2
$\begingroup$

I asked this question a few days ago on math stackexchange but didn't get any answer so I thought I post it here too (see here):

In my first course on algebraic topology I heard about the following:

Suppose you have topological spaces $X,Y, Z$, and morphisms $\phi: X \to Y$ and $p : Z \to Y$. Then one raises the question if the map $\phi$ is liftable, i.e. the existence of a map $f : X \to Z$ such that $\phi = p \circ f$. (Probably I have forgotten some assumptions on the spaces but that's not the point here for me)

One can prove that this lifting problem has a solution if and only if the "corresponding" lifting problem regarding the fundamental groups has a solution. (I mean, consider the corresponding fundamental groups and induced group homomorphism and ask the same question)

Our teacher told us (informally) that typically the "topological lifting problem" is difficult where the "algebraic lifting problem" can be used to prove the former one.

My question is the following: Has there been some study (I personally guess so) to solve the "algebraic lifting problem" using a translation to a "lifting problem" living in another category.

Hence, let $G,H,T$ be groups, morphisms $f : G \to H$ and $p : T \to H$. We want to lift $f$ to $T$. We may also assume that $p$ is surjective (i.e. $H$ is a quotient of $T$).

I thought of translating this to group algebras or $C^*$-group algebras.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You say you're not bothered about the hypotheses, but for completeness: $p$ is a covering map, $X$ is connected, you fix appropriate base points, and the lift exists if and only if $\phi_*\pi_1X\subseteq p_*\pi_1Y$. $\endgroup$
    – HJRW
    Commented Sep 20, 2016 at 8:31
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ If the group $G$ is finite, then this lifting problem was "solved" by Schur, I believe, using the concept of stem extensions. For the special case where the group $G$ is perfect, the theory is particularly elegant and rests on the existence (which Schur proved) of a universal perfect central extension. To address your question, though: so far as I'm aware (& I'm no expert), Schur's work was strongly algebraic. One can view it through the prism of cohomology of course which gives a different flavour, but I don't know of any studies that approach it overtly via some another category. $\endgroup$
    – Nick Gill
    Commented Sep 20, 2016 at 9:13
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I just noticed the final suggestion of translating questions about groups to questions about group algebras... I guess most parts of the representation theory of groups can be recast in terms of group algebras, but is that really a categorical translation, or just a change in terminology? $\endgroup$
    – Nick Gill
    Commented Sep 20, 2016 at 9:17
  • $\begingroup$ @NickGill ... thank you very much for your comment. Do you have any references? This sounds quite interesting. $\endgroup$
    – M.U.
    Commented Sep 20, 2016 at 9:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @NickGill, how does Schur's work apply when T is not a central extension of H? $\endgroup$
    – HJRW
    Commented Sep 21, 2016 at 5:33

0

You must log in to answer this question.