DOCSLIB.ORG

Homotopy Theory and Classifying Spaces

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Homotopy Theory and Classifying Spaces Homotopy theory and classifying spaces Bill Dwyer Copenhagen (June, 2008) Contents 1. Homotopy theories and model categories . 3 What is a homotopy theory T? – Examples of homotopy theories (Tpair presentation) – The homotopy category Ho(T) – Examples of homotopy categories – Model cat- egory: (C, E) with extras – Examples of model categories (C, E) – Dividends from a model category structure on (C, E) – Equivalences between homotopy theories – 0 0 T(C, E) ∼ T(C , E ) for model categories – Examples of equivalences between ho- motopy theories 2. Homotopy limits and colimits . 17 Colimits and related constructions – Aside: notation for special coends – Homo- topy colimits and related constructions – Model category dividend – Construction of hocolim, version I – Construction of hocolim, version II – Homotopy limits and related constructions – Another model category dividend – Construction of holim, version I – Construction of holim, Version II – Properties of homotopy (co)limits – Mysteries of (I) and (II) revealed 3. Spaces from categories . 29 Categories vs. Spaces – The Grothendieck Construction – Thomason’s Theorem – Variations on CnF (all ∼ on N) – Extension to homotopy coends – The parallel universe of Hom and ⊗ – Properties of Kan extensions – Does pulling back preserve hocolim? – Terminal functors – Does pulling back preserve holim? – Initial functors 4. Homology decompositions . 40 Approximation data for BG – Approximation data from G-orbits – Obtaining alterna- tive approximation data – Six Z/p-homology decompositions – How to obtain the six decompositions – Identify hocolim for subgroup diagram – Identify hocolim for cen- tralizer diagram – Relate posets KC2 ∼ KC1 – Relate posets KC3 ∼ KC2 1 2 5. Localizations . 46 Left Bousfield localization – Example with discrete categories – Another model cat- egory dividend – Examples of model category localizations (I) – Examples of model category localizations (II) – Localization with respect to R-homology, R ⊂ Q – Localization with respect to Z/p-homology – Mixing LQ(X) with the Lp(X)’s to recover X – An approximation to Lp – The Bousfield-Kan p-completion Cp – The Bousfield-Kan p-completion Cp: good & bad 6. Cohomology of function spaces . 56 The Steenrod algebra Ap – Modules and algebras over Ap – The functor T – The functor T ↔ function spaces out of BV – Lannes works his magic – Outlining the proof – The case X = K = K(Z/p, n) – The case in which X is p-finite. – Tower {Us} = {· · · → Un → Un−1 → · · · → U0} – T and maps from BV – In the presence of a volunteer... 7. Maps between classifying spaces . 68 Cohomology of homotopy fixed point sets – X a finite complex: setting the scene – X a finite complex (II) – Aside: sighting of Cp(p-bad space) – Maps BQ → BG: individual components – Maps BQ → BG: how many components? – Maps into CpBG for G finite – Fusion functors – Fusion systems 8. Linking systems and p-local classifying spaces . 78 Does F determine CpBG? – Switch to the p-centric collection – The p-centric cen- tralizer diagram – The categorical p-centric centralizer model – The linking system – Lc vs. Fc – the orbit picture – Lifting from Ho(Sp) to Sp – Fusion relations suffice! – p-local finite group X 9. p-compact groups . 89 Definition of a p-compact group – Some basic properties of p-compact groups – More cohomology of homotopy fixed point sets – The centralizer of V in X is a p-compact group. – The centralizer of V in X is a subgroup – ∃ non-trivial V → X – Existence of a Sylow p-subgroup for finite G – Existence of a maximal torus in X 10. Wrapping up . 