Three applications of delooping to H-principles
Alexander Kupers

TL;DR
This paper introduces a method for establishing h-principles on closed manifolds, demonstrating its versatility through three applications including a homotopical version of Vassiliev's principle, contractibility of framed functions, and Mather-Thurston theory.
Contribution
It presents a unified approach to prove various h-principles under different conditions, expanding their applicability.
Findings
Proves a homotopical version of Vassiliev's h-principle.
Shows the contractibility of the space of framed functions.
Provides a version of Mather-Thurston theory.
Abstract
In this paper we give three applications of a method to prove h-principles on closed manifolds. Under weaker conditions this method proves a homological h-principle, under stronger conditions it proves a homotopical one. The three applications are as follows: a homotopical version of Vassiliev's h-principle, the contractibility of the space of framed functions, and a version of Mather-Thurston theory.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsHomotopy and Cohomology in Algebraic Topology · Mathematical Dynamics and Fractals · Advanced Topology and Set Theory
Three applications of delooping to -principles
Alexander Kupers
Harvard Department of Mathematics
One Oxford Street
Cambridge MA, 02138, USA
Abstract.
In this paper we give three applications of a method to prove -principles on closed manifolds. Under weaker conditions this method proves a homological -principle, under stronger conditions it proves a homotopical one. The three applications are as follows: a homotopical version of Vassiliev’s -principle, the contractibility of the space of framed functions, and a version of Mather-Thurston theory.
AK is supported by NSF grant DMS-1803766, was partially supported by NSF grant DMS-1105058, and was supported by the Danish National Research Foundation through the Centre for Symmetry and Deformation (DNRF92).
1. Introduction
In this paper we give three applications to geometric topology of two influential ideas in algebraic topology. The first idea goes back to Smale’s work on immersions and concerns “-principles” reducing geometric problems to homotopy-theoretic ones [Sma59]. The other is “delooping,” which goes back to the recognition principle for iterated loop spaces [May72]. We will apply these techniques to give general conditions under which an -principle holds on closed manifolds, and check these conditions are satisfied in three examples. These examples will be a homotopical version of Vassiliev’s -principle, the contractibility of the space of framed functions, and a version of Mather-Thurston theory.
1.1. -principles on closed manifolds
Following Gromov, in this paper we study invariant topological sheaves on -manifolds [Gro86]. The prototypical examples are sheaves of smooth functions which do not have singularities of a certain type. More precisely, such sheaves assign to each open subset of a manifold the space of smooth functions on whose singularities do not belong to a set of singularities fixed beforehand. This describes a sheaf since one can restrict and glue such functions, and it is invariant if and only if the set is invariant under diffeomorphisms.
Given an invariant topological sheaf , one can construct a germ map to a sheaf which has values weakly equivalent to a space of sections of a bundle with fiber . For the sheaf of smooth functions whose singularities do not belong to the subset of the space of -jets of smooth functions, is the space of sections of the subbundle of the -jet bundle given by the complement of , and sends a function to its -jet. Thus the map is given by the inclusion of functions into “formal functions.” Alternatively, one can think it as the inclusion of “holonomic sections” into all sections.
To say that satisfies a (parametrized) -principle is to say that the germ map is a weak equivalence [EM02]. Spaces of sections are purely homotopy-theoretic and can be understood using the calculational tools of homotopy theory, so an -principle reduces a geometric problem to a more tractable homotopy-theoretic problem. Thus -principles provide a valuable connection between geometry and homotopy theory, and it is desirable to have general conditions under which satisfies an -principle.
Gromov gives such conditions for sheaves on open manifolds [Gro86]. A manifold is said to be open if none of its path components is compact. We denote the elements of on that satisfy a boundary condition near by .
Theorem 1.1** (Gromov).**
Let , or , and suppose is a microflexible -invariant topological sheaf on -dimensional manifolds.
Then there exists a flexible -invariant sheaf , whose values are weakly equivalent to a space of sections with fiber , and a map of sheaves such that
[TABLE]
is a weak equivalence for all open -manifolds of dimension and boundary conditions near .
To prove our results we use an extension of this theory to closed manifolds. This extension uses delooping techniques to show that a sufficient condition for to satisfy an -principle on closed manifolds is that it is group-like. This condition can take one of the following forms, the first visibly weaker than the second (for detailed definitions see Subsections 3.2 and 3.3):
**(H): **
the connected components of the values of on the cylinder form a groupoid,
**(W): **
(H) holds and composing with an element representing an identity is a weak equivalence.
Theorem A**.**
Let , or , and suppose is a microflexible -invariant topological sheaf on -dimensional manifolds.
- (i)
If is satisfies condition (H), then the map
[TABLE]
is homology equivalence for all -manifolds of dimension and boundary conditions near . 2. (ii)
If is satisfies condition (W), then the map
[TABLE]
is weak equivalence for all -manifolds of dimension and boundary conditions near .
Though variations of this result are known among experts, we give its proof. In particular, Michael Weiss, Søren Galatius, Nathan Perlmutter and Chris Schommer-Pries independently have obtained a version of part (ii) in unpublished work. Furthermore, Emanuele Dotto gave a way to deduce relative -principles from non-relative ones using similar ideas and as an application gives an alternative proof of the Madsen-Weiss theorem [Dot14]. The earliest source of the “categorical approach” to -principles known to the author is a collection of lecture notes due to Michael Weiss [Wei15].
1.2. Applications
The goal of this paper is to give three applications of Theorem A. The first is the contractibility of the space of framed functions, see Corollary 6.4. It was originally proven by Eliashberg-Mishachev [EM12], and Galatius used techniques similar to ours in an unpublished proof.
Corollary B**.**
The space of framed functions is contractible for all smooth manifolds and boundary conditions near .
Our second application is a generalization of Vassiliev’s -principle [Vas92], see Corollary 5.12. It will be a consequence of Thom’s jet transversality theorem and implies the -principle for generalized Morse functions proven in [EM00].
Corollary C**.**
Suppose is a smooth manifold and is a closed -invariant stratified subset of codimension at least of the space of -jets of smooth functions . Let denote the space of functions to with -jet avoiding , then the map
[TABLE]
is a homology equivalence for all smooth manifolds of dimension and boundary conditions near . If is additionally -invariant, then this map is in fact a weak equivalence.
Finally, we give short proof of a version of Mather-Thurston theory for foliations. Let denote the space of codimension -foliations as in Definition 7.2. There is a unique such foliation on a single manifold , which we can take as a boundary condition near .
Corollary D**.**
The map is a homology equivalence for all -manifolds of dimension .
1.3. Conventions
We fix some conventions.
Convention 1.2**.**
Fix a category of manifolds: , , . All our manifolds are second countable and metrizable (which implies Hausdorff and paracompact).
Convention 1.3**.**
The category of spaces will be as in Appendix A.
1.4. Acknowledgements
Alexander Kupers is supported by NSF grant DMS-1803766. We would like to thank Søren Galatius for sharing his ideas on -principles and much helpful advice, Oscar Randal-Williams and Johannes Ebert for pointing out a mistake in an earlier version of this paper, and Sam Nariman for comments on an early draft. We thank the referee for helpful comments and suggestions, and Chris Schommer-Pries and Michael Weiss for historical comments. Furthermore, we would like to thank Yasha Eliashberg, Daniel Alvarez-Gavela, Jeremy Miller, and Nathan Perlmutter for stimulating discussions about various -principles.
Contents
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Invariant topological sheaves
- 3 Group-like invariant topological sheaves
- 4 -principles on closed manifolds
- 5 Application I: Vassiliev’s -principle
- 6 Application II: framed functions
- 7 Application III: foliations
- A Categories of spaces
2. Invariant topological sheaves
In this section we discuss the objects appearing in our -principle.
2.1. Sheaves
In this subsection we will define the -invariant topological sheaves that are the subject of this paper. To do so, we start by defining topological categories of different types of manifolds and embeddings. For us, topological category has a set or class of objects and spaces of morphisms. In many examples one can make the objects form a set by requiring their underlying sets are subsets of some sufficiently large set, e.g. in the next definition; we will ignore such issues.
Definition 2.1**.**
Let be the topological category defined as follows:
Objects are -dimensional -manifolds without boundary.
Morphism spaces are given by spaces of -embeddings: that is, is the object of which assigns to a parametrizing manifold the set of -maps over that are -isomorphisms onto their image.
We can now define -invariant topological sheaves.
Definition 2.2**.**
Let be , or .
A -invariant topological presheaf on -dimensional -manifolds is a continuous functor . That is, there are continuous maps compatible with composition and identities.
A -invariant topological sheaf on -dimensional -manifolds is a presheaf that has the property that for all open covers of the following diagram is an equalizer in :
[TABLE]
A map of -invariant topological sheaves is a continuous natural transformation.
For , we shall often use for the induced pullback map . The exception is when is inclusion of codimension zero submanifold of , in which case we use . It is more intuitive for to think of as a pushforward map and thus we introduce the notation . Though we will not use this, we point out that the gluing property implies that the functoriality of -invariant topological sheaf automatically extends from embeddings to immersions.
Example 2.3**.**
We give a number of examples of -invariant topological sheaves:
Fix a space , and let be the space of continuous maps in compact-open topology. If , then the value on a parametrizing manifold is the set of continuous map . This generalizes to spaces of sections of bundles naturally associated to , like the following example.
Suppose , and let be the space of Riemannian metrics on , topologized as a subspace of the sections of in the weak -topology. If , then the value on a parametrizing manifold is a subset of the set of sections of over , where denotes the projection.
Let , or and . For a -manifold let be the object of which assigns to parametrizing manifold the set of commutative diagrams
[TABLE]
with the projection, a smooth manifold, a smooth submersion, and a -isomorphism. Then the -invariant topological sheaf is the subject of smoothing theory [BL74, KS77].
2.2. Boundary conditions
It is often useful to make relative definitions. In our case that means defining boundary conditions near closed subsets and considering subspaces of of elements satisfying such boundary conditions. This is the content of the following definitions.
