This paper develops a topological approach to classify fiber bundles over Alexandroff spaces, introducing a universal bundle and establishing categorical equivalences, thus advancing the understanding of bundle structures in this setting.
Contribution
It introduces a topological variant of the Grothendieck construction for fiber bundles over Alexandroff spaces and establishes a classification theorem and categorical equivalences.
Findings
01
Classification of fiber bundles over Alexandroff spaces with T$_0$ fiber.
02
Construction of a universal bundle for T$_0$ fiber bundles over posets.
03
Proof that all such fiber bundles are fibrations.
Abstract
We introduce a topological variant of the Grothendieck construction which serves to represent every fiber bundle over an Alexandroff space. Using this result we give a classification theorem for fiber bundles over Alexandroff spaces with T0 fiber and we construct a universal bundle for bundles with T0 fiber over posets which are cofibrant objects of the category of small categories. Moreover, we prove that our construction induces an equivalence of categories between a suitable category of functors and the category of fiber bundles over a fixed Alexandroff space. In addition, we prove that any fiber bundle over an Alexandroff space is a fibration.
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 · Algebraic structures and combinatorial models · Topological and Geometric Data Analysis
We introduce a topological variant of the Grothendieck construction which serves to represent every fiber bundle over an Alexandroff space. Using this result we give a classification theorem for fiber bundles over Alexandroff spaces with T0 fiber and we construct a universal bundle for bundles with T0 fiber over posets which are cofibrant objects of the category of small categories. Moreover, we prove that our construction induces an equivalence of categories between a suitable category of functors and the category of fiber bundles over a fixed Alexandroff space. In addition, we prove that any fiber bundle over an Alexandroff space is a fibration.
Research partially supported by grants M044 and 06/M118 of Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. The first author was also partially supported by a CONICET doctoral fellowship.
1. Introduction
Alexandroff spaces are topological spaces which satisfy that any intersection of open subsets is an open subset. Finite topological spaces are perhaps the simplest examples of Alexandroff spaces. It is well known that there exists a functorial correspondence between Alexandroff spaces and preordered sets which preserves the underlying set [1] . Under this correspondence partially ordered sets correspond to Alexandroff T0–spaces. And since any preordered set can be regarded as a small category, Alexandroff spaces constitute a meeting point of Topology, Combinatorics and Category Theory.
In addition, McCord proves in [10] that for every simplicial complex K there exists a locally finite T0–space X(K) together with a weak homotopy equivalence from the geometric realization of K to X(K). It follows that for each topological space there exists an Alexandroff space which is weak homotopy equivalent to it. Moreover, the category of posets admits a closed model category structure which is Quillen equivalent to the usual model category structure of the category of topological spaces [15, 12].
In this article we introduce a topological variant of the Grothendieck construction for functors from a preordered set to the category of topological spaces, which we call topological Grothendieck construction and which coincides with the Grothendieck construction in the case that both of them can be applied. One of the main results of this article states that every fiber bundle over an Alexandroff space B is isomorphic to the topological Grothendieck construction of a morphism-inverting functor whose domain is B. Using this result we prove that for any Alexandroff space B and for any T0–space F there exists a canonical bijection between isomorphism classes of functors from B to Aut(F) and fiber bundles over B with fiber F, which is induced by the topological Grothendieck construction. As a corollary of this result we obtain that every fiber bundle over a simply-connected Alexandroff space is trivial. In addition, we characterize the functors such that their topological Grothendieck constructions are fiber bundles. Moreover, in section 5, we construct a universal bundle for bundles with T0 fiber over posets which are cofibrant objects of the category of small categories.
Then we apply our results to prove that any fiber bundle over an Alexandroff space is a fibration. Recall that a classical result states that a local fibration111A continuous function p:E→B is called a local fibration if there is an open cover {Uα}α∈A of B such that the restriction p∣:p−1(Uα)→Uα is a fibration for every α∈A. It is immediate that fiber bundles are local fibrations. over a space B is a fibration, provided that any open cover of B has a numerable refinement [8, 14]. However, since continuous functions from an Alexandroff T0–space to the unit interval are locally constant, non-trivial open covers of connected Alexandroff T0–spaces are not numerable. Hence, this classical result does not apply to fiber bundles over Alexandroff T0–spaces.