99 Another commutative diagram? – Homotopy theories – Localizations & completions – The functor T and H∗ Homh(BV, −) – Homology decompositions and maps to BG – p-compact groups and p-local finite groups – Conclusion Lecture 1: Homotopy theories and model categories 3 Lecture 1. Homotopy theories and model categories These are rough notes. Read at your own risk! The presentation is not necessarily linear, complete, compact, locally connected, orthographically defensible, grammatical, or, least of all, logically watertight. The author doesn’t always tell the whole truth, sometimes even on purpose. This first lecture is deep background: before getting to classifying spaces, I’d like to describe some homotopy theoretic machinery. The first question to ask before trying to understand this machinery is a very basic one. Slide 1-1 Slide 1-1 What is a homotopy theory T? Equivalent answers • Tpair category C with a subcategory E of equivalences • Ten category R enriched over spaces (simplicial sets) • Tsc Segal category • Tcss complete Segal space • Tqc quasi-category • T∞ ∞-category (or (∞, 1) category) Just like categories h hT1 Internal function objects T3 = Cat (T1, T2) = T2 The main message here is that there has been a remarkable convergence of opinion over the last few years about what a homotopy theory is [11]. All formulations give notions which are equivalent (in a homotopy theoretic sense, see slide 1–10 below), although the objects involved look very different in detail. A pair (C, E) is a relative category, and from the point of view of Tpair homotopy theory is relative category theory. This is the form under which homotopy theories usually show up in nature; E is usually some collection of morphisms in C which are not isomorphisms but have some claim to be considered honorary isomorphisms (for instance if C = Top is the category of topological spaces, E might be the collection of homotopy equivalences). But any category C gives a homotopy theory: take E to the identity maps or (it turns out equivalently) the isomorphisms in C. Another possibility is to take E = C. A category R enriched over topological spaces is an ordinary category furnished with a topology on each morphism space [9]. From the point of view of Ten homotopy theory is a continuous form of category theory. (Not too continuous: notice that we don’t worry about topologies on sets of objects.) The transition Tpair =⇒ Ten involves inverting the arrows in E in a derived sense [38]. Alternatively, the function spaces Lecture 1: Homotopy theories and model categories 4 in the simplicial category can be view as spaces of zigzags in the original category C, where the backwards-point arrows lie in E [36]. A Segal category is a simplicial space which is discrete at level 0 and satisfies some homotopical product conditions [89] [10]. The transition Ten =⇒ Tsc amounts to taking the nerve, and treating it as a simplicial space. A complete Segal space is simplicial space which is not necessarily discrete at level 0 and satisfies some homotopy fibre product conditions and some other homotopical conditions [89] [11]. The transition Tsc =⇒ Tcss requires repackaging group-like topological monoids of equivalences into their associated classifying spaces, but leaving the non-invertible morphisms alone. This is an unusually transparent model for a homotopy theory: an equivalence is just a map between simplicial spaces which is a weak equivalence at each level. Internal function objects are also easy to come by here. A quasi-category (∞-category) is a simplicial set, treated from what classically would be a very peculiar point of view [62] [63]. In some sense this is the most economical model for a homotopy theory. 