2.2.1. Manifolds with corners
As the terminology indicates, boundary conditions will often be imposed near the boundary of a manifold. Our sheaves are not defined on manifolds with boundary, but there is a canonical way to extend to manifolds with boundary (or more generally corners, when ), as long as these are submanifolds of an object of .
Definition 2.4**.**
If is a manifold with corners contained in , then let be the directed set of open neighborhoods of in (where there is a unique morphism if ). We define as the colimit (taken in )
[TABLE]
This colimit exists because our choice for is cocomplete, given by sheafifying the colimit of presheaves, which is just the pointwise colimit of sets. These colimits are well-behaved, in contrast with colimits in .
Convention 2.5**.**
If is a manifold with corners contained in and is clear from the context (e.g. the simplex sitting inside the extended simplex ) we write for .
2.2.2. Boundary conditions
Our next goal is to define boundary conditions and subspaces of of elements satisfying a boundary condition.
Definition 2.6**.**
Let be a manifold with corners and be a closed subset of . Let be the directed set of open neighborhoods of (where there is a unique morphism if ). The set of boundary conditions of near is given by the colimit (taken in )
[TABLE]
By definition of the colimit there is a map of sets for all neighborhoods of . Thus any element of gives rise to a boundary condition near . We say that satisfies if .
Definition 2.7**.**
Let be a manifold with corners, be a closed subset of and a boundary condition. Let be the directed set of pairs of open neighborhoods of and elements of satisfying (where there is a unique morphism if and ).
We let be the subspace of of those such that , then we define the space of elements of satisfying as the colimit (taken in )
[TABLE]
Boundary conditions can be restricted and pulled back:
If , there is a map of directed sets given by considering with a neighborhood of as a neighborhood of . This induces a restriction map . We say that extends if .
If is an embedding, there is the map of directed sets given by . This induces a pullback map .
3. Group-like invariant topological sheaves
In this section we make precise the conditions mentioned in the introduction.
3.1. Microflexibility
As in Gromov’s theory [Gro86], a major role is played by the notion of a microfibration:
Definition 3.1**.**
A map is a microfibration if for all and each commutative diagram
[TABLE]
there exists an and a lift over .
As expected, the condition of microflexibility requires certain maps to microflexible.
Definition 3.2**.**
We say that a -invariant topological sheaf is microflexible if for all pairs of of compact subsets in , the restriction map
[TABLE]
is a microfibration.
Having a condition for all compact subsets makes microflexiblity seem hard to check. However, the following lemma say it suffices to check this condition only for particular .
Lemma 3.3**.**
A -invariant topological sheaf is microflexible for all pairs of compact subsets if and only if it is microflexible for all pairs where is -dimensional submanifold admitting a finite handle decomposition and is obtained from by adding a single handle.
Proof.
The direction is obvious. For we note that since a composition of microfibrations is a microfibration, the right hand side implies the case where is obtained from by attaching finitely many handles. To obtain the left hand side, we note that for every pair of opens containing there exists a pair of compact -dimensional manifolds with finite handle decompositions such that . To see this, subdivide the handles in some handle decomposition of sufficiently many times. In the case of compact topological 4-manifolds, which might not admit a handle decomposition, one must first remove some points and use that every topological 4-manifold without compact path components is smoothable. ∎
3.2. Condition (H)
We now start discussing senses in which a sheaf can be group-like. The statements will involve non-unital categories, i.e. a category without specified identity elements.
Definition 3.4**.**
We define a topological non-unital category as follows:
Objects are pairs of a real number and a boundary condition .
The space of morphisms from to is given by
[TABLE]
Composition of and is given by concatenation
[TABLE]
glued using the sheaf property of and the fact that and both coincide with on an open neighborhood of in .
For condition (H), what is relevant is not the actual category but its category of path components.
Definition 3.5**.**
From we construct a non-unital category as follows:
Objects are boundary conditions .
Morphisms from to are given by the set .
Composition is given by concatenation and rescaling
[TABLE]
where is obtained from a -isomorphism equal to near and to near , and is the -isomorphism given by . To check composition is well-defined and associative, one uses that is -invariant.
Having identities is a property, not a structure. An element is an identity element if composition on the left (resp. right) with it induces the identity on all morphism sets (resp. ). If a non-unital category admits identity elements, these are unique: if contains identity elements and , then these satisfy . Recall that a unital category is a groupoid if each morphism has an inverse.
Definition 3.6**.**
We say that satisfies condition (H) if the category is a groupoid.
Example 3.7**.**
If consists of a single element for all boundary conditions and , then is a groupoid.
3.3. Condition (W)
The next condition is a strengthening of condition (H).
Definition 3.8**.**
The components of a category are given by the set of objects of under the equivalence relation generated by declaring if there is a morphism .
The set of components of is in natural bijection with , the path components of its classifying space.
Definition 3.9**.**
We say a boundary condition is fillable if .
If condition (H) is satisfied, then the full subcategory of on fillable boundary conditions is a union of path components. This definition may seem ambiguous, as bounds two different disks and . However, part (i) of Theorem A, which does not depend on condition (W) or the notion of fillable boundary conditions, implies the following:
Lemma 3.10**.**
Let , and suppose that satisfies condition (H). Then if and only if .
Proof.
Let denote the boundary condition obtained from by reflection in , then we may equivalently prove that if and only if . By symmetry, it suffices to prove the implication . If condition (H) holds, then Theorem A(i) says that
[TABLE]
is an isomorphism, and similarly for . As , we may thus assume that . But for such sheaves we may easily construct an element in by taking the section to be independent of ; concatenation with this element proves is non-empty if is non-empty.∎
Definition 3.11**.**
We say satisfies condition (W) if it satisfies condition (H) and in each fillable component of , there exist boundary conditions , , real numbers , and an element , such that all maps are weak equivalences.
Example 3.12**.**
Condition (W) is particularly easy to check in the situation of Example 3.7; one just needs to find a single element which acts by a weak equivalence. Often this takes the form of a “constant” or “linear” element.
3.4. Flexible sheaves
We will describe a closely related class of sheaves that always satisfy conditions (H) and (W). These were studied by Gromov [Gro86].
Definition 3.13**.**
We say that a -invariant topological sheaf is flexible if for all pairs of of compact subsets in , the restriction map
[TABLE]
is a Serre fibration.
As in Lemma 3.3, it suffices to check this only for those where is a -dimensional submanifold with a finite handle decomposition and is obtained from by attaching a single handle.
Example 3.14**.**
If is obtained by taking sections of some natural bundle over , then will be flexible, as restricting sections along a cofibration is a Serre fibration. In particular, the sheaf of Riemannian metrics from Example 2.3, is flexible.
As Serre fibrations are microfibrations, a flexible sheaf is microflexible. It also always satisfies conditions (H) and (W).
Lemma 3.15**.**
A flexible sheaf satisfies conditions (H) and (W).
Proof.
We will show has the property that for all the maps
[TABLE]
are weak equivalences. We will give a proof in the second case, the other case being similar. Suppose we are given a parametrizing manifold and a commutative diagram
[TABLE]
then we need to construct a dotted lift making the top triangle commute and the bottom triangle commute up to homotopy rel . Without loss of generality there is a neighborhood of in over which a lift already exists.
Consider the following construction, whose use will become clear later in this proof. Pick such that and the restriction of to is independent of . By composing the bottom map with restriction to , we obtain a map
[TABLE]
There is similarly a such that the restriction to is independent of .
Now pick a family of self-embeddings of with such that
- (i)
is the identity, 2. (ii)
for each , is the identity on and near , 3. (iii)
maps into .
Then there exists a CAT function that is [math] near and so that for . Consider the family
[TABLE]
The relevant property of this family is that for , the restriction of to is pulled back from , where it is independent of .
Thus, at this family coincides with the result at of the same construction applied to the map
[TABLE]
that on is equal to and on is equal to the restriction of , which is in fact independent of and hence extendable to . We can concatenate and to a family
[TABLE]
Since this is constant near , it fits into a commutative diagram
[TABLE]
Since the restriction map is a Serre fibration, there is a lift. This lift induces a homotopy rel from to a map that is in the image of . ∎
Thus Theorem A says that flexible sheaves satisfy an -principle, a result due to Gromov. Conversely, if a microflexible sheaf satisfies an -principle, then it is flexible.
Lemma 3.16**.**
Let be a weak equivalence of -invariant topological sheaves, and suppose that is microflexible and is flexible. Then is flexible as well.
Proof.
It suffices to check that for all pairs of -dimensional compact submanifolds with corners in , so that is obtained from by attaching a single handle, the restriction map
[TABLE]
is a Serre fibration. We know it is a microfibration and there is a weak equivalence to a flexible sheaf. Note that the fiber over is given by , and similarly for , and by assumption the induced map on fibers is a weak equivalence. Now apply the result in [Rap17], which says that if we have a commutative diagram
[TABLE]
such that
- (i)
is a microfibration, 2. (ii)
is a Serre fibration, 3. (iii)
for all , the induced map on fibers is a weak equivalence,
then is a Serre fibration.∎
4. -principles on closed manifolds
We will now prove Theorem A in the following slightly stronger technical version.
Theorem 4.1**.**
Let , or . Let be a morphism of -invariant topological sheaves on -manifolds. Suppose that
- (i)
* is microflexible,* 2. (ii)
* is flexible, and* 3. (iii)
* is a weak equivalence.*
Let be a -manifold of dimension , a closed subset, and a boundary condition.
If is satisfies condition (H), then the map
[TABLE]
is homology equivalence.
If is satisfies condition (W), then the map
[TABLE]
is weak equivalence.
To deduce Theorem A, one uses that Gromov constructed for each microflexible -invariant sheaf a natural -invariant flexible sheaf with a map of sheaves. He further proved that is weakly equivalent to the space of sections of the bundle over , which has fiber . This is described for in Section 2.2.2 of [Gro86] and in general in Appendix V.A of [KS77], the latter of which explicitly avoids assuming the existence of a handle decomposition when , which may not exist in dimension 4. We will need the precise statement of Gromov’s -principle for open manifolds, previously Theorem 1.1:
Theorem 4.2** (Gromov-Siebenmann).**
Let be a map of -invariant sheaves. Suppose that
- (i)
* is microflexible,* 2. (ii)
* is flexible, and* 3. (iii)
* is a weak equivalence.*
Let be a manifold, be a closed subset so that has no path components with compact closure in , and be a boundary condition. Then
[TABLE]
is a weak equivalence.