Finally, we prove that the topological Grothendieck construction yields an equivalence of categories between a suitable category of functors and the category of fiber bundles over a fixed Alexandroff space. The key ingredient for this equivalence of categories is the concept of weak natural transformation between functors that we introduce in 7.4, which turns out to be the exact notion of arrows between functors that is needed to obtain the desired equivalence of categories.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. Notation
We fix the notation that will be used throughout this article.
•
The unit interval [0,1] will be denoted by I.
•
The Sierpinski space will be denoted by S. This is the topological space over the set {0,1} where the unique non-trivial open subset is the set {0}.
•
Let X and Y be topological spaces and let y∈Y. We define cy:X→Y as the constant map with value y.
•
Let B be a topological space. The space of paths in B (with the the compact-open topology) will be denoted by BI.
•
Let X and Y be topological spaces and let f:X→Y be a continuous function. Let ev0:YI→Y be the map defined by ev0(γ)=γ(0). We define the space X×fYI as the set {(x,γ)∈X×YI∣γ(0)=f(x)} with the subspace topology with respect to X×YI. Observe that the space X×fYI is the pullback of the diagram XfYev0YI.
•
Let B be a topological space and let α,β∈BI. We will write α∼pβ if α and β are path-homotopic. If α and β are paths in B such that α(1)=β(0), the concatenation of α and β will be denoted by α∗β.
•
Let B be a topological space and let γ∈BI. The inverse path of γ will be denoted by γˉ, and the homotopy class of γ will be denoted by [γ]. In addition, for 0≤a≤b≤1, γ[a,b]:I→B will denote the (increasing) linear reparametrization of the restriction γ∣:[a,b]→B of γ. Observe that if 0≤a≤b≤c≤1 then γ[a,b]∗γ[b,c]∼pγ[a,c].
•
Let X be a topological space. The fundamental groupoid of X will be denoted by Π1(X). The composition law in Π1(X) is defined by [β][α]=[α∗β] for paths α and β in X such that α(1)=β(0).
The fundamental group π1(X,x0) of X at some x0∈X is the full subgroupoid of Π1(X) whose unique object is x0.
•
Cat will denote the category of small categories and functors.
•
Top will denote the category of topological spaces and continuous functions. In addition, if B is a topological space, the category of objects over B in Top will be denoted by Top/B.
•
Top0 will denote the full subcategory of Top whose objects are the T0 spaces.
•
Grpd will denote the category of groupoids and groupoid homomorphisms and Grp will denote the category of groups and group homomorphisms, considered as a full subcategory of Grpd whose objects are the one-object groupoids.
•
Ord will denote the category of preordered sets and order preserving morphisms. This category will be identified with the category of thin small categories in the usual way, that is, a preordered set (X,≤) will be considered as a thin category with a unique arrow x→y (also denoted by x≤y) whenever x≤y, for x,y∈X.
•
For a category C and an object c0 of C, the category AutC(c0) is the subcategory of C with object c0 and arrows the automorphisms of c0. Note that this category is a one-object groupoid and hence, it will be regarded both as a category and as a group. In particular, for a topological space X and x0∈X, we have that π1(X,x0)=AutΠ1(X)(x0).
If F is a topological space, the category AutTop(F) will be simply denoted by Aut(F).
2.2. Alexandroff spaces and preordered sets
An Alexandroff space is a topological space in which arbitrary intersections of open sets are open.
The full subcategory of Top whose objects are the Alexandroff spaces will be denoted by ATop.
Note that for every element x in an Alexandroff space X there exists a minimal open neighbourhood of x, which is denoted by UxX (or simply by Ux). Namely, Ux is the intersection of every open neighbourhood of x. A preorder ≤ is defined in an Alexandroff space X by
[TABLE]
The open sets of X are precisely the lower sets of X with respect to ≤ and, in particular, Ux={y∈X∣y≤x} for every x∈X.
It is easy to see that this defines a one-to-one correspondence between Alexandroff topologies on a set X and preorder relations in X, which induces an isomorphism between ATop and Ord. Hence, every Alexandroff space can be regarded as a preordered set and every continuous function between Alexandroff spaces can be regarded as an order-preserving map. We will make use of this fact throughout this article without further notice.
