Let $\mathrm{Map}(X,Y)$ denote the (unbased) cellular mapping space from $X$ to $Y$.

If $X$ and $Y$ are finite CW complexes, is $\mathrm{Map}(X,Y)$ a CW complex?

Can we know the cell structure of $\mathrm{Map}(X,Y)$?

For example, what is the cell structure of $\mathrm{Map}(S^n,S^k)$ for $n \geq k$?

Please recommend related papers and textbooks.

  • $\begingroup$ The answer depends on what definition of mapping space you take $\endgroup$ – Fernando Muro Dec 25 '13 at 18:14

A mapping space $\mathrm{Map}(X,Y)$ between two finite CW-complexes never admits a cell structure if both $X$ and $Y$ are positive-dimensional. If you use the compact-open topology, this essentially follows from this answer: the mapping space is a complete metric space and thus satisfies the Baire category theorem, but if every component of $Y$ is positive-dimensional then it's easy to see that any open subset of $\mathrm{Map}(X,Y)$ is infinite-dimensional. If you use the compactly generated topology, the Baire category theorem may not hold in $\mathrm{Map}(X,Y)$ itself, but you can find a Hilbert cube $H$ embedded in it. Since $H$ is compact, its topology does not change when you pass to the compactly generated topology, and any open subset of $H$ is still infinite-dimensional. Thus by the Baire category theorem, $H$ cannot be the union of its intersections with finite-dimensional skeleta.

However, $\mathrm{Map}(X,Y)$ does always have the homotopy type of a CW-complex. For a quite general version of this, see Milnor's paper "On spaces having the homotopy type of a CW-complex".

  • $\begingroup$ Why $Map(X,Y)$ cannot have cell structure if both $X$ and $Y$ are positive dimensional? $\endgroup$ – Jino Dec 26 '13 at 12:17

I think I should be posting this as a comment, but as i don't have enough reputation to comment I take the liberty to post this as an answer.

I am here just elaborating on Eric Wofsey's answer.

Let's take the case, say, $X=\mathbb{N}$ and $Y=I=[0,1]$. Then $Map(X,Y)$ is Hilbert cube.

On the other hand, the definition of a CW-complex says that a CW complex has to be the union of finite skelta, and for reasons explained in Eric Wofsey's answer, this is not the case.


Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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