4.1. Composition of cylinders
We start by proving that under conditions (H) or (W) composition with a morphism in is a homology equivalence or a weak equivalence. It will be useful to consider the following intermediate notion.
Definition 4.3**.**
A map is a semi-equivalence if for all parametrizing manifolds with boundary and commutative diagrams
[TABLE]
there is a map such that the top and bottom triangle commute up to independent homotopy (thus we do not require the homotopy for the bottom triangle to be rel ).
Lemma 4.4**.**
A semi-equivalence is a homology equivalence and is injective on homotopy groups.
Proof.
We start with the second claim. Suppose that becomes null-homotopic after composition with , i.e. there is a commutative diagram
[TABLE]
Since is a semi-equivalence, we can find a map such that . By gluing this homotopy to we get a map whose restriction to is , exhibiting as already being zero in . (The homotopy for the bottom triangle plays no role in this argument.)
For the first claim we use Lemma A.13 which says that a map is a homology equivalence if and only if it is an oriented bordism equivalence. For injectivity, suppose that becomes null-cobordant after composition with , i.e. there is an -dimensional compact oriented manifold and a commutative diagram
[TABLE]
Then the same argument as above with replacing proves that was already zero in .
For surjectivity, suppose we have an , represented by an -dimensional closed oriented manifold together with a map . Then we can think of this as a commutative diagram
[TABLE]
Since is semi-equivalence, there is a map such that . Thus represents an element in which is mapped to by . ∎
Let us now return to the task at hand, proving that condition (H) or (W) imply composition in is a homology equivalence or a weak equivalence.
Proposition 4.5**.**
Let be a -invariant topological sheaf on -manifolds. For and an element
[TABLE]
consider the map
[TABLE]
- (i)
If satisfies condition (H), the map is a semi-equivalence as in Definition 4.3. 2. (ii)
If satisfies condition (W) and (or equivalently or is fillable, the map is a weak equivalence.
Proof.
We start with part (i). We have to prove that for each compact parametrizing manifold with boundary and each commutative diagram
[TABLE]
there is a dotted lift such that the top and bottom triangle independently commute up to homotopy.
Since our category of spaces is , there exist an open neighborhood of such that is independent of and an open neighborhood of such that is independent of . Let be such that and let denote the restriction of to for any (it is by construction independent of ). Similarly, let be such that and let and denote the restrictions of to and respectively, so that . Then we can factor (1) as
[TABLE]
where , , and are uniquely determined by demanding this diagram is a factorization of (1).
By condition (H), the morphism of has an inverse, which we can represent by an element . We claim the lift is given by
[TABLE]
where is a -isomorphism satisfying
[TABLE]
To the sake of readibility, we shall abbreviate by , and do the same for similar maps.
To prove this is indeed the desired map, we have to check that (a) is homotopic to , and (b) is homotopic to . For part (a) we refer to Figure 4, and write
[TABLE]
The first and second step are definitions, the third is associativity of composition. In the fourth step we use compatibility between composition and -invariance. In the second-to-last step we use that fixes pointwise to see that . In the last step we use that is homotopic to , as both are representatives in of the morphism of .
For (b), , we introduce the notation and for the -isomorphisms determined by
[TABLE]
In other words, is just a translation and an extension of by a translation. We also pick a -isomorphism satisfying
[TABLE]
and define a -isomorphism by
[TABLE]
Referring to Figure 5, we write
[TABLE]
The first three steps follow from the definitions, the fourth uses and are both representatives in of the morphism in . The second-to-last is a definition, and the last step uses that -invariance and the fact that is isotopic to the identity.
We continue with part (ii). The argument for part (i) does not give a weak equivalence because is not homotopic to rel . It does show that is injective on homotopy groups, by Lemma 4.4.
For surjectivity on homotopy groups under condition (W), fix a fillable path component of and identity element in . Let us first consider a morphism in with . Note that
[TABLE]
where is a representative in of the morphism in . As was assumed to be a weak equivalence, is surjective on homotopy groups. But it was already known to be injective on homotopy groups, and hence is a weak equivalence. By the 2-out-of-3 property for weak equivalences, so is . Similarly, is a weak equivalence for any in with .
Now suppose we are given an arbitrary morphism in . Pick arbitrary , then there is a -automorphism that satisfies
[TABLE]
By -invariance, is a weak equivalence if and only if is. Thus we may assume . The element lies in as well, and thus there is a zigzag of morphisms in between and . Since is a groupoid, this implies there is a morphism from to . Take a representative of this morphism in . Taking a representative of in , we get that
[TABLE]
Since all of the maps except are weak equivalences, so is . ∎
4.2. Deformation lemma’s
The following lemma’s will be useful in our proofs. They will be used to deform families to families that are locally constant in the parameter space.
Lemma 4.6**.**
Suppose we are given a microflexible -invariant topological sheaf , an open neighborhood of whose closure is contained in , and a family .
Then there exists an open neighborhood of the barycenter contained in the interior of , such that for each -function with and , there is a homotopy satisfying
- (i)
the homotopy starts at **: , 2. (ii)
the homotopy is rel **: for all and we have , 3. (iii)
the endpoint of the homotopy is constant near the barycenter*: for all , we have ,* 4. (iv)
the homotopy is compactly supported*: for all and , with we have .*
Proof.
Pick a family of -maps satisfying:
- (i)
, 2. (ii)
, 3. (iii)
for , collapses to the barycenter.
Then we can define a map
[TABLE]
By construction this fits into a commutative diagram
[TABLE]
Since the right map is a microfibration, there exists an open neighborhood of in and a partial lift . Since contains , there is an open neighborhood of such that . Then the map is the desired homotopy. ∎
Lemma 4.7**.**
Suppose we are given a map of -invariant topological sheaves with microflexible and flexible. Suppose we are further given an open neighborhood of whose closure is contained in . If is a -surjection, then for any family , there exist
an open neighborhood of the barycenter contained in the interior of ,
an open neighborhood of the barycenter contained in ,
an element ,
such that for each -function with and , there is a homotopy satisfying
- (i)
the homotopy starts at **: , 2. (ii)
the homotopy is rel **: for all and we have , 3. (iii)
the endpoint of the homotopy is constant near the barycenter*: for all , we have ,* 4. (iv)
the endpoint of the homotopy equal near the barycenter*: ,* 5. (v)
the homotopy is compactly supported*: for all and , with we have .*
Proof.
We apply Lemma 4.6 to to obtain ; then after picking an that is near and supported in , we may assume without loss of generality that is independent of on in a neighborhood of the barycenter.
The hypothesis that is a -surjection implies that that for any we can find a path such that for some . We may then define a map
[TABLE]
This fits into a commutative diagram
[TABLE]
and flexibility provides a dotted lift . Our homotopy is then given by
[TABLE]
∎
4.3. Resolving
Let be manifold with embedding . Further suppose we have a closed subset disjoint from the image of , and a boundary condition . We will “resolve” the space by cutting along lines . The result will be a weakly-equivalent semisimplicial space, and for background on semisimplicial spaces we recommend [ERW17].
Definition 4.8**.**
The augmented semisimplicial space is defined as follows.
The space of -simplices is given by a disjoint union over the indexing set of -tuples of real numbers and boundary conditions so that , of terms given by
[TABLE]
The -simplices are given by .
The th face map forgets and , and uses the sheaf property to glue the elements of .
The augmentation map forgets the real numbers and boundary conditions, and uses the sheaf property to glue the elements of .
Proposition 4.9**.**
Suppose that is a -invariant microflexible sheaf. Then the augmentation induces a weak equivalence .
Proof.
Since all our manipulations will be compactly-supported in the image of , we may assume and consequently simplify the notation. We will prove that is a weak equivalence using Lemma 4.6. We do this by showing for all compact parametrizing manifolds with boundary , there exists a dotted map in each commutative diagram
[TABLE]
making the top triangle commute and the bottom triangle commute up to homotopy rel . Without loss of generality we may assume that a dotted map extending exists over a collar of in . We shall write for .
Claim: We may assume that for each there is at least one such that the restriction of near is independent of near .
Proof.
Near the map may be heuristically described as an element given by a map together with a finite collection of slices with weights in summing to . By compactness of , we may assume that over only a finite collection of values is used for the slices.
Pick pairwise disjoint intervals in which are disjoint from the finite set . We also pick for each an embedded simplex with barycenter mapping to .
For each and , apply Lemma 4.6 to the family obtained from by identifying with and identifying with . Its conclusion is that there exists open neighborhoods of and of , such that for each -function supported in there is a deformation supported in in the domain and in in the codomain, which starts at and ends at an which satisfies for . By replacing with and by , we may without loss of generality assume that and for all , and thus we henceforth drop the subscripts.
Since is an -dimensional -manifold, it has Lebesgue covering dimension . This means that there are open subsets and which (a) cover , and (b) have the property that each is contained in at most of these subsets. Since is compact, we may assume that only finitely many of these are non-empty: and for . Since is paracompact we may pick a subordinate partition of unity given by and consisting of -functions with values in , and we let denote the minimum over all of .
The finite graph with a vertex for each element of this cover and edge whenever two elements have non-empty intersection, has vertices of valence . Hence its chromatic number is , and we can assign to each a number such that for if and .
Fix a -function that is the identity on and on . Now apply for each the deformation of obtained from the function in the codomain interval . It is possible to do all of these simultaneously, because whenever these deformations have disjoint support in the codomain. The result is a new family such that for each there is at least one such that the restriction of to is independent of near .∎
The now-proven claim tells us there is an open cover of with the property that for each there exists a such that for the restriction of to is independent of near . We then construct the desired lift of to as follows. Pick a partition of unity subordinate to the aforementioned open cover, denoting the function supported in by and the function with support in by . Then the slices and simplicial coordinates over are given by with weight , and if we add to these the slices with weights .∎
We need a naturality statement for the map of the previous proposition. Before stating it, we make the following definition.
