5
$\begingroup$

I recall vaguely once reading that a cell complex—constructed like a CW-complex but without assuming the cells are appended in order of increasing dimension —"is" actually a CW-complex. I cannot remember if this means there is a homotopy equivalent CW-complex or something stronger.

Is there a similar result for $G$-cell complexes vs. $G$-CW-complexes, for $G$ a compact Lie group?

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I'm pretty sure that any proof of your first statement would tell you whether the equivariant case or not... $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Jan 25 '19 at 20:51
4
$\begingroup$

As Najib says in the comments to the question, the proof of the classical statement can be easily-ish adapted to the equivariant case. Let's see the details

Lemma Let $X$ be a $G$-CW-complex and let $f:G/H\times S^n\to X$ be a $G$-equivariant continuous map. Then $f$ factors up to equivariant homotopy through the $n$-skeleton of $X$

Proof: This is just a special case of the cellular approximation theorem (theorem I.3.4 in May's Equivariant Homotopy and Cohomology Theory).

A $G$-equivariant continuous map from $G/H\times S^n$ is the same thing as a continuous map from $S^n$ to $X^H$ and the same hold for equivariant homotopies. Hence we need to show that, if $X^{(n)}$ is the $n$-skeleton of $X$, the inclusion $(X^{(n)})^H\to X^H$ is $n$-connected. But the cofiber $X^H/(X^{(n)})^H\cong (X/X^{(n)})^H$ is obtained by adding cells of the form $(G/K\times D^m)^H$ for $m>n$, and so it is $n$-connected. $\square$

Armed with the lemma, we can prove that every $G$-complex $Y$ is homotopy equivalent to a $G$-CW-complex. I will prove only the case where $Y$ has finitely many cells, the general case just needs a transfinite induction that I don't want to write down right now.

We will proceed by induction on the number of cells. If $Y$ has only one cell, then it has of course the structure of a $G$-CW-complex, obtained by using a CW structure on the disc.

Suppose now that the thesis is true for all $G$-complexes with $m$ cells. Then, if $Y$ is a $G$-complex with $(m+1)$ cells, we can write it as the pushout $Y=Y'\amalg_{G/H\times S^n} G/H\times D^{n+1}$ for some $H$ and $n$. But, by the previous lemma, the attaching map $G/H\times S^n\to Y'$ factors up to homotopy through the $n$-skeleton of $Y'$. So we can attach it together with the other $(n+1)$-cells without changing the homotopy type of $Y$. Hence $Y$ has the homotopy type of a $G$-CW-complex.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for this. I was really just hoping to a pointer to somewhere in the literature, so this is more than I needed in some sense, but it is also much easier than I had imagined. I did want (I thought this was clear, sorry), though, a compact Lie group; what else does one need to do in that case? $\endgroup$ – jdc Jan 25 '19 at 23:01
  • $\begingroup$ Not explicit was another question about how strong this result is. It seems clear from your answer that this only produces a homotopy-equivalent $G$-CW-complex, and I am expecting this can't be hoped to preserve the space up to homeomorphism. I encountered a proposition in a preprint seemingly claiming a certain space has a $G$-CW structure but only proving a $G$-cell structure, and was trying to see if the result as stated could be rescued. $\endgroup$ – jdc Jan 25 '19 at 23:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @jdc I never think about compact Lie groups, but basically you need to pay attention at the connectivity of the inclusion of the skeleton of the $n$-fixed points inside the fixed points of the $n$-skeleton (this is for the proof of the lemma). I'll see if I can manage to generalize the proof tomorrow. Constructing a $G$-CW-structure on a space on the nose and not just up to homotopy is a much more difficult problem, and I'm not sure I can say anything intelligent about it. $\endgroup$ – Denis Nardin Jan 25 '19 at 23:07
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! Is the difficulty of the second problem alleviated if one instead demands a $G$-invariant CW/cell structure? My intuition is that this would be closer to the difficulty of the non-equivariant problem (which I still think isn't solvable in general). $\endgroup$ – jdc Jan 25 '19 at 23:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @jdc I added a reference for the compact Lie group case. It is a bit subtle, but it can be deduced from the equivariant version of HELP (homotopy extension and lifting property) $\endgroup$ – Denis Nardin Jan 27 '19 at 11:02

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.