We know that there are Whitehead theorem for homotopy and homology theory.

Is there the Whitehead theorem for cohomology theory for 1-connected CW complexes?

  • 5
    This is not too hard to work out on your own using the universal coefficient theorem. – Sean Tilson Mar 8 '11 at 6:44

Conceptually, the following two theorems (both due to Whitehead) are Eckmann-Hilton duals.

Theorem. A weak homotopy equivalence between CW complexes is a homotopy equivalence.

Theorem. A homology isomorphism between simple spaces is a weak homotopy equivalence.

They don't look dual, but they are. See J.P. May. The dual Whitehead Theorems.
London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Series Vol. 86(1983), 46--54.

The point is that the second statement is really about cohomology, and the standard cellular proof of the first statement dualizes word-for-word to a ``cocellular'' proof of the second. Cocellular constructions are what appear in Postnikov towers, and they can be used more systematically than can be found in the literature. Yet another plug: they are central in the upcoming book "More Concise Algebraic Topology'' by Kate Ponto and myself.

  • 1
    Peter: is there a early draft version of your book that is available for consumption? – Sean Tilson Mar 12 '11 at 6:25
  • Peter: Thanks. I will see your paper. When your new book publish? Don't your book(A consise course of algebraic topology) have the answer my question? – Jino Mar 12 '11 at 19:22

As Sean says, the key point is the Universal Coefficient Theorem, but the details are not completely obvious unless you make some finiteness assumptions.

Suppose that $f:X\to Y$ is such that $H^{\ast}(f;\mathbb{Z})$ is an isomorphism. Let $Z$ be the cofibre of $f$, so $\tilde{H}^{\ast}(Z;\mathbb{Z})=0$. If we can prove that $\tilde{H}_{\ast}(Z;\mathbb{Z})=0$ then we can appeal to the ordinary homological Whitehead theorem. MathJax is mangling my tildes: all (co)homology groups of $Z$ below should be read as reduced.

For any prime $p$, we have a universal coefficient sequence for $H^{\ast}(Z;\mathbb{Z}/p)$ in terms of $H^{\ast}(Z;\mathbb{Z})$, so $H^{\ast}(Z;\mathbb{Z}/p)=0$. As ${\mathbb{Z}/p}$ is a field we also know that $H_{\ast}(Z;\mathbb{Z}/p)$ is a free module with $H^{\ast}(Z;\mathbb{Z}/p)$ as its dual, so we must have $H_{\ast}(Z;\mathbb{Z}/p)=0$. Using the universal coefficient theorem for homology we deduce that $H_{\ast}(Z;\mathbb{Z})/p$ and $\text{ann}(p,H_{\ast}(Z;\mathbb{Z}))$ are zero, so multiplication by $p$ is an isomorphism on $H_{\ast}(Z;\mathbb{Z})$. As this holds for all $p$, we see that $H_{\ast}(Z;\mathbb{Z})$ is a rational vector space. Thus, if it is nontrivial it will contain a copy of $\mathbb{Q}$ so (via universal coefficients again) $H^{\ast}(Z;\mathbb{Z})$ will contain a copy of $\text{Ext}(\mathbb{Q},\mathbb{Z})$. This group is nonzero (in fact, enormous) by a standard calculation, so this contradicts the initial assumption.

  • 3
    Your argument proves two other versions that I see frequently in action: 1. If f induces a cohomology isomorphism with coefficients in all fields, then f is a homology isomorphism. 2. If f induces a cohomology isomorphism for all fields of positive characteristic and if the integral homologies of X and Y are finitely generated in each degree, then f is a homology isomorphism. – Johannes Ebert Mar 8 '11 at 11:18
  • Neil : How prove that $\tilde{H}^\ast (Z:\mathbb{Z})=0$? – Jino Mar 12 '11 at 19:18


The basic point is that for simply-connected spaces, you can determine the connectivity of a map by looking at the connectivity of the cofiber instead of the connectivity of the fiber.

In homology, you determine the connectivity of the cofiber by looking at $H_*(C;\mathbb{Z})$, because of the Hurewicz Theorem.

In cohomology, you appeal to: if $X$ is simply-connected, then $X$ is $n$-connected if and only if $[ X, K(G,m)] = *$ for all $m \leq n$ and all abelian groups $G$. This is because (by basic obstruction theory) if $X$ is $(n-1)$-connected, then $[X, K(G,n)] \cong \mathrm{Hom}(\pi_n(X), G )$.

This results in a long list of groups to check, admittedly; but it can be whittled down by Universal Coefficients theorems if you like.

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.