Definition 4.10**.**
Let be a morphism of -invariant topological sheaves. The augmented semisimplicial space is defined as follows.
The space of -simplices is given by a disjoint union over the indexing set of -tuples of real numbers and boundary conditions so that , of terms given by
[TABLE]
The -simplices are given by .
The th face map forgets and , and uses the sheaf property to glue the elements of .
The augmentation map forgets the real numbers and boundary conditions, and uses the sheaf property to glue the elements of .
The condition that is a -surjection in the next proposition, is implied by being a weak equivalence by Theorem 4.2. Using the same proof as for Proposition 4.9, but replacing Lemma 4.6 by Lemma 4.7, we obtain:
Proposition 4.11**.**
Let be a map of -invariant topological sheaves. Suppose that is microflexible, is flexible and be a -surjection. Then the augmentation induces a weak equivalence .
The map induces a semisimplicial map between augmented semisimplicial objects and . The reason we used a different indexing set in Definition 4.10, is to make the second part of the following proposition hold.
Proposition 4.12**.**
The following diagram commutes
[TABLE]
and for each , the map induces a bijection on the indexing sets of the disjoint union appearing in the definitions of the spaces of -simplices.
4.4. The proof
In this subsection we prove Theorem 4.1. The proof is as follows:
- (i)
We define a functor . 2. (ii)
We show that each morphism in induces on a homology equivalence if condition (H) is satisfied, or weak equivalence if condition (W) is satisfied. 3. (iii)
Using a delooping result of McDuff-Segal, we prove that is a homology equivalence or weak equivalence when is path-connected, and is fillable. More precisely, we use Section 4.3 and (ii) to deduce this from the -principle on open manifolds, here Theorem 4.2. 4. (iv)
This is then used to prove that is a homology equivalence or weak equivalence without conditions.
4.4.1. A functor
Let us fix a manifold with . In this section we prove steps (i) and (ii).
Definition 4.13**.**
We let be the functor sending an object to the space and a morphism to the map
[TABLE]
obtained by gluing on using the sheaf property.
Proposition 4.14**.**
Let be a microflexible -invariant topological sheaf on -manifolds. For and an element
[TABLE]
consider the map
[TABLE]
- (i)
If satisfies condition (H), the map is a semi-equivalence as in Definition 4.3. 2. (ii)
If satisfies condition (W) and (or equivalently ) is fillable, the map is a weak equivalence.
Proof.
Any choice of embedding induces an embedding . By Proposition 4.9 the map is a weak equivalence. The map induces a semisimplicial map
[TABLE]
which is a levelwise homology equivalence (resp. weak equivalence) under condition (H) (resp. (W)) by Proposition 4.5. A geometric realization of a levelwise homology equivalence (resp. levelwise weak equivalence) of semisimplicial spaces is a homology equivalence (resp. weak equivalence), e.g. by the geometric realization spectral sequence in Section 1.4 of [ERW17] (resp. Theorem 2.2 of [ERW17]). ∎
4.4.2. Intermezzo on delooping
We now recall two well-known results by Segal and McDuff-Segal, for which we recommend [ERW17] as a reference. Recall a commutative diagram in
[TABLE]
is homotopy cartesian (resp. homology cartesian) if is surjective, and for all the induced map is a weak equivalence (resp. homology equivalence).
Theorem 4.15** (McDuff-Segal).**
Let be a map of semisimplicial objects in such that for all the diagram
[TABLE]
*is a homotopy cartesian (resp. homology cartesian), then *
[TABLE]
is also homotopy cartesian (resp. homology cartesian).
Proof.
The homotopy cartesian part is a consequence of the proof of Proposition 1.6 of [Seg74]. The statement of that proposition only differs from ours in its use of simplicial spaces and the thin geometric realization, which are replaced by semisimplicial spaces and the thick geometric realization in the first line of the proof. A further inspection of its proof shows that Proposition 3 of [MS76] implies the homology cartesian part. For modern proofs, see Theorems 2.12 and 6.5 of [ERW17].∎
Our application concerns a double-sided bar construction for a (possibly non-unital) topological category and two functors , . We will also assume our category has a functor , where is the non-unital poset category.
Definition 4.16**.**
We let denote the semisimplicial space with space of -simplices given by the disjoint union over -tuples of objects of satisfying of terms given by
[TABLE]
The face maps are obtained by applying for , composition in for , and by applying for .
We let denote the geometric realization .
In this setting, the conditions in Theorem 4.15 amount to the following Lemma. To simplify notation, we note there are terminal functors and sending every object to the point. We denote by , as coincides with the nerve of .
Lemma 4.17**.**
Let , and be above. Then the following hold:
- (a)
If all morphisms induce homology equivalences if , if , and , then
[TABLE]
is a homology equivalence. 2. (b)
If all morphisms induce weak equivalences if , if , and , then
[TABLE]
is a weak equivalence.
Remark 4.18**.**
Theorem 4.15 has improvements involving homology with coefficients in various types of local systems. These could be used to give variations of Theorem A for homology equivalences with such coefficients. We have not found a use for this.
4.4.3. The proof for spherical boundary
Fix a manifold with closed subset and a choice of embedded . We will discuss when is a homology or weak equivalence for a boundary condition and a (fillable) boundary condition , that is, step (iii). This is the only place where we use delooping, as described in the previous section. We will also need the following easy lemma.
Lemma 4.19**.**
Let be a -invariant topological sheaf. Then is weakly contractible for all boundary conditions .
Proof.
It suffices to prove that for all compact parametrizing manifolds with boundary , any map can be extended to a map . Since we working in , there exists an open neighborhood of in and such that for all we have that .
Now pick a -isotopy of embeddings such that
- (i)
, 2. (ii)
has image in , 3. (iii)
there is a neighborhood of so that for all .
Extend to a collar by . On , this is independent of and hence can be extended to .∎
Proposition 4.20**.**
Let be a map of -invariant sheaves. Suppose that is microflexible, is flexible and is a weak equivalence.
Let be a manifold, and a closed subset. Suppose that , and has no path components with compact closure. Fix boundary conditions and , and consider the map
[TABLE]
- (i)
If satisfies condition (H), this map is a homology equivalence. 2. (ii)
If satisfies condition (W) and is fillable, this map is a weak equivalence.
Proof.
We claim that there are weak equivalences
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
We give the proof in the first case, the second being similar. An embedding gives an embedding . By Proposition 4.9 the map is a weak equivalence. Now note that there is a semisimplicial map obtained by levelwise projecting away terms of the form . These are contractible by Lemma 4.19 and thus the realization of this semisimplicial map is a weak equivalence, e.g. by Theorem 2.2 of [ERW17].
It is easy to see from the proof that this weak equivalence in natural in and hence it follows from Gromov’s -principle — here Theorem 4.2, which uses the assumption that is a weak equivalence — that in the commutative diagram
[TABLE]
the horizontal maps are weak equivalences. Hence their homotopy fibers are weak equivalent as well. By Lemma 4.17 and Propositions 4.5 and 4.14, the induced map on homotopy fibers over the object is homology equivalent (resp. weakly equivalent) to . Thus this map is a homology equivalence (resp. weak equivalence). ∎
4.4.4. General manifolds
We now finish the proof of Theorem 4.1 by completing step (iv).
Proof of Theorem 4.1.
Without loss of generality path-connected. Any closed subset is an intersection of locally finite simplicial complexes. This may be seen using a handle decomposition of (if is a 4-dimensional topological manifold, this may not exist and one needs to use that for any point the manifold is smoothable). Thus we can reduce to the case is a locally finite simplicial complex and hence assume that there is a locally finite set of points in such that has no compact components.
For finite the proof is by induction over . In the initial case , we write and our goal is to prove that the map is a homology equivalence (resp. weak equivalence). There is an embedding sending the origin to . From this we obtain an embedding . By Proposition 4.12 we have a commutative diagram
[TABLE]
and the vertical maps are weak equivalences by Propositions 4.9 and 4.11, where in the latter case one uses the comments preceding its statement.
The map induces a bijection on the indexing sets of the spaces of -simplices. We then use Proposition 4.20 to see that is a homology (resp. weak equivalence) on each term. For weak equivalence we additionally use that by construction all non-empty terms have fillable boundary conditions. Hence is a levelwise homology equivalence (resp. weak equivalence) between semisimplicial spaces and thus so is its realization , e.g. by the geometric realization spectral sequence in Section 1.4 of [ERW17] (resp. Theorem 2.2 of [ERW17]).
For the induction step, note that to deduce the case from the case , one can use the same argument as above after replacing Proposition 4.20 with the inductive hypothesis. Finally we need deduce the statement for locally finite from that for finite : exhaust by compact submanifolds , so that is finite, and apply the sheaf property. ∎
5. Application I: Vassiliev’s -principle
In this section we discuss our first application, functions with moderate singularities.
Convention 5.1**.**
In this section, and thus all manifolds are smooth.
5.1. Sheaves of functions with restricted jets
Vassiliev’s -principle concerns functions from a smooth manifold to that do not have certain singularities, in the sense that their jets avoid certain subspaces of the jet space. We give precise definitions following Chapter 1 of [EM02], or Section II.2 of [GG73]. Let be a smooth manifold and have the weak -topology, i.e. a sequence converges if all derivatives converge on all compacts.
Given a smooth map , let denote the mixed derivatives at with respect to with :
[TABLE]
Note is the value of the function at the origin.
Definition 5.2**.**
Let be a smooth manifold of dimension . The th jet space of smooth maps from is given by the quotient space
[TABLE]
along the equivalence relation on where if for all satisfying .
We denote the quotient map by and call it the -jet map.
Example 5.3**.**
Fixing a basis in , can be identified with all -tuples of polynomials in variables of degree . Under this identification, the -jet map sends to the following -tuple of polynomials: the coefficient of in the th polynomial (where with , , and ) is given by .
The topological group of diffeomorphisms of fixing the origin acts on the right on by composition. If is represented by , we have
[TABLE]
This action factors over the quotient group
[TABLE]
along the equivalence relation of Definition 5.2 restricted to diffeomorphisms.
