6
$\begingroup$

The question is motivated by Eckmann-Hilton duality and certain flaws of the homotopy category of CW-complexes. Unfortunately, I do not know the formalism of model categories, so excuse me if it is a basic fact concerning them.

First consider a circle $S^1$ with a fixed point. All spaces are supposed to be connected and have a fixed point, and I will suppress it in notations. Then there are its $(n-1)$-suspension $S^n:=\Sigma^{n-1} S^1$ and its $(n-1)$-delooping $K(\mathbb Z, n):=\Omega^{-(n-1)}S^1$ (I believe that one can construct it geometrically). From them we can build $n$-th homotopy groups $\pi_n(X):=[S^n, X]$ and $n$-th (integral) cohomology groups $H^n(X):=[X, K(\mathbb Z, n)]$, where $[A, B]$ means a set of homotopy classes of maps from $A$ to $B$, and give them a natural group structure, see Fomenko, Fuchs Homotopical topology, $\S$1.4.

As suspension $\Sigma$ and looping $\Omega$ are adjoint, one has $H^i(S^n) \simeq \mathbb Z$ for $i=n$ and $0$ otherwise, and $\pi_i(K(\mathbb Z, n)) \simeq \mathbb Z$ for $i=n$ and $0$ otherwise (we ignore $\pi_0$ and $H^0$). Moreover, in the category of CW-complexes $K(\mathbb Z, n)$ is defined by this condition up to homotopical equivalence, but $S^n$ is not -- there is Poincaré homology sphere $\widehat{S^3}$.

A quick idea is that it happens because CW-complexes are constructed from $S^n$, so one should work in the category of spaces constructed from $K(\mathbb Z, n)$, with something like Postnikov towers instead of CW-complexes' skeletons. There are certain conditions on CW-complexes, the main one is that the quotients of skeletons are bouquets of spheres; of course, one may ask that the homotopy fibers of Postnikov tower are products of $K(\mathbb Z, n)$, that is that the homotopy groups are torsion-free, but the resulting category looks very small, without spheres.

So a question is whether there is a nice category that is "Eckmann-Hilton dual" to CW-complexes? A perfect case would be if one can dualize any statement about CW-complexes and get a true statement about objects in this category, and if it contains spheres and $K(\mathbb Z, n)$, so that we have homotopy and cohomology groups. It is wrong for CW-complexes themselves: for example, the pullback of a fibration by a cofibration is always a fibration, but the pushforward of a cofibration by a fibration is not always a cofibration.

Update. According to the article May The Dual Whitehead Theorems from Dan Ramras' comment, another candidate to "Echmann-Hilton dual" category to CW-complexes is simple spaces, that is whose $\pi_1(X)$ acts trivially on $\pi_n(X)$ (in particular, it acts by conjugation on itself, so is abelian). Simple CW-complexes are those for which Postnikov towers are usually defined.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Isn't $\Omega^{n-1} S^1$ the looping (and not delooping) of $S^1$? I believe the delooping would more traditionally be written as $B^{n-1}S^1$. $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Nov 24 '16 at 16:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am not sure I understand your question: in a "nice enough" category of spaces every space has a Postnikov tower (although saying that a Postnikov tower is "constructed" by Eilenberg-MacLane spaces might be overstating things). Can you elaborate on what kind of construction would you want? $\endgroup$ – Denis Nardin Nov 24 '16 at 16:13
  • $\begingroup$ Najib, Denis, thank you, I modified the question. $\endgroup$ – evgeny Nov 24 '16 at 16:25
  • $\begingroup$ @evgeny It is still quite vague. At least to me a CW-complex is a kind of structure you put on a space to help computations. You can construct the category of Postnikov towers and it will be equivalent to the usual category of spaces (at least in a suitably weak sense). However it does not feel "dual" to the category of CW complexes in any meaningful sense. Is this the kind of answer you are after? $\endgroup$ – Denis Nardin Nov 24 '16 at 16:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You may find Peter May's article "The Dual Whitehead Theorems" interesting in this context. It's at math.uchicago.edu/~may/PAPERS/47.pdf $\endgroup$ – Dan Ramras Nov 24 '16 at 18:33
2
$\begingroup$

Repeating my comment above as answer:

You may find Peter May's article "The Dual Whitehead Theorems" interesting in this context. It's at math.uchicago.edu/~may/PAPERS/47.pdf

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

The answer is yes. You mention model categories, so I guess what you have in mind is right Bousfield localization. Given a nice enough model category $M$ (spaces or simplicial sets qualify), and a set of objects $K$, the right Bousfield localization $R_K(M)$ is new model structure where the objects of $K$ are the new cells, and a map $f:X\to Y$ is a weak equivalence (a $K$-colocal equivalence) if for every $A\in K$, the map of simplicial sets $map(A,X)\to map(A,Y)$ is a weak equivalence. These are the maps seen to be weak equivalences by $K$.

This model structure has the same fibrations as $M$. The cofibrant objects are precisely the $K$-colocal objects, i.e. objects $W$ such that $map(W,X)\to map(W,Y)$ is a weak equivalence for all $K$-colocal equivalences $W$. If every object of $M$ is fibrant (e.g. Top) then $R_K(M)$ is cofibrantly generated, with the same generating trivial cofibrations $J$ as $M$, and with generating cofibrations defined as $\overline{\Lambda(K)} = J \cup \{A^*\otimes \partial \Delta[n]\to A^*\otimes \Delta[n] | A\in K, n\geq 0\}$, where $A^*$ is a cosimplicial resolution of $A$. Morally, this is saying that the objects of $K$ are the new cells, and cofibrant replacement in this new model structure entails building things out of the objects in $K$.

In your case, taking $M = Top$ and $K = \{K(\mathbb{Z},n)\}$ will accomplish what you asked for. All the facts I wrote above are in Hirschhorn's book. A source for lots of examples is my paper (with Donald Yau): Right Bousfield Localization and Operadic Algebras

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Now that the original question has been edited, this does not appear to be a full answer. I am not quite sure what the last paragraph of the new question is asking. $\endgroup$ – David White Nov 24 '16 at 16:37

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.