1.1 Exercise. Let C be a category and E its subcategory of isomorphisms. In this particular case, describe in detail each of the various models for the homotopy theory of T(C, E). h hT1 The notation Cat (T1, T2) or T2 denotes the homotopy theory of functors from the first homotopy theory to the second, but taken in the correct homotopy theoretic way. hT1 The notation T2 is very similar to a notation for homotopy fixed point sets that will come up later on (2.28), but I’ll use it anyway. This same ambiguity comes up without the “h”: if X and Y are spaces, Y X is the space of maps from X to Y , but if Y is a space and G is a group Y G is the fixed-point set of the action of G on Y . The above internal function objects for homotopy theories are tricky to define correctly in some models, but can have a very familiar feel to them. If (C, E) and (C0, E0) are two category pairs in which all of the morphisms in E and E0 are invertible, then the function h object Cat (T(C, E), T(C0, E0)) is equivalent in the sense of homotopy theories to the category in which the objects are functors C → C0 and the morphisms are natural transformations. (To promote this to a homotopy theory, pick natural isomorphisms between functors as equivalences.) ? 1.2 Exercise. Let G and H be two discrete groups, treated as one-object categories or as homotopy theories (the latter by designating all morphisms as equivalences). De- scribe the groupoid of functors G → H in terms of the group structures of G and H. How many components are there to the groupoid? What are the vertex groups? 1.3 Exercise. Let C be a category, and let E = C. Let Top be the homotopy the- ory of topological spaces, where the equivalences are taken to be weak homotopy equivalences. What geometric structures do you think are described by the homotopy h theory Cat (T(C, E), Top)? Lecture 1: Homotopy theories and model categories 5 Slide 1-2 Slide 1-2 Examples of homotopy theories (Tpair presentation) Geometry Notation CE Tophe Top homotopy equivalences Top Top weak homotopy equivalences TopR Top R-homology isomorphisms Top≤n Top iso on πi for i ≤ n Algebra Sp simplicial sets |f| an equivalence in Top sGrp simplicial groups |f| an equivalence in Top simp. rings, Lie alg.,etc (same) ChR chain complexes over R homology isomorphisms DG algebras homology isomorphisms The first four examples illustrate the fact that a category can be associated with many different homotopy theories.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Algebraic K-Theory and Equivariant Homotopy Theory
    Algebraic K-Theory and Equivariant Homotopy Theory Vigleik Angeltveit (Australian National University), Andrew J. Blumberg (University of Texas at Austin), Teena Gerhardt (Michigan State University), Michael Hill (University of Virginia), and Tyler Lawson (University of Minnesota) February 12- February 17, 2012 1 Overview of the Field The study of the algebraic K-theory of rings and schemes has been revolutionized over the past two decades by the development of “trace methods”. Following ideas of Goodwillie, Bokstedt¨ and Bokstedt-Hsiang-¨ Madsen developed topological analogues of Hochschild homology and cyclic homology and a “trace map” out of K-theory that lands in these theories [15, 8, 9]. The fiber of this map can often be understood (by work of McCarthy and Dundas) [27, 13]. Topological Hochschild homology (THH) has a natural circle action, and topological cyclic homology (TC) is relatively computable using the methods of equivariant stable homotopy theory. Starting from Quillen’s computation of the K-theory of finite fields [28], Hesselholt and Madsen used TC to make extensive computations in K-theory [16, 17], in particular verifying certain cases of the Quillen-Lichtenbaum conjecture. As a consequence of these developments, the modern study of algebraic K-theory is deeply intertwined with development of computational tools and foundations in equivariant stable homotopy theory. At the same time, there has been a flurry of renewed interest and activity in equivariant homotopy theory motivated by the nature of the Hill-Hopkins-Ravenel solution to the Kervaire invariant problem [19]. The construction of the norm functor from H-spectra to G-spectra involves exploiting a little-known aspect of the equivariant stable category from a novel perspective, and this has begun to lead to a variety of analyses.