We can replace by . To do this, note that Definition 5.2 can be generalized to smooth maps by replacing with . Varying , we get a space with map to . This is a fiber bundle with fiber over given by , which is called the th jet bundle of maps from to .
A more explicit description of this bundle is as follows. There is a principal -bundle with total space given by pairs of a point in and an -jet of a diffeomorphism which preserves the origin. Then acts on the right by composition and we have
[TABLE]
where to make act on the left on we act by the inverse. A subset of is -invariant if it is preserved by . If so, then its complement is also preserved by and we can define and as follows:
Definition 5.4**.**
Suppose that is -invariant.
We define to be the space of sections
[TABLE]
We define to be the space of smooth functions whose -jets do not lie in :
[TABLE]
The space can be identified with the subspace of consisting of those sections that are holonomic, i.e. their [math]th jet determines the higher jets by taking derivatives. The map is then identified with the inclusion of this subspace.
We leave it to the reader to see that for any -invariant the assignments and are -invariant topological sheaves.
5.2. Vassiliev’s -principle
In Theorem 9 of [Vas92], Vassiliev proved a homological -principle for sheaves of the form under certain conditions on . His proof uses Alexander duality and interpolation theory for analytic functions to reduce the result to a finite-dimensional statement. The statement of the conditions on uses the notion of a real semi-algebraic subset of a Euclidean space; this is by definition a finite union of subsets cut out by finitely many polynomial equalities and inequalities.
Theorem 5.5** (Vassiliev).**
If and is a closed real semi-algebraic set of codimension at least , then satisfies a homological -principle on closed manifolds. That is, the map
[TABLE]
is a homology equivalence for all compact smooth manifolds and boundary conditions .
If the codimension is at least , is in fact weak equivalence, because Vassiliev proved it is a homology equivalence between 1-connected spaces. Vassiliev asked whether is also a weak equivalence if the codimension is . We will see below that under mild conditions codimension indeed suffices. We will also see that is still a homology equivalence even if one relaxes the conditions that and that is real semi-algebraic. This will follow by checking the conditions for Theorem A.
The following criterion for microflexibility is well-known, as any open differential relation gives rise to a microflexible sheaf by Example 1.4.1.B of [Gro86].
Lemma 5.6**.**
If is closed, then is microflexible.
Proof.
We need to check that for all pairs of of compact submanifolds with corners in , the restriction map
[TABLE]
is a microfibration. We first suppose that . Consider a commutative diagram
[TABLE]
There exist open neighborhoods of in and of in , and representatives and . We may assume . Now pick a smooth function with support in and equal to near . Then we can define a family of smooth functions on by
[TABLE]
Near this coincides with and for this is equal to . Since the complement of is open, there exists some such that for all the family has -jet avoiding . Restricting to gives the desired partial lift.
For general , we remark that in the previous argument addition can be replaced by any smooth function where is a neighborhood of the diagonal in , such that , and on the diagonal it is the projection onto . Such functions exist: upon picking a Riemannian metric, there is a neighborhood such that if there is a unique geodesic from to , which will depend smoothly on the endpoints. Then define to be . ∎
For condition (H) we will use Thom’s jet transversality theorem, Theorem 2.3.2 of [EM02], Section II.4 of [GG73], or page 38 of [AGZV12].
Definition 5.7**.**
Let be a smooth manifold.
A subset of is said to be stratified if it can be written as a finite union of locally closed smooth submanifolds , called strata, such that .
A map is said to be transverse to a stratified subset of if it is transverse to each stratum.
Theorem 5.8** (Thom).**
Let be a -invariant stratified subset, then the set of with jets transverse to is open and dense.
Lemma 5.9**.**
If is a closed stratified subset with strata of codimension at least , then satisfies condition (H).
Proof.
This will follow from Thom’s jet transversality Theorem 5.8, which we will use to prove the following stronger statement. Let denote the -invariant sheaf of continuous functions to and be the full subcategory of on objects with a boundary condition of the sheaf , i.e. . The inclusion induces a functor
[TABLE]
and we will show this is an isomorphism of categories. The lemma then follows by noting that is a full subcategory of a groupoid, hence a groupoid.
First we prove that contains an element in any given homotopy class, i.e. is a -surjection. Given any continuous function satisfying , near , we can smooth it rel boundary and apply Theorem 5.8 with and . This implies that we can perturb relative to the boundary to obtain a smooth function with -jet transverse to . As we working over the manifold of dimension , which is strictly smaller than the codimension of , transverse intersection means empty intersection.
A similar argument says that any two homotopic functions can be connected by a path of smooth functions with -jets avoiding , i.e. is a -injection. Take two functions in the same homotopy class rel boundary. They can be connected by a path of smooth functions satisfying and . This path can be considered as a smooth function
[TABLE]
Now we apply Theorem 5.8 with and with induced by composing with the inclusion by taking the last coordinate [math] (there is no other choice, as the origin has to go to the origin). Suppose that , which is the typical case by covering with charts. Under the identification with polynomials of Example 5.3, the map is given by setting the variable equal to [math]. For this description it follows that has -jet avoiding if and only if each has -jet avoiding . Furthermore, it implies that is a submersion and thus has the same codimension as .
Thus we can perturb to relative to , , and , to have -jet transverse to . Because the codimension of was at least and we are working over the manifold of dimension , the intersection is still empty. We can thus connect and by a path in .∎
Condition (W) does not follow from transversality and we will need additional assumptions on . We will use that post-composition gives an action of on . If , then for all compactly supported diffeomorphisms that are scaling near the origin, we have a diffeomorphism of given by
[TABLE]
We say is radially invariant if it invariant under the subgroup of of these diffeomorphisms. The standard linear map is the map if and if .
Lemma 5.10**.**
Suppose that is closed stratified subset with strata of codimension at least . Suppose that is path-connected and there exists a chart such that
- (i)
* is radially invariant and invariant under a transitive subgroup of (e.g the translations), or* 2. (ii)
* is radially invariant and .*
Then for all fillable boundary conditions , (i’) the map has an -jet which avoids and (ii’) can be connected to .
In the proof of this lemma, the radial invariance plays no role. It is included for use in the next lemma.
Proof.
We start assuming that and . We claim that for each there exists an such that and is of maximal rank.
Under hypothesis (ii), this follows because the -jets that take value and are of maximal rank are a -invariant subset of codimension (assumed to be ) in and thus the set of these -jets must have non-empty intersection with . Under hypothesis (i), since some subgroup of diffeomorphisms preserving acts transitively on , we only need to find such for one . This is always possible because the -jets that are of maximal rank are codimension [math].
Let such that and is of maximal rank. Then by the implicit function theorem there exists a local diffeomorphism fixing the origin such that is given by . Since is -invariant, this implies that the germ at of is not in , and since was arbitrary that lies in . This proves (i’). For (ii’), we note the proof of Lemma 5.6 and the fact that is contractible imply that for any two , the set consists of a single element.
Next, we describe the argument when or . By the proof of Lemma 5.6 the path components of are in bijection with homotopy classes of maps under composition. Only the trivial homotopy class is fillable, so we may assume that has image in the chart . The argument above implies that the standard linear map in that chart has -jet avoiding , proving part (i’). For part (ii’), use that both and are necessarily in the trivial homotopy class. ∎
Lemma 5.11**.**
Suppose that one of the conditions of Lemma 5.10 is satisfied. Then satisfies condition (W).
Proof.
By Lemma 5.10(i’) there exists a chart such that has -jet avoiding and by (ii’) we may assume this is in the unique fillable path component. We may as well identify the image of with to simplify notation. The relevant element of (note it determines and ) is the restriction of to . We need to prove that
[TABLE]
are weak equivalences if resp. . We give a proof in the first case, the second being similar. For the homotopy inverse we pick a family of compactly supported diffeomorphisms for satisfying:
- (i)
, 2. (ii)
is the identity on , and 3. (iii)
is given by near .
Let denote the family of radial diffeomorphisms given by if and [math] otherwise, extended to all of by the identity. The proposed homotopy inverse to maps to the function , in other words shrinking onto the smaller cylinder . A homotopy from the identity map on to is given by
[TABLE]
and a homotopy from the identity on to is given by
[TABLE]
The conditions on in Lemma 5.10 guarantee that these maps and homotopies have -jets avoiding .∎
Theorem A and the previous lemma’s imply a generalization of Vassiliev’s -principle, here stated in a bit more generality than in Corollary C. Since a real semi-algebraic subset is a stratified subset [Loj64], this Corollary implies Theorem 5.5.
Corollary 5.12**.**
Let be a smooth manifold and be a closed stratified subset with strata of codimension at least . Then satisfies a homological -principle on closed manifolds: the map
[TABLE]
is a homology equivalence for all -dimensional manifolds and boundary conditions .
Suppose additionally that is -invariant (or satisfies one of the two conditions in Lemma 5.10), then this map is in fact a weak equivalence.
Proof.
The first condition in Lemma 5.10 is satisfied when is -invariant, and by treating each path component of separately, we may assume is path-connected. We have already checked the conditions on for Theorem 4.1:
microflexibility: this was checked in Lemma 5.6.
condition (H): this was checked in Lemma 5.9.
condition (W): under the hypothesis on , this was checked in Lemma 5.11.
Since is a sheaf of sections, it is flexible. Hence it suffices to check that the map which assigns a function its germ at the origin, is a weak equivalence. This is Lemma 5.13.∎
Lemma 5.13**.**
If is a closed -invariant subset of , then the map which assigns to a function its germ at the origin
[TABLE]
is a weak equivalence.
Proof.
The evaluation maps and fit into a commutative diagram
[TABLE]
These maps are Serre fibrations, using the isotopy extension theorem and -invariance of . It thus suffices to prove that the map on fibers is a weak equivalence. That is, we must prove that for all we can find a dotted lift in each commutative diagram
[TABLE]
making the top triangle commute and the bottom triangle commute up to homotopy rel .
We pick a chart in so that the origin goes to and show how to reduce to . By zooming in on the origin, we can simultaneously homotope and so that they have image in . Applying this homotopy changes the diagram by a homotopy of diagrams, so it suffices to prove that for all we can find a dotted lift in each commutative diagram
[TABLE]
making the top triangle commute and the bottom triangle commute up to homotopy rel . Here is given by and denotes the space of functions preserving the origin and with -jet avoiding . Finding such a lift is possible if and only if the map is a weak equivalence.
