X \overset{f'}\to Y' \overset{g} \to Y $$ in which $f'$ is an inclusion, $Y'$ is obtained from $X$ by iterated cell attachments of dimension $\le k$, and $g$ is a weak homotopy equivalence.

The notion of dimension I am describing is internal to the category of spaces under $X$, i.e, $X\backslash\text{Top}$, where $f$ is to be regarded as an object of that category. In this scheme, the homotopy dimension of the identity map is $\le -1$.

There is another variant of though: let define us say that the fiberwise homotopy dimension of $f: X\to Y$ is $\le k$ iff if there is a weak homotopy equivalence $X' \to X$ such that $X'$ is a cell complex of dimension $\le k$.

In particular $Y$ is homotopy equivalent to a cell complex of dimension $\le k$ if and only if the identity map of $Y$ has fiberwise dimension $\le k$.

Regarding Question 2: To a certain extent, I have written about both of these notions in the paper: Poincaré duality embeddings and fiberwise homotopy theory, Topology 38, 597$-$620 (1999), but this is by no means my concept, nor is my treatment to be regarded as definitive.

Added: The above notions generalize to a single notion as follows: let $f: A \to Y$ be any map of spaces and define $\text{Top}_f$ to be the category of factorizations of $f$ the objects of this category are factorizations $A \to X \to Y$ and morphisms are maps $X \to X'$ commuting with the given structure maps.

Then we can define dimension in this setting as follows: let's say that an object $X \in \text{Top}_f$ has dimension $\le k$ iff it is built up from the initial object (represented by $A$) by attaching cells over $Y$ of dimension at most $k$.

It's easy to see that the case $f:\emptyset \to Y$ gives the notion of fiberwise dimension, whereas the case when $f: A \to \text{pt}$ gives the notion of relative dimension.

share|improve this answer
    
What about the homotopy dimension of the homotopy fiber of $f$ ? –  BS. Feb 28 '11 at 15:30
    
That's not really a very useful notion, since the homotopy fiber is usually infinite dimensional. –  John Klein Feb 28 '11 at 15:36
1  
John, I edited to fix what I am sure were a couple of typos in your second-to-last paragraph. But how does $Y$ come into this? If $X$ admits an equivalence $X'\to X$ from a $k$-dimensional cell complex $X'$ then for any map $X\to Y$ we can also consider $X'$ as a space over $Y$. In other words the (fiberwise) homotopical dimension of $X$ as a space over $Y$ is the same as the homotopical dimension of $X$ as a space. –  Tom Goodwillie Mar 1 '11 at 4:08
    
Yes, you're right---how silly of me. I'll fix that. –  John Klein Mar 1 '11 at 4:34
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.