    [Show full text]
  • The Stable Homotopy of Complex Projective Space
    THE STABLE HOMOTOPY OF COMPLEX PROJECTIVE SPACE By GRAEME SEGAL [Received 17 March 1972] 1. Introduction THE object of this note is to prove that the space BU is a direct factor of the space Q(CP°°) = Oto5eo(CP00) = HmQn/Sn(CPto). This is not very n surprising, as Toda [cf. (6) (2.1)] has shown that the homotopy groups of ^(CP00), i.e. the stable homotopy groups of CP00, split in the appro- priate way. But the method, which is Quillen's technique (7) of reducing to a problem about finite groups and then using the Brauer induction theorem, may be interesting. If X and Y are spaces, I shall write {X;7}*for where Y+ means Y together with a disjoint base-point, and [ ; ] means homotopy classes of maps with no conditions about base-points. For fixed Y, X i-> {X; Y}* is a representable cohomology theory. If Y is a topological abelian group the composition YxY ->Y induces and makes { ; Y}* into a multiplicative cohomology theory. In fact it is easy to see that {X; Y}° is then even a A-ring. Let P = CP00, and embed it in the space ZxBU which represents the functor K by P — IXBQCZXBU. This corresponds to the natural inclusion {line bundles} c {virtual vector bundles}. There is an induced map from the suspension-spectrum of P to the spectrum representing l£-theory, inducing a transformation of multiplicative cohomology theories T: { ; P}* -*• K*. PROPOSITION 1. For any space, X the ring-homomorphism T:{X;P}°-*K<>(X) is mirjective. COEOLLAKY. The space QP is (up to homotopy) the product of BU and a space with finite homotopy groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Sheaves and Homotopy Theory
    SHEAVES AND HOMOTOPY THEORY DANIEL DUGGER The purpose of this note is to describe the homotopy-theoretic version of sheaf theory developed in the work of Thomason [14] and Jardine [7, 8, 9]; a few enhancements are provided here and there, but the bulk of the material should be credited to them. Their work is the foundation from which Morel and Voevodsky build their homotopy theory for schemes [12], and it is our hope that this exposition will be useful to those striving to understand that material. Our motivating examples will center on these applications to algebraic geometry. Some history: The machinery in question was invented by Thomason as the main tool in his proof of the Lichtenbaum-Quillen conjecture for Bott-periodic algebraic K-theory. He termed his constructions `hypercohomology spectra', and a detailed examination of their basic properties can be found in the first section of [14]. Jardine later showed how these ideas can be elegantly rephrased in terms of model categories (cf. [8], [9]). In this setting the hypercohomology construction is just a certain fibrant replacement functor. His papers convincingly demonstrate how many questions concerning algebraic K-theory or ´etale homotopy theory can be most naturally understood using the model category language. In this paper we set ourselves the specific task of developing some kind of homotopy theory for schemes. The hope is to demonstrate how Thomason's and Jardine's machinery can be built, step-by-step, so that it is precisely what is needed to solve the problems we encounter. The papers mentioned above all assume a familiarity with Grothendieck topologies and sheaf theory, and proceed to develop the homotopy-theoretic situation as a generalization of the classical case.
    [Show full text]
  • Op → Sset in Simplicial Sets, Or Equivalently a Functor X : ∆Op × ∆Op → Set
    Contents 21 Bisimplicial sets 1 22 Homotopy colimits and limits (revisited) 10 23 Applications, Quillen’s Theorem B 23 21 Bisimplicial sets A bisimplicial set X is a simplicial object X : Dop ! sSet in simplicial sets, or equivalently a functor X : Dop × Dop ! Set: I write Xm;n = X(m;n) for the set of bisimplices in bidgree (m;n) and Xm = Xm;∗ for the vertical simplicial set in horiz. degree m. Morphisms X ! Y of bisimplicial sets are natural transformations. s2Set is the category of bisimplicial sets. Examples: 1) Dp;q is the contravariant representable functor Dp;q = hom( ;(p;q)) 1 on D × D. p;q G q Dm = D : m!p p;q The maps D ! X classify bisimplices in Xp;q. The bisimplex category (D × D)=X has the bisim- plices of X as objects, with morphisms the inci- dence relations Dp;q ' 7 X Dr;s 2) Suppose K and L are simplicial sets. The bisimplicial set Kט L has bisimplices (Kט L)p;q = Kp × Lq: The object Kט L is the external product of K and L. There is a natural isomorphism Dp;q =∼ Dpט Dq: 3) Suppose I is a small category and that X : I ! sSet is an I-diagram in simplicial sets. Recall (Lecture 04) that there is a bisimplicial set −−−!holim IX (“the” homotopy colimit) with vertical sim- 2 plicial sets G X(i0) i0→···→in in horizontal degrees n. The transformation X ! ∗ induces a bisimplicial set map G G p : X(i0) ! ∗ = BIn; i0→···→in i0→···→in where the set BIn has been identified with the dis- crete simplicial set K(BIn;0) in each horizontal de- gree.