Let be the space of -tuples of polynomials of degree , which at the origin take value [math] and have -jet avoiding ; by Example 5.3 .
To prove that is a weak equivalence, we use Taylor’s theorem. Taylor’s theorem tells us that any smooth function can be written as , where is a polynomial of degree and is a function such that . Similarly, if is a function with , we can apply Taylor approximation to each component separately. We use the same notation.
If , for all
[TABLE]
has -jet at the origin avoiding . This follows from the fact that the -jet of at the origin is independent of and the statement is true for . Each function does not necessarily lie in , but since is closed there exists some such that restricted to does.
Now suppose we are given a commutative diagram
[TABLE]
then it suffices to produce a dotted lift making the top triangle commute and the bottom triangle commute up to homotopy rel . Since Taylor approximation is continuous in the function, there is a continuous function such that restricted to the disk of radius around the origin lies in .
Pick a family of embeddings such that (i) each is the identity near the origin, (ii) restricted to is the identity, and (iii) has image in . We write and define as:
[TABLE]
This is the desired lift. ∎
Example 5.14**.**
Let be the subset of consisting of the -jets of such that , and the Hessian is degenerate. This is -invariant and has codimension , and so Vassiliev’s homological -principle applies to . This was a crucial ingredient in the original proof of the Madsen-Weiss theorem, see Section 4 of [MW07]. It is not used in later proofs, e.g. [GTMW09]. Now remark that is also radially invariant, so satisfies condition (ii) of Lemma 5.10. Thus Corollary 5.12 says in fact satisfies a homotopical -principle.
5.3. Maps to the line
As an example we discuss the smallest set of singularities sufficient to apply Corollary C to maps to . That is, we explain which singularities of maps one needs to include to get to be sufficient codimension. Given a smooth map , we say that is of the form near if there exist charts around and such that is equal to near the origin in the coordinates from these charts.
Definition 5.15**.**
Let be a smooth manifold of dimension and be a smooth map.
A point is a critical point of if .
A critical point of is said to be a Morse singularity of index if near the function is of the form:
[TABLE]
A critical point of is said to be a birth-death singularity of index if near the function is of the form
[TABLE]
See Figure 6 for examples.
Definition 5.16**.**
Let be the space of smooth functions that only have Morse or birth-death singularities. This is called the space of generalized Morse functions.
The following -principle was proven in a range by Igusa by singularity theory [Igu84a], on homology by Vassiliev using Alexander duality and interpolation techniques [Vas92] and in general by Eliashberg and Mishachev using wrinkling [EM00].
Corollary 5.17** (Eliashberg-Mishachev).**
The map
[TABLE]
is a weak equivalence for all and boundary conditions .
Proof.
To apply Corollary C, one remarks that the set of Morse or birth-death germs is -invariant and hence it suffices to prove it is of sufficient codimension. This follows from the well-known results of Morse and Cerf that generic smooth functions have only Morse singularities and generic 1-parameter families of smooth functions have only Morse and birth-death singularities.∎
Remark 5.18**.**
In general, one may use the Boardman codimension formula as in Section 2.4-2.6 of [AGZV12]. This says that singular subset in of a generic smooth map can be stratified by strata . These are defined recursively. The top stratum is the subset where the rank drops by . Similarly the other strata are inductively defined by setting to be the subset of where the derivative of restricted to drops by . A necessary condition is thus that .
Boardman’s codimension formula says that the codimension of is given by
[TABLE]
where is the number of sequences of integers such that , and . If the value of this expression is negative, no such singularities occur, and if the value of this expression is [math], it is a non-singular point. We are interested when , as those strata occur in 1-parameter families. Let’s start with the case . In that case , so this is positive if and then only if . Since , we conclude that for to occur it must start with . In the case we get a value only if and in that case in fact equals . This makes clear that no higher strata can occur, as the codimension of must increase. Finally one checks that and indeed correspond to Morse and birth-death singularities.
The homotopy type of is known. The argument below was given in Section 3 of [Igu84b]. We recall it for the convenience of the reader and will use it in Section 6.
Lemma 5.19** (Igusa).**
* is weakly equivalent to the join , where is the homotopy pushout of the following diagram:*
[TABLE]
Sketch of proof.
By the proof of Corollary C, is weakly equivalent to the space of -jets at the origin of functions with only Morse or birth-death singularities at the origin. We can identify this with the space of polynomials of degree in variables satisfying the same condition.
We will next prove that is homotopy equivalent to , where is the subspace of of polynomials with value and first derivative at the origin given by [math]. This follows since for a closed subset , while (see Lemma 3.1 of [Igu84b] for more details).
We end by proving that is homotopy equivalent to the homotopy pushout . Let be the subspace of polynomials with Morse singularities of index or birth-death singularities of index at the origin. Let be the subspace of polynomials with a birth-death singularity of index at the origin. Then is a push out:
[TABLE]
The maps are cofibrations, so this is also a homotopy push out. Hence it remains to identify and , and the maps between these.
Let be the Hessian of at the origin. Sending to the splitting of in positive eigenspace, negative eigenspace and kernel, and recording the framing of gives a map . This is a fibration with convex fibers, so a weak equivalence. Similarly, there is a map sending to . If , it sends it to and if we use the previous maps composed with the inclusion into . This is again a fibration with convex fibers. It also identifies the maps with the standard inclusions of Grassmannians. ∎
Example 5.20**.**
Our -principle implies that . Since the tangent bundle of is trivial, to prove this we only need to identify . By Lemma 5.19 it is , and , being the homotopy push out of
[TABLE]
where corresponds to birth-death singularities with opposite positive direction of on the kernel of . The two ’s correspond to a local minimum and maximum respectively. So the answer is . A generator of is given as follows. Write with coordinates with , and under the equivalence relation . Then the following is a generator of , see Figure 6:
[TABLE]
5.4. Maps to the plane
One application of the study of generalized Morse functions is pseudoisotopy theory [Igu88]. To study higher-dimensional versions of pseudoisotopy theory, one needs -principles for maps to . To find out which singularities one needs to allow, one uses the codimension formula’s from [AGZV12] as in Remark 5.18.
The case of maps to the plane was considered in [RW12, RW14], and there Reis and Weiss checked which singularities to include to get sufficient codimension. For precise definitions we will refer the reader to their work, but the conclusion is that a generic smooth map only has fold singularities, and a generic -parameter family of smooth maps only has fold, cusp, lips, beak-to-beak and swallowtail singularities. These singularities are invariant under diffeomorphisms of and . Let denote the functions that only have such singularities. The jet map was shown to be a homology equivalence in [RW14], but we prove it is actually a weak equivalence:
Corollary 5.21**.**
The map
[TABLE]
is a weak equivalence for all -dimensional manifolds and boundary conditions .
6. Application II: framed functions
Our next application is the contractibility of the space of framed functions.
Convention 6.1**.**
In this section , so all manifolds are smooth.
6.1. Motivation and definition
While Corollary 5.17 is useful, it is not optimal for most applications because the homotopy type of is non-trivial. Thus it may not be easy to prove that families exist or extend, even with an -principle. Framed functions are designed to fix this, adding data to generalized Morse functions to get spaces which not only satisfy an -principle but also have the property that is contractible.
The problem exhibited by the generator of in Example 5.20, is that while the birth-death singularities have a preferred direction at the origin the local minimum and maximum do not. Indeed, recall that , with the latter a join of – coming from the two possible signs of non-zero derivative at the origin – with the homotopy push out :
[TABLE]
where corresponds birth-death singularities with opposite directions and the two ’s correspond to the local minimum and maximum. If we had decorations singling out a preferred direction at the local maximum, would be replaced by the contractible pushout of mapping into and :
[TABLE]
In general the problem is that the space of Morse functions behaves more like a Grassmannian than a Stiefel manifold, which Igusa fixed by modifying the definitions to include a framing of the negative eigenspaces of the Hessian, defined as follows. Pick a Riemannian metric on . If has a Morse singularity at , then we can consider the Hessian as a linear map . This linear map is invertible if the Hessian is non-degenerate and has real eigenvalues since the Hessian was symmetric. By definition, the negative eigenspace is the subspace of spanned by the eigenvectors corresponding to negative eigenvalues.
Next, suppose has a birth-death singularity at . Then as a linear map has a one-dimensional kernel . On the orthogonal complement of this kernel it is invertible and has real eigenvalues. On the kernel , the third derivative gives a well-defined homogeneous map of degree 3.
Definition 6.2**.**
Suppose has a Riemannian metric and a generalized Morse function .
A framing at a Morse singularity of index of is a choice of orthonormal basis vectors for the negative eigenspace.
A framing at a birth-death singularity of index of is a choice of orthonormal vectors, such that the first are a basis for the negative eigenspace and the last vector is the unique unit vector in the kernel with having positive value on it.
Recall that denotes the space of generalized Morse functions on . For an , the subsets and of denote respectively the sets of index Morse singularities and index birth-death singularities of .
Definition 6.3**.**
We can define the space of framed of functions on as an object of . On a parametrizing manifold , it is given by maps with a framing as in Definition 6.2 for each critical point. These framings should be continuous in the sense that the basis vectors of the framings are continuous when considered as sections of over the singularity sets for and for .
6.2. The -principle
The following was proven by Igusa in a range using singularity theory [Igu87], by Lurie using obstruction-theoretic techniques [Lur09], by Eliashberg and Mishachev using wrinkling [EM12], and by Galatius in unpublished work using techniques similar to ours (in fact, his proof inspired this paper). Its main applications are the cobordism hypothesis [Lur09] and the construction of higher Reidemeister torsion [Igu02].
Corollary 6.4** (Lurie, Eliashberg-Mishachev, Galatius).**
For all manifolds and boundary conditions , the space of framed functions is contractible.
This follows directly from Theorem A and the following lemma’s. The first shows that space of framed functions on is contractible — Theorem 2.4 of [Igu87] — and the second says our -principle applies.
Lemma 6.5** (Igusa).**
* is contractible.*
Proof.
