9
$\begingroup$

Let $E\xrightarrow{p} \Sigma X$ be a principal G-bundle over a suspension. Write $\Sigma X= C_+X\cup_X C_-X$. Then there are trivialisations of the restrictions $E|_{C_+X}\cong C_+X\times G$, $E|_{C_+X}\cong C_-X\times G$, and the transition function between them over their intersection X is defined by a map $t:X\rightarrow G$. The homotopy class of this map completely characterises the bundle, and the process is in fact reversible. Given such a clutching function, one can construct a unique bundle over the suspension.

So if $f:\Sigma X\rightarrow BG$ is a map classifying the G-bundle E, how does this map relate to the clutching function $t:X\rightarrow G\simeq \Omega BG$ ? How does one go between one and the other?

The adjoint isomorphism $[\Sigma X, BG] = [X,\Omega BG]= [X,G]$ obviously has a part to play, but for all I have tried I cannot for the life of me craft a strong enough argument to really convince myself of their true relationship.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The suspension is built out of loops parameterized by $X$. The classifying map send these to loops in $BG$. Loops in $BG$ are homotopy equivalent to points in $G$. Putting all that together you construct a map from $X$ to $G$. ... $\endgroup$ – Kevin Walker Aug 20 '14 at 12:37
  • $\begingroup$ ... But perhaps your problem is that you don't see why the map in the previous comment is the clutching map? Consider the case where $X$ is a point. $\endgroup$ – Kevin Walker Aug 20 '14 at 12:41
  • $\begingroup$ Well, I think that my problem was no so much in the visualisation, or in understanding the mechanics on a superficial level, but actually chasing the isomorphisms through to construct the map from X to G. I'm happy to generate a map from X to G, or map from $\Sigma X$ to BG in the reverse case... But showing these maps represent the correct homotopy classes is proving more tricky for me. $\endgroup$ – Tyrone Aug 21 '14 at 14:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The clutching function correspondence gives you one way of constructing an equivalence $G\simeq \Omega BG$, and you are asking whether that equivalence is the same as the equivalence $G\simeq \Omega BG$. But this is impossible to answer without specifying how the latter equivalence is constructed. $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Aug 27 '14 at 12:54
  • $\begingroup$ @EricWofsey, I guess I read the question differently: Tyrone describes a clutching map $X\to G$ associated to a bundle $E\to \Sigma X$, and wants to know how this map is related to the classifying map for $E$. $\endgroup$ – Dan Ramras Aug 28 '14 at 2:54
6
$\begingroup$

Here is one possible way of answering the question, using the simplicial model for $EG$. In this context, we can show very explicitly that the map $\Sigma X\to BG$ built (via adjointness) from the clutching function for $E$ classifies $E$ (and then if $X$ is a CW complex, any other classifying map for $E$ is homotopic to this one, by a standard cell-by-cell argument).

If $E\to \Sigma X$ is a principal $G$-bundle, then as explained in the question, $E$ is trivial over each half of $\Sigma X$. So $E$ is (isomorphic to) the quotient space $$(C_{-} X\times G) \cup (C_+ X \times G)\,/\,(x_-, g)\sim(x_+, c(x)g)$$ where $c: X\to G$ is the clutching function, and the notation for the relation is supposed to indicate that $x_-$ and $x_+$ are the copies of $x$ in the bases of the cones $C_-X$ and $C_+ X$ (respectively).

Let's assume that $G$ is a Lie group, so that $BG$ can be taken to mean the bar construction on $G$ (as in, say, "Segal's paper Classifying spaces and spectral sequences"). Then there is a natural map $\Sigma G \to BG$ given by the fact that $G$ is the space of 1-simplices in $BG$, and it has an adjoint $i: G\to \Omega BG$ (which sends $G$ to the loop that "runs around the 1-simplex labeled '$g$'," so to speak).