    [Show full text]
  • Simplicial Sets, Nerves of Categories, Kan Complexes, Etc
    SIMPLICIAL SETS, NERVES OF CATEGORIES, KAN COMPLEXES, ETC FOLING ZOU These notes are taken from Peter May's classes in REU 2018. Some notations may be changed to the note taker's preference and some detailed definitions may be skipped and can be found in other good notes such as [2] or [3]. The note taker is responsible for any mistakes. 1. simplicial approach to defining homology Defnition 1. A simplical set/group/object K is a sequence of sets/groups/objects Kn for each n ≥ 0 with face maps: di : Kn ! Kn−1; 0 ≤ i ≤ n and degeneracy maps: si : Kn ! Kn+1; 0 ≤ i ≤ n satisfying certain commutation equalities. Images of degeneracy maps are said to be degenerate. We can define a functor: ordered abstract simplicial complex ! sSet; K 7! Ks; where s Kn = fv0 ≤ · · · ≤ vnjfv0; ··· ; vng (may have repetition) is a simplex in Kg: s s Face maps: di : Kn ! Kn−1; 0 ≤ i ≤ n is by deleting vi; s s Degeneracy maps: si : Kn ! Kn+1; 0 ≤ i ≤ n is by repeating vi: In this way it is very straightforward to remember the equalities that face maps and degeneracy maps have to satisfy. The simplical viewpoint is helpful in establishing invariants and comparing different categories. For example, we are going to define the integral homology of a simplicial set, which will agree with the simplicial homology on a simplical complex, but have the virtue of avoiding the barycentric subdivision in showing functoriality and homotopy invariance of homology. This is an observation made by Samuel Eilenberg. To start, we construct functors: F C sSet sAb ChZ: The functor F is the free abelian group functor applied levelwise to a simplical set.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendices Appendix HL: Homotopy Colimits and Fibrations We Give Here
    Appendices Appendix HL: Homotopy colimits and fibrations We give here a briefreview of homotopy colimits and, more importantly, we list some of their crucial properties relating them to fibrations. These properties came to light after the appearance of [B-K]. The most important additional properties relate to the interaction between fibration and homotopy colimit and were first stated clearly by V. Puppe [Pu] in a paper dealing with Segal's characterization of loop spaces. In fact, much of what we need follows formally from the basic results of V. Puppe by induction on skeletons. Another issue we survey is the definition of homotopy colimits via free resolutions. The basic definition of homotopy colimits is given in [B-K] and [S], where the property of homotopy invariance and their associated mapping property is given; here however we mostly use a different approach. This different approach from a 'homotopical algebra' point of view is given in [DF-1] where an 'invariant' definition is given. We briefly recall that second (equivalent) definition via free resolution below. Compare also the brief review in the first three sections of [Dw-1]. Recently, two extensive expositions combining and relating these two approaches appeared: a shorter one by Chacholsky and a more detailed one by Hirschhorn. Basic property, examples Homotopy colimits in general are functors that assign a space to a strictly commutative diagram of spaces. One starts with an arbitrary diagram, namely a functor I ---+ (Spaces) where I is a small category that might be enriched over simplicial sets or topological spaces, namely in a simplicial category the morphism sets are equipped with the structure of a simplicial set and composition respects this structure.
    [Show full text]
  • Homotopy Colimits in Model Categories
    Homotopy colimits in model categories Marc Stephan July 13, 2009 1 Introduction In [1], Dwyer and Spalinski construct the so-called homotopy pushout func- tor, motivated by the following observation. In the category Top of topo- logical spaces, one can construct the n-dimensional sphere Sn by glueing together two n-disks Dn along their boundaries Sn−1, i.e. by the pushout of i i Dn o Sn−1 / Dn ; where i denotes the inclusion. Let ∗ be the one point space. Observe, that one has a commutative diagram i i Dn o Sn−1 / Dn ; idSn−1 ∗ o Sn−1 / ∗ where all vertical maps are homotopy equivalences, but the pushout of the bottom row is the one-point space ∗ and therefore not homotopy equivalent to Sn. One probably prefers the homotopy type of Sn. Having this idea of calculating the prefered homotopy type in mind, they equip the functor category CD, where C is a model category and D = a b ! c the category consisting out of three objects a, b, c and two non-identity morphisms as indicated, with a suitable model category structure. This enables them to construct out of the pushout functor colim : CD ! C its so-called total left derived functor Lcolim : Ho(CD) ! Ho(C) between the corresponding homotopy categories, which defines the homotopy pushout functor. Dwyer and Spalinski further indicate how to generalize this construction to define the so-called homotopy colimit functor as the total left derived functor for the colimit functor colim : CD ! C in the case, where D is a so-called very small category.