The space of Riemannian metrics is convex, hence contractible, and thus we disregard it. Carrying through the argument of Lemma 5.19, is weakly equivalent to the join , where is the homotopy pushout of the following diagram:
[TABLE]
This homotopy pushout can be computed inductively by iterated homotopy pushouts, starting at the right. Let be the homotopy pushout of
[TABLE]
If we simply get , and is obtained as the homotopy pushout of the diagram
[TABLE]
and thus . ∎
Lemma 6.6**.**
* is microflexible and satisfies condition (W).*
Proof.
Checking microflexibility is done as in Lemma 5.6 and carrying along the framings. To check condition (H) holds, we could use Theorem 1.6 of [Igu87], which says that the space is -connected. However, an elementary argument as in Lemma 1.5 of [Igu87] suffices.
Indeed, for condition (H), Lemma 5.9 says generalized Morse functions underlying a -parameter framed functions can be connected by a one-parameter family of generalized Morse functions. We can assume that there is at most one birth-death singularity in for each and will do an induction on the number of birth-death singularities.
Starting at , we can extend the framing until we reach the first birth-death singularity. If it is a birth singularity, i.e. two Morse singularities appear when first there were none, one can pick a framing arbitrarily at the birth-death singularity and extend using a local model.
If it is a death singularity, i.e. two Morse singularities disappear, one has to be careful, because the framings might not match up. In that case we need to line up an orthonormal -tuple and the orthonormal -tuple so that (i) the -tuple coincides with the first vectors of -tuple and (ii) the first basis vector of the latter goes to the positive direction of the kernel of the Hessian in birth-death singularity. Pick any path of -tuples to satisfy the second condition. We want find a path of -tuples to the remaining vectors in the -tuple. Since the space of -tuples with fixed orientation is path-connected, we can do so if the two orthonormal -tuples have the same orientation. Hence it suffices to show how reverse the direction of one of these vectors. Figure 7 shows how to do this in the 1-dimensional case by introducing two additional Morse singularities for a short time period. In the higher-dimensional case, one simply takes the product of this picture with the appropriate quadratic form.
Finally, for the additional requirements of condition (W) one takes to be , the projection to the first coordinate, restricted to the annulus .∎
7. Application III: foliations
Our next goal is to study certain spaces of foliations and reprove several famous results of Mather and Thurston, full proofs of which remain relatively hard to find in the literature.
We start by recalling basic definitions of foliation theory. A codimension -foliated atlas for a manifold consists of an open cover by with charts , so that the transition functions are -isomorphisms of the form .
Definition 7.1**.**
A codimension -foliation on an -dimensional manifold is a maximal codimension foliated atlas.
The subsets of the form in a chart are called plaques and they glue together to immersed -dimensional manifolds called leaves. One can give equivalent definitions of foliations in terms of leaves, and in the smooth case in terms of integrable distributions.
If is the projection, then a foliation on is said to be transverse to if the leaves are transverse to the fibers . We will be interested in the situation where the foliation is of codimension , i.e. the leaves have the same dimension as . In that case transversality is equivalent to the existence of charts of the following form: near each we have a chart near and foliated chart near so that . We shall take this as the definition, avoiding questions about the exact definition of transversality when .
Definition 7.2**.**
If is an -dimensional -manifold, we let denote the element of which assigns to a parametrizing manifold the set of -foliations of codimension on that are transverse to the projection to . We call it the space of -foliations on .
It is easiest to see that is a -invariant topological sheaf on -manifolds by thinking in terms of leaves; if is an embedding, the inverse image under of a partition of into leaves transverse to the projection to gives such a partition of , and similarly for families of embeddings.
Note that has a unique [math]-simplex , and when writing we shall take the boundary condition to be near unless mentioned otherwise. The space has an interpretation related to classifying spaces of groups of -isomorphisms. To state it, let denote the discrete group underlying the group of -isomorphisms of that are the identity on a neighborhood of . The inclusion induces a map on classifying spaces .
Lemma 7.3**.**
If is compact there is a fiber sequence
[TABLE]
Proof.
classifies bundles with fiber and structure group , while classifies such bundles with a codimension foliation transverse to the projection which is fiberwise supported away from a neighborhood of the boundary (this uses that is compact). Thus the homotopy fiber classifies trivial bundles with fiber but a possibly non-trivial codimension foliation transverse to the projection which is supported away from a neighborhood of the boundary.∎
The space is easy to study in our framework, as it has only as a [math]-simplex. In particular is path-connected and thus condition (H) is automatically satisfied, as in Example 3.7.
Remark 7.4**.**
Condition (W) is not satisfied. To see why, let us consider
[TABLE]
A reasonable guess for a homotopy inverse is with a -isomorphism equal to translation near the boundary. However, this can not be a weak equivalence, since the corresponding map in Lemma 7.3 is not (e.g. take ). Indeed, it is only a homology equivalence.
We can see more explicitly why this fails: is obtained from by shrinking onto and extending it by . Any attempt to “deform away” the additional part where it equals picks up a non-trivial foliation and hence does not preserve the basepoint.
Thus if we want to prove a homological -principle, it suffices to prove that is microflexible. This is well-known, e.g. Section 4 of [Sie71], and is a consequence of the following lemma.
Lemma 7.5**.**
Suppose is an -dimensional manifold and compact. Let be an open neighborhood of . Then for any map (represented by a foliation of with a neighborhood of in ), and any extension of its restriction to (represented by a foliation on with a neighborhood of in ), there exist
a neighborhood of in ,
a neighborhood of ,
a real number , and
a map ,
such that is the identity and the adjoint has the property that with the projection.
Proof.
Without loss of generality . The map will be obtained by parallel transport along leaves. For every , there exists a real number so that , and a foliated chart over . Using this chart, we see that for any point in the domain of this chart, there is a unique in so that is obtained by parallel transport of along the path in . Since the parallel transport is unique if it exists, is independent of the choice of chart.
By compactness of and there exists a finite number of such charts so that the open subsets cover . Let the minimum of the finitely many ’s, and let and be open neighborhoods of and so that .
We define to be the point obtained by parallel transport of along the path in . Uniqueness of parallel transport implies this is an embedding, and by construction . ∎
Lemma 7.6**.**
* is microflexible.*
Proof.
It suffices to prove that the restriction map
[TABLE]
is a microfibration for compact submanifolds with corners in . In each comutative diagram
[TABLE]
we must find a partial lift. Note that the map is represented by a neighborhood of in , a neighborhood of in and a foliation on transverse to the projection onto . Similarly is represented by a neighborhood of in , a neighborhood of in and a foliation on transverse to the projection onto . We may assume . Now apply Lemma 7.5 to the compact subset of the manifold , to obtain an embedding such that is a product (we may assume and in the notation of that lemma).
Using isotopy extension as in Theorem 6.5 of [Sie72], we can find a family compactly-supported -isomorphisms so that is the identity and agrees with in a neighborhood of . Pushing forward the product foliation along gives a foliation on .∎
The following is closely related to Theorems 4 and 5 of [Thu74], and was stated before as Corollary D.
Theorem 7.7** (Thurston).**
There is a flexible -invariant topological sheaf , whose values are weakly equivalent to a space of sections with fiber , so that the map
[TABLE]
is a homology equivalence for all -manifolds .
Remark 7.8**.**
For , one can identify the fibers of the section space weakly equivalent to as the homotopy fiber of a map , where is the so-called codimension Haefliger space. The case is more subtle, see [GF73, GF74].
This theorem has the following corollary, which appears on page 306 of [Thu74]. See also [McD80, Mat11, Nar17].
Corollary 7.9** (Mather-Thurston).**
For all manifolds , , and is a homology equivalence.
Proof.
It is now helpful to think of as the interior of , so that . This allows us to see that by the Alexander trick. We use this in Lemma 7.3 with to see that . In [Mat71] Mather proved that the latter vanishes.
Theorem 7.7 thus says that is acyclic. Since its an -fold loop space and hence simple, this implies it is weakly contractible. Thus for . For the remaining homotopy groups, for Gromov’s -principle on open manifolds says that is in bijection with concordance classes of codimension topological foliations on the -dimensional manifold , but there is only one such foliation. We conclude that is weakly contractible, cf. Theorem 3 of [Thu74], so using Theorem 7.7 and Lemma 7.3 the corollary follows.∎
Appendix A Categories of spaces
In this appendix we describe a category of “spaces” that in our opinion is most convenient for studying -principles: sheaves on parametrizing manifolds. We will also discuss three other choices, and their advantages and disadvantages.
A.1. Sheaves on parametrizing manifolds
A convenient category of spaces is the category of sheaves on parametrizing manifolds. Before getting into the details, we state three reasons to prefer as one’s notion of spaces:
It has convenient technical properties, in particular concerning colimits.
It is easy to do constructions locally in the parametrizing object.
It is a natural setting for geometric objects such as spaces of smooth structures or foliations. For example, it was used in [MW07] and [EGM11].
In the remainder of this appendix we will define and show that the constructions of this paper make sense in this context.
A.1.1. Basic definitions
We fix a category of manifolds, i.e. let be , or .
Definition A.1**.**
We let be the category with objects the -manifolds with empty boundary, and morphisms the -maps. We will call its objects parametrizing manifolds.
Remark A.2**.**
It may be desirable to restrict to submanifolds of , so that is a small category. We will ignore this.
Definition A.3**.**
Let be the category defined as follows:
Objects are the sheaves on parametrizing manifolds, i.e. functors such that for all -manifolds and all open covers of the following diagram is an equalizer of sets
[TABLE]
Morphisms are natural transformations.
Many desirable properties of the category of sheaves on parametrizing manifolds follow from the fact that it is a Grothendieck topos. In particular it is complete and cocomplete.
We often think of as -indexed families of objects and hence of as a moduli space. In fact, if is a -manifold then the Yoneda lemma says that the representable functor has the property that the set of natural transformation equals . Thus if we use the shorthand denoting by , the following alternative notion is unambiguous:
Convention A.4**.**
is alternative notation for an element of .
The following example should also illuminate this notation.
Example A.5**.**
There is a functor given by , with the set of continuous maps .