Observe also that there are (full) inclusions
[TABLE]
In [10], M. McCord proved that the minimal open subsets of an Alexandroff space are contractible subspaces. In particular, Alexandroff spaces are locally path-connected, and then the connected components of an Alexandroff space coincide with its path-connected components. In addition, if X is an Alexandroff space then the connected components of X are the connected components of X as a preordered set, that is, if x,y∈X then x and y are on the same connected component of X if and only if there exist n∈N and z0,…,zn∈X such that z0=x, zn=y and the elements zi−1 and zi are comparable for all i∈{1,…,n}. Observe that if X is an Alexandroff space and a,b∈X are such that a≤b then there is a canonical path in X from a to b, that will be called η(a≤b), which is defined by
[TABLE]
McCord also defines two constructions on topological spaces which are particularly interesting in the context of Alexandroff spaces. These are the non-Hausdorff cone and the non-Hausdorff suspension. The non-Hausdorff cone of a topological space X is the space CX over the set X∪{+}, with + an element not in X, with the topology generated by the open sets of X. Namely, the open sets of CX are those sets that are open in X, and the whole set CX.
The non-Hausdorff suspension of a topological space X is the space SX over the set X∪{+,−}, with + and − not in X, with the topology generated by the open sets of X and the sets X∪{+} and X∪{−}.
These constructions define two functors C,S:Top→Top which restrict to functors C,S:ATop→ATop. Note that for an Alexandroff space X, the space CX is the preordered set that is obtained by adding a maximum to X, while the space SX is the preordered set obtained by adding two incomparable elements that are greater than (and not less than) every element of X.
2.3. Weak homotopy type of Alexandroff spaces
Recall that the Kolmogorov quotient of a space X is the T0–space KX=X/∼ where ∼ is the equivalence relation in X that identifies topologically indistinguishable points of X, that is, if a,b∈X then a∼b if and only if for every open subset U⊆X, a∈U⇔b∈U. For every topological space X, let σX:X→KX be the canonical quotient map. Note that for every open subset U of X, σX−1σX(U)=U and hence σX is an open map and the initial topology on X with respect to σX coincides with the topology of X. In addition, given a continuous map f:X→Y, there exists a unique continuous map K(f):KX→KY such that K(f)σX=σYf. It is not hard to see that K defines a functor from Top to Top0. In addition, if ι0:Top0→Top is the inclusion functor then the collection {σX∣X is a topological space} defines a natural transformation σ:IdTop⇒ι0K.
McCord proved in [10] that for every Alexandroff space X, any section of the quotient map σX is a homotopy inverse of σX. Hence, every Alexandroff space is homotopically equivalent to the T0–space KX.
Finally, McCord proved that for every Alexandroff T0–space X there exists a natural weak homotopy equivalence fX:∣K(X)∣→X, where K(X) is the simplicial complex with vertices the elements of X and simplices the finite non-empty chains of X, and where ∣K(X)∣ denotes the geometric realization of the simplicial complex K(X). Thus, every Alexandroff space X is weakly equivalent to the CW-complex ∣K(KX)∣.
2.4. Fundamental groupoids of Alexandroff spaces
Recall that there exists a functor B:Cat→Top that maps every small category to its classifying space, that is, to the geometric realization of its simplicial nerve [13]. It is well known that if X is a poset, then BX is naturally homeomorphic to the space ∣K(X)∣. Hence, for every T0 Alexandroff space X there is a natural weak equivalence φX:BX→X. In [4, Theorem 2.6] it is shown that this result is in fact true for every Alexandroff space. In particular, π1(BX,x0) is naturally isomorphic to π1(X,x0) for every Alexandroff space X and every x0∈X.
Recall also that there exists a functor L:Cat→Grpd that maps every small category C to a groupoid LC which is the localization of C at its set of morphisms (in the sense of [7]). In addition, there exists a functor ιC:C→LC such that for every morphism-inverting functor F:C→D there exists a unique functor F:LC→D such that F=FιC. The groupoid LC and the functor ιC are defined up to a unique canonical isomorphism by this universal property.
Now, let X be an Alexandroff space and consider the functor ZX:X→Π1(X) that is the identity on objects and maps every arrow x≤x′ in X to the path-homotopy class [η(x≤x′)]. Since Π1(X) is a groupoid, this functor is morphism-inverting and thus, there exists a unique functor ZX:LX→Π1(X) such that ZX=ZXιX. In [4, Theorem 3.9] it is shown that the functor ZX is an isomorphism and that, in fact, the collection {ZB∣B is an Alexandroff space} defines a natural isomorphism that can be restricted to a natural isomorphism (of groups) AutLX(x0)≅π1(X,x0) for every x0∈X.
2.5. The Grothendieck construction
Recall that the Grothendieck construction of a functor C:B→Cat from a small category B to Cat, is the category ∫C whose objects are pairs (b,x) where b is an object of B and x is an object of C(b). The morphisms in ∫C from (b,x) to (b′,x′) are pairs (f,g) where f is a morphism in B from b to b′ and g is a morphism in C(b′) from C(f)(x) to x′.
The canonical projection πBC:∫C→B, which maps (b,x) to b, is easily seen to be a functor and is usually regarded as an object over B.
A natural transformation α:C⇒D between functors C,D:B→Cat induces a functor α∗:∫C→∫D defined by α∗(b,x)=(b,αb(x)) for objects (b,x) of ∫C and α∗(f,g)=(f,αb′(g)) for morphisms (f,g) of ∫C.
Furthermore, the Grothendieck construction is actually a functor ∫:CatB→Cat/B from the category CatB of functors from B to Cat and natural transformations to the category Cat/B of objects over B in Cat.
Now, if B is a preordered set (or equivalently, an Alexandroff space) and F:B→Cat is a functor sending objects of B to preordered sets, then ∫F is again a preordered set, where for all (b,x),(b′,x′)∈∫F, we have that (b,x)≤(b′,x′) if and only if b≤b′ in B and F(b≤b′)(x)≤x′ in F(b′). Thus, ∫F is both a category and a topological space.
3. Topological Grothendieck construction
In this section we define the topological Grothendieck construction for functors F:B→Top, where B is a preordered set, or equivalently, an Alexandroff space. This construction, which extends McCord’s non-Hausdorff cone and suspension as well as the non-Hausdorff homotopy colimit of [6], will play a crucial role in this article.
Definition 3.1**.**
Let B be an Alexandroff space (or equivalently, a preordered set) and let D:B→Top be a functor. We define
[TABLE]
For each b∈B and for each open subset V of D(b) we define
[TABLE]
The set JD(b,V) will be denoted by J(b,V) when there is no risk of confusion.
Let \mathcal{B}=\{J(b,V)\mid b\in B\textnormal{ and VisanopensubsetofD(b)}\}. It is not difficult to verify that B is a basis for a topology on ∫D since for all b,b′∈B, for all V and V′ open subsets of D(b) and D(b′) respectively and for all (β,x)∈J(b,V)∩J(b′,V′) we have that
[TABLE]
We consider ∫D as a topological space with the topology generated by B. The topological space ∫D will be called the topological Grothendieck construction of D.
With the notations of above, note that if B=∅ then ∫D=∅.
Remark 3.2*.*
Let B be a non-empty Alexandroff space, let D:B→Top be a functor and let b∈B. Let ιb:D(b)→∫D be the map defined by ιb(x)=(b,x). It is easy to check that ιb is a continuous and injective map. Moreover, since for each open subset V of D(b) we have that V=ιb−1(J(b,V)) it follows that ιb is a topological embedding.
The following proposition states that the definition of the topological Grothendieck construction is compatible with the definition of the Grothendieck construction in the cases that both of them can be applied.
Proposition 3.3**.**
Let B be an Alexandroff space and let D:B→Ord be a functor. Thus, D can be regarded both as a functor to Cat and a functor to Top. More precisely, let ιC:Ord→Cat be the usual inclusion functor and let ιT:Ord→Top the functor that takes every preordered set to the corresponding Alexandroff space. We consider the compositions DC=ιCD and DT=ιTD. Then, the Grothendieck construction ∫DC (which is a preordered set) regarded as an Alexandroff space coincides with the topological Grothendieck construction ∫DT.
Proof.
Clearly, the underlying sets of ∫DC and ∫DT coincide. Note that for all b∈B and x∈D(b), JDT(b,UxDT(b))=U(b,x)∫DC. Thus, every open subset of ∫DC is an open subset of ∫DT. On the other hand, for every b∈B, for every open subset V of D(b) and for every (β,x)∈JDT(b,V) we have that (β,x)∈U(β,x)∫DC=JDT(β,UxDT(β))⊆JDT(b,V) since β≤b and UxDT(β)⊆DT(β≤b)−1(V). Thus, for every b∈B and for every open subset V of D(b) the set JDT(b,V) is an open subset of ∫DC. The result follows.
∎
We give now some simple examples of the topological Grothendieck construction.
Example 3.4**.**
(1) Let B a non-empty Alexandroff space and let F be a topological space. Let CF:B→Top be the constant functor with value F. Then ∫CF=B×F (with the product topology) and πBCF:B×F→B is the canonical projection.
(2) Let X be an indiscrete topological space and let B be an Alexandroff space. Let D:B→Top be a functor such that D(b)=X for all b∈B. Then the space ∫D is B×X with the product topology.
(3) Let X be the topological space whose underlying set is {a,b,c} and whose topology is TX={∅,{b,c},X}. Let f1:X→X be the identity map, let f2:X→X be defined by f2(a)=a, f2(b)=b and f2(c)=b and let f3:X→X be the constant map with value b. Let S be the Sierpinski space. For j∈{1,2,3} let Fj:S→Top be the functor defined by Fj(0)=Fj(1)=X and Fj(0≤1)=fj.
Then the spaces ∫F1 and ∫F2 coincide with the space S×X with the product topology. On the other hand, the space ∫F3 is the set S×X with topology
[TABLE]
In particular, ∫F1 and ∫F3 are not homeomorphic.
(4) Let X be a topological space and let ∗ be the singleton. Let D:S→X be the functor defined by D(0)=X and D(1)=∗. Then ∫D is the non-Hausdorff cone of X.
(5) Let X be a topological space and, as in the previous item, let ∗ be the singleton. Let B be the topological space whose underlying set is {a,b,c} and whose topology is {∅,{a},{a,b},{a,c},{a,b,c}}. Note that the Hasse diagram of the poset associated to B is
\bullet$$a$$\bullet$$b$$\bullet$$c
Let D:B→Top be the functor defined by D(a)=X and D(b)=D(c)=∗. Then ∫D is the non-Hausdorff suspension of X.
In examples (2) and (3) we can perceive a particular behaviour of the topological Grothendieck construction of a functor D:B→Top when the spaces D(b) do not satisfy the T0 separation axiom. This is made more explicit in lemma 3.5 and proposition 3.6.
Recall that K denotes the the Kolmogorov quotient functor Top→Top0.
Lemma 3.5**.**
Let X and Y be topological spaces and let f,g:X→Y be continuous maps. Then K(f)=K(g) if and only if f−1(V)=g−1(V) for every open subset V of Y.
Proof.
Let σX:X→KX and σY:Y→KY be the quotient maps.
Let V be an open subset of Y. For each x∈X we have that K(f)(σX(x))=K(g)(σX(x)), that is, σY(f(x))=σY(g(x)). Therefore,
[TABLE]
Thus, f−1(V)=g−1(V).
To prove the converse, note that for each open subset W of KY we have that
[TABLE]
Thus, for each x∈X and for each open subset W of KY we have that K(f)σX(x)∈W if and only if K(g)σX(x)∈W. Since KY is a T0–space it follows that, for all x∈X, K(f)σX(x)=K(g)σX(x). Therefore K(f)=K(g).
∎
Proposition 3.6**.**
Let B be an Alexandroff space and let F,G:B→Top be functors such that F(b)=G(b) for all b∈B. If KF=KG then ∫F=∫G.
Proof.
Since F(b)=G(b) for all b∈B, it is clear that the underlying sets of ∫F and ∫G coincide. And from 3.5 it follows that the topologies of ∫F and ∫G are the same. Thus, ∫F=∫G.
∎
Definition 3.7**.**
Let B be a non-empty Alexandroff space (or equivalently, a non-empty preordered set) and let D:B→Top be a functor. We define πBD:∫D→B as the canonical projection given by πBD(b,x)=b. When there is no risk of confusion the projection πBD will be denoted simply by πB.
In the case that B=∅, we have that ∫D=∅ and we define πBD as the empty function.
Remark 3.8*.*
Let B a non-empty Alexandroff space and let F be a topological space. Let CF:B→Top be the constant functor with value F.
Then πBCF is the canonical projection of B×F onto F.
Proposition 3.9**.**
Let B be an Alexandroff space and let D:B→Top be a functor. Then πB:∫D→B is continuous, and hence an object over B.
Proof.
Since πB−1(Ub)=J(b,D(b)) for every b∈B, the result follows.
∎
Remark 3.10*.*
Let B be an Alexandroff space, let D,E:B→Top be functors and let θ:D⇒E be a natural transformation. If b∈B and V is an open subset of E(b) then, for all (β,x)∈∫D,
[TABLE]
It follows that the function θ∗