    [Show full text]
  • Homotopy Coherent Structures
    HOMOTOPY COHERENT STRUCTURES EMILY RIEHL Abstract. Naturally occurring diagrams in algebraic topology are commuta- tive up to homotopy, but not on the nose. It was quickly realized that very little can be done with this information. Homotopy coherent category theory arose out of a desire to catalog the higher homotopical information required to restore constructibility (or more precisely, functoriality) in such “up to homo- topy” settings. The first lecture will survey the classical theory of homotopy coherent diagrams of topological spaces. The second lecture will revisit the free resolutions used to define homotopy coherent diagrams and prove that they can also be understood as homotopy coherent realizations. This explains why diagrams valued in homotopy coherent nerves or more general 1-categories are automatically homotopy coherent. The final lecture will venture into ho- motopy coherent algebra, connecting the newly discovered notion of homotopy coherent adjunction to the classical cobar and bar resolutions for homotopy coherent algebras. Contents Part I. Homotopy coherent diagrams 2 I.1. Historical motivation 2 I.2. The shape of a homotopy coherent diagram 3 I.3. Homotopy coherent diagrams and homotopy coherent natural transformations 7 Part II. Homotopy coherent realization and the homotopy coherent nerve 10 II.1. Free resolutions are simplicial computads 11 II.2. Homotopy coherent realization and the homotopy coherent nerve 13 II.3. Further applications 17 Part III. Homotopy coherent algebra 17 III.1. From coherent homotopy theory to coherent category theory 17 III.2. Monads in category theory 19 III.3. Homotopy coherent monads 19 III.4. Homotopy coherent adjunctions 21 Date: July 12-14, 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Quasi-Categories Vs Simplicial Categories
    Quasi-categories vs Simplicial categories Andr´eJoyal January 07 2007 Abstract We show that the coherent nerve functor from simplicial categories to simplicial sets is the right adjoint in a Quillen equivalence between the model category for simplicial categories and the model category for quasi-categories. Introduction A quasi-category is a simplicial set which satisfies a set of conditions introduced by Boardman and Vogt in their work on homotopy invariant algebraic structures [BV]. A quasi-category is often called a weak Kan complex in the literature. The category of simplicial sets S admits a Quillen model structure in which the cofibrations are the monomorphisms and the fibrant objects are the quasi- categories [J2]. We call it the model structure for quasi-categories. The resulting model category is Quillen equivalent to the model category for complete Segal spaces and also to the model category for Segal categories [JT2]. The goal of this paper is to show that it is also Quillen equivalent to the model category for simplicial categories via the coherent nerve functor of Cordier. We recall that a simplicial category is a category enriched over the category of simplicial sets S. To every simplicial category X we can associate a category X0 enriched over the homotopy category of simplicial sets Ho(S). A simplicial functor f : X → Y is called a Dwyer-Kan equivalence if the functor f 0 : X0 → Y 0 is an equivalence of Ho(S)-categories. It was proved by Bergner, that the category of (small) simplicial categories SCat admits a Quillen model structure in which the weak equivalences are the Dwyer-Kan equivalences [B1].