A.1.2. Extension to pairs
It is helpful to consider a relative version of , defined on pairs of a manifold and a closed subset.
Definition A.6**.**
Suppose we are given a closed subset , an open subset containing , and an element . Let be the directed set of open neighborhoods of (where there is a unique morphism if ). We then define as
[TABLE]
where is the inverse image of under the restriction map .
One easily sees this definition only depends on the germ of near . We will occasionally drop from the notation, when it is clear from the context.
A.1.3. Extension to manifolds with corners
There is a natural extension of a sheaf on parametrizing manifolds from manifolds without boundary to manifolds with corners.
Definition A.7**.**
If is a manifold with corners contained in , then let be the directed set of open neighborhoods of in (where there is a unique morphism if ). We define
[TABLE]
There is also a relative version of with respect to a germ in , the notation for which is .
Note that if we have and as above, with and of the same dimension, then there is an isomorphism , which depends only on a choice of an embedding of neighborhood of in such that . We will occasionally drop from the notation, when it is clear from the context.
A.1.4. Internal mapping spaces
The category has certain internal mapping spaces. Suppose is a manifold with corners contained in , is closed and .
Definition A.8**.**
We set to be the sheafification of the presheaf that assigns to a parametrizing manifold the set , where denotes the pullback of along the map .
A.1.5. Weak equivalences of sheaves on parametrizing manifolds
There are several equivalent ways to define weak equivalences of sheaves on parametrizing manifolds.
Firstly, we can extract two weakly equivalent simplicial sets out of . To do so, note there is a faithful functor , sending to the extended -simplex , defined as the span of the basis vectors in . Using these manifolds we can construct a simplicial set with , and this gives a functor . Alternatively, we can think of the standard simplices as manifolds with corners, and define a simplicial set , giving a functor . Note that for general , neither or is Kan.
Lemma A.9**.**
Restriction gives a natural weak equivalence of functors .
Since disks and spheres are manifolds, we can define homotopy groups of a sheaf on parametrizing manifolds without leaving the world of sheaves. If , then is given by the equivalence classes of , where we remark that can be pulled back along the unique map from a neighborhood of in to . The equivalence relation says that is equivalent to if there exists an element such that and . This coincides with of the internal mapping space object from to relative to on , or from relative to on .
We can also define the relative homotopy of a map . It is given by equivalence classes of pairs of and such that . The equivalence relation says that is equivalent to if there exists a and such that , , , , , and . It is a standard argument that for all if and only if induces an isomorphism on for all and base points .
Lemma A.10**.**
Let be a map of sheaves on parametrizing manifolds. Then the following are equivalent:
- (i)
For all and , induces a bijection . 2. (ii)
* is a weak equivalence.*
By Lemma A.9 we may replace by . By the remarks preceding the lemma, we may also phrase everything in terms of relative homotopy groups.
Definition A.11**.**
We say that a map of sheaves on parametrizing manifolds is a weak equivalence if one of the equivalent conditions of Lemma A.10 is satisfied.
Generalizing the remark about internal being defined in terms of of an internal mapping space object, we have the following lemma.
Lemma A.12**.**
There is a natural weak equivalence between and .
A.1.6. Homology equivalences of sheaves on parametrizing manifolds
The discussion of homology equivalences involves the generalized homology theory known as oriented bordism. We can define on directly. The abelian group is given by equivalence classes of pairs of a -dimensional oriented closed smooth manifold and a element , under the equivalence relation of oriented bordism. This equivalence relation says that and are equivalent if there is a -dimensional oriented compact smooth manifold together with a such that (where is with the opposite orientation) and , .
There is also a notion of relative oriented bordism groups for a map . The abelian group is given by equivalence classes of triples of a smooth oriented manifold with boundary , and such that . The equivalence relation says that and are equivalent if there exists a bordism of smooth oriented manifolds with boundary from to , together with and , such that , , and . It is a standard result that the relative bordism groups are [math] if and only if induces an isomorphism on .
It is a well-known fact that a map of simplicial sets or topological spaces induces an isomorphism on homology if and only if it induces an isomorphism on oriented bordism. A reference for this is Appendix B of [EGM11], but it also follows from the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence.
Lemma A.13**.**
Let be a map of sheaves on parametrizing manifolds. The following are equivalent:
- (i)
* induces an isomorphism on ,* 2. (ii)
* is an oriented bordism equivalence,* 3. (iii)
* is a homology equivalence.*
Note that by Lemma A.9 we may replace by . By the remarks preceding the lemma, we may also phrase everything in terms of relative oriented bordism or homology groups.
Definition A.14**.**
We say that a map of sheaves on parametrizing manifolds is a homology equivalence if one of the equivalent properties of Lemma A.13 is satisfied.
A.2. Other choices for the category of spaces
In this section we discuss three other categories of spaces that can take the role of in the paper, and compare them to .
A.2.1. , topological spaces
The obvious choice for a category of spaces is the category of topological spaces. Unfortunately, this category does not behave well with respect to colimits, as we will discuss now.
One might expect that maps out of a compact space commute with filtered colimits, i.e. that compact spaces are compact objects in the categorical sense. This is false: every compact metric space is the filtered colimit of its countable subsets with the subspace topology, but clearly not every map from a compact space into a compact metric space has countable image. Page 50 of [Hov99] (also see the errata) has a counterexample where the colimit is sequential and is the two point space with indiscrete topology.
However, it is true that a map factors over some under some more restrictive conditions on and the diagram . Recall that an inclusion is relatively if for any open in and any , there is an open subset of such that and . The following is Lemma A.3 of [DI04].
Lemma A.15**.**
Any map factors over some if is sequential, all maps are relatively , and is compact.
A.2.2. , simplicial sets
Simplicial sets are well-behaved with respect to colimits. In particular, every map factors over some . An additional advantage of simplicial sets is that it is easy to write down spaces of smooth structures or foliations. Their main disadvantage is that it is not easy to do local constructions. In particular, many of our proofs would require barycentric subdivisions.
A.2.3. , quasitopological spaces
Quasitopological spaces are a concept originally due to Spanier and Whitehead, and Gromov used them to replace spaces in [Gro86]. They are well-behaved with respect to colimits and allow for easy local constructions. We repeat their definition for the convenience of the reader:
Definition A.16**.**
A quasitopological space consists of a set and for each topological space a subset of (the functions of underlying sets from to ) called “continuous.” These have to satisfy:
- (i)
If is continuous and , then . 2. (ii)
If is an open cover of , then is in if all . 3. (iii)
If with , closed, then if .
A map of quasitopological spaces is a map such that for all we have . We denote this category .
It seems unnecessary that ranges over all topological spaces, including very wild ones. Indeed, other types of quasitopological spaces are appear in the literature. For example, Essay V of [KS77] restricts the test spaces from all spaces to either Hausdorff compacta or polyhedra. Furthermore, quasitopological spaces do not allow for the full generality of sheaves one might want to treat (e.g. foliations and smooth structures), without making some unnatural choices.
A.2.4. Comparing categories of spaces
We explain how to compare these different categories of spaces. We start with , and .
There is a functor given by . There is also a functor given by , with the set of continuous maps. There is a commutative diagram
[TABLE]
The functor is part of a Quillen equivalence between simplicial sets with the Quillen model structure and topological spaces with the Quillen model structure. We expect there exists also a model structure on quasitopological spaces such that is part of a Quillen equivalence with simplicial sets with the Quillen model structure, but do not know a reference for this.
In Subsection A.1 we gave functors relating , and . In particular, recall that there is a functor , given by , with the set of continuous maps . There is also a functor given by . There is a commutative diagram
[TABLE]
We also gave a functor , which does not satisfy . However, we do have the following.
Lemma A.17**.**
There is a natural weak equivalence of functors .
A weak or homology equivalence in becomes a weak or homology equivalence of simplicial sets upon applying . Thus this lemma says there is no loss in working with if one is interested in the homotopy or homology groups of a space.
However, in contrast to quasitopological spaces, we can make a more precise comparison. In Section 6.1 of [Cis03], Cisinski discusses geometric models for the homotopy category of spaces. In particular, he constructs a model structure on which is Quillen equivalent to with the Quillen model structure.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[AGZV 12] V. I. Arnold, S. M. Gusein-Zade, and A. N. Varchenko, Singularities of differentiable maps. Volume 1 , Modern Birkhäuser Classics, Birkhäuser/Springer, New York, 2012, Classification of critical points, caustics and wave fronts, Translated from the Russian by Ian Porteous based on a previous translation by Mark Reynolds, Reprint of the 1985 edition. MR 2896292
- 2[BL 74] Dan Burghelea and Richard Lashof, The homotopy type of the space of diffeomorphisms. I, II , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 196 (1974), 1–36; ibid. 196 (1974), 37–50. MR 0356103 (50 #8574)
- 3[Cis 03] Denis-Charles Cisinski, Faisceaux localement asphériques , preprint (2003), http://www.math.univ-toulouse.fr/~dcisinsk/mtest 2.pdf .
- 4[DI 04] Daniel Dugger and Daniel C. Isaksen, Topological hypercovers and 𝔸 1 superscript 𝔸 1 \mathbb{A}^{1} -realizations , Math. Z. 246 (2004), no. 4, 667–689. MR 2045835 (2005 d:55026)
- 5[Dot 14] Emanuele Dotto, A relative h ℎ h -principle via cobordism-like categories , An alpine expedition through algebraic topology, Contemp. Math., vol. 617, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2014, pp. 133–155. MR 3243396
- 6[EGM 11] Yakov Eliashberg, Søren Galatius, and Nikolai Mishachev, Madsen-Weiss for geometrically minded topologists , Geom. Topol. 15 (2011), no. 1, 411–472. MR 2776850
- 7[EM 00] Y. M. Eliashberg and N. M. Mishachev, Wrinkling of smooth mappings. II. Wrinkling of embeddings and K. Igusa’s theorem , Topology 39 (2000), no. 4, 711–732. MR 1760426 (2001 g:57058)
- 8[EM 02] Y. Eliashberg and N. Mishachev, Introduction to the h ℎ h -principle , Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 48, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2002. MR 1909245 (2003 g:53164)
