In the category of topological spaces, I would like to know that quotients of simplicial complexes (or $\Delta$-complexes) by equivalence relations which are "unramified" in a suitable sense still have the structure of simplicial complexes:

Say $X$ and $Y$ are finite disjoint unions of simplices (of varying dimension) and we have two maps $X \rightrightarrows Y$ such that restricted to each simplex $\Delta^k_i \subset X$, each map is a linear closed embedding into one of the simplices $\Delta^n_j \subset Y$. By linear closed embedding I mean that the map $\Delta^k_i \to \Delta^n_j$ is the inclusion of the convex hull of $k$ linearly independent points (which for my applications can be assumed to have rational coordinates) in $\Delta^n_j$.

It seems plausible that such a diagram $X \rightrightarrows Y$ can be identified with the geometric realization of a diagram of finite $\Delta$-sets, which would equip the coequalizer $coeq(X \rightrightarrows Y)$ with the structure of a finite $\Delta$-complex. Is there a counterexample to this claim that I'm missing? Does this appear in the literature?

  • $\begingroup$ Doesn't the category of simplicial complexes have all small limits and colimits? Does this help? A reference is math.stackexchange.com/questions/492072/… $\endgroup$ – David White Aug 20 '15 at 13:01
  • $\begingroup$ I suspect the op wants to have the colimit agree with the one in top spaces. $\endgroup$ – Benjamin Steinberg Aug 20 '15 at 16:34
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidWhite, even though $X$ and $Y$ can be equipped with the structure of a simplical complex, by which I mean they admit homeomorphisms with the geometric realization of some abstract simplicial complex, the maps $X \rightrightarrows Y$ are not necessarily maps of simplicial complexes a priori (i.e. they need not come from maps of abstract simplicial complexes). If you could find triangulations of X and Y such that both maps are simplicial, then the coeq as topological spaces would agree with the geometric realization of the coeq in the category of abstract simplicial complexes. $\endgroup$ – user2700 Aug 21 '15 at 3:07

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.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.