    [Show full text]
  • Exercises on Homotopy Colimits
    EXERCISES ON HOMOTOPY COLIMITS SAMUEL BARUCH ISAACSON 1. Categorical homotopy theory Let Cat denote the category of small categories and S the category Fun(∆op, Set) of simplicial sets. Let’s recall some useful notation. We write [n] for the poset [n] = {0 < 1 < . < n}. We may regard [n] as a category with objects 0, 1, . , n and a unique morphism a → b iff a ≤ b. The category ∆ of ordered nonempty finite sets can then be realized as the full subcategory of Cat with objects [n], n ≥ 0. The nerve of a category C is the simplicial set N C with n-simplices the functors [n] → C . Write ∆[n] for the representable functor ∆(−, [n]). Since ∆[0] is the terminal simplicial set, we’ll sometimes write it as ∗. Exercise 1.1. Show that the nerve functor N : Cat → S is fully faithful. Exercise 1.2. Show that the natural map N(C × D) → N C × N D is an isomorphism. (Here, × denotes the categorical product in Cat and S, respectively.) Exercise 1.3. Suppose C and D are small categories. (1) Show that a natural transformation H between functors F, G : C → D is the same as a functor H filling in the diagram C NNN NNN F id ×d1 NNN NNN H NN C × [1] '/ D O pp7 ppp id ×d0 ppp ppp G ppp C (2) Suppose that F and G are functors C → D and that H : F → G is a natural transformation. Show that N F and N G induce homotopic maps N C → N D. Exercise 1.4.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Homotopy Theory Primer
    4 Homotopy theory primer Given that some topological invariant is different for topological spaces X and Y one can definitely say that the spaces are not homeomorphic. The more invariants one has at his/her disposal the more detailed testing of equivalence of X and Y one can perform. The homotopy theory constructs infinitely many topological invariants to characterize a given topological space. The main idea is the following. Instead of directly comparing struc- tures of X and Y one takes a “test manifold” M and considers the spacings of its mappings into X and Y , i.e., spaces C(M, X) and C(M, Y ). Studying homotopy classes of those mappings (see below) one can effectively compare the spaces of mappings and consequently topological spaces X and Y . It is very convenient to take as “test manifold” M spheres Sn. It turns out that in this case one can endow the spaces of mappings (more precisely of homotopy classes of those mappings) with group structure. The obtained groups are called homotopy groups of corresponding topological spaces and present us with very useful topological invariants characterizing those spaces. In physics homotopy groups are mostly used not to classify topological spaces but spaces of mappings themselves (i.e., spaces of field configura- tions). 4.1 Homotopy Definition Let I = [0, 1] is a unit closed interval of R and f : X Y , → g : X Y are two continuous maps of topological space X to topological → space Y . We say that these maps are homotopic and denote f g if there ∼ exists a continuous map F : X I Y such that F (x, 0) = f(x) and × → F (x, 1) = g(x).
    [Show full text]
  • FOLIATIONS Introduction. the Study of Foliations on Manifolds Has a Long
    BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 80, Number 3, May 1974 FOLIATIONS BY H. BLAINE LAWSON, JR.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Definitions and general examples. 2. Foliations of dimension-one. 3. Higher dimensional foliations; integrability criteria. 4. Foliations of codimension-one; existence theorems. 5. Notions of equivalence; foliated cobordism groups. 6. The general theory; classifying spaces and characteristic classes for foliations. 7. Results on open manifolds; the classification theory of Gromov-Haefliger-Phillips. 8. Results on closed manifolds; questions of compact leaves and stability. Introduction. The study of foliations on manifolds has a long history in mathematics, even though it did not emerge as a distinct field until the appearance in the 1940's of the work of Ehresmann and Reeb. Since that time, the subject has enjoyed a rapid development, and, at the moment, it is the focus of a great deal of research activity. The purpose of this article is to provide an introduction to the subject and present a picture of the field as it is currently evolving. The treatment will by no means be exhaustive. My original objective was merely to summarize some recent developments in the specialized study of codimension-one foliations on compact manifolds. However, somewhere in the writing I succumbed to the temptation to continue on to interesting, related topics. The end product is essentially a general survey of new results in the field with, of course, the customary bias for areas of personal interest to the author. Since such articles are not written for the specialist, I have spent some time in introducing and motivating the subject.
    [Show full text]