The function $i \circ c: X \to \Omega BG$ has an adjoint $f: \Sigma X \to BG$. It sends $x$ to $[c(x), t]$, which means "the point t units along the 1-simplex labeled $c(x)$." We want to prove that $f$ classifies $E$ - that is, we want to construct a map $\tilde{f}: E\to EG$ that is $G$-equivariant and covers $f$.

This can be done very explicitly. In Segal's setup, $EG$ is also a simplicial space, with 1-simplices parametrized by $G\times G$; the $G$-action on this (universal) principal bundle is induced by right-multiplication in $G$, and the map $EG\to BG$ sends the 1-simplex $(g,h)$ to $g h^{-1}$.

I want to think of $\Sigma X$ as $X\times I$ with both ends collapsed to points, so I'll take $C_-$ to be parametrized by $t\in [0,1/2]$ and $C_+$ to be parametrized by $t\in [1/2, 1]$.

We can define $\tilde{f}$ separately on the two halves of $E$: on the left half $$C_{-} X\times G = \left[(X\times [0,1/2])/(X\times 0)\right]\times G,$$ we set $\tilde{f}(x, t, g) = [(c(x)g, g), t]$. On the right half $$C_{+} X\times G = \left[(X\times [1/2, 1])/(X\times 1)\right]\times G,$$ we set $\tilde{f}(x, t, g) = [(g, c(x)^{-1}g), t]$. Note that in both cases, when we project down to $BG$ we get just $[c(x), t]$, and that the map is well-defined on $E$ because when $t=1/2$ (where the two cones meet) the first formula sends $(x_-, g) = (x, 1/2, g)$ to $[(c(x)g, g), 1/2]$ and the second formula sends the equivalent point $(x_+, c(x)g) = (x, 1/2, c(x)g)$ to $[(c(x)g, c(x)^{-1} c(x)g], 1/2] = [(c(x)g, g), 1/2]$.

I guess something similar probably works for any topological group $G$, if one uses Milnor's join construction instead of Segal's simplicial model, but I haven't thought through it.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Eric's comment on the question made me realize I didn't say why the map $G\to \Omega BG$ in my answer is a homotopy equivalence. If $EG$ is a contractible principal $G$-bundle, then the contracting homotopy $EG\times I\to EG$ induces a map $EG\to P(EG)\to P(BG)$ where $P()$ is the (based) path-space. This induces a diagram relating the fibrations $EG\to BG$ and $P(BG)\to BG$ and by the 5-lemma, the map on fibers is a weak equivalence $G\to \Omega BG$. $\endgroup$ – Dan Ramras Aug 28 '14 at 3:04
  • $\begingroup$ (cont'd) Segal's model for $EG$ comes from a (topological) category that is equivalent to the trivial category. If you choose this equivalence correctly, it gives a contracting homotopy of $EG$ that induces the map $G\to \Omega BG$ in my answer. $\endgroup$ – Dan Ramras Aug 28 '14 at 3:07
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, Dan! That's very helpful. I'm a lot more familiar with Milnor's construction, and am just about to run your brilliant ideas through it! $\endgroup$ – Tyrone Aug 28 '14 at 9:32
  • $\begingroup$ I'd be interested to see what sort of analogous argument can be done with Milnor's construction. Personally, I like the simplicial models because formulas like the ones above are easy to write down (although it did take me a few tries to get the map $\tilde{f}$ correct...). $\endgroup$ – Dan Ramras Aug 28 '14 at 17:22
  • $\begingroup$ I finished off the piece I was studying, and if I understand it correctly, runs through pretty similarly. In Milnor's construction one takes the total space as the infinite join $EG=G*G*\dots*G*\dots$ and represents the point (equivalence classes) as finite abstract sums $(t_1g_1+t_2g_2+\dots)$. Then the majority of your formulas piece in without much change, continuity of $\tilde{f}$ being checked using the projection maps of $EG$. Unless I'm very much mistaken... $\endgroup$ – Tyrone Aug 29 '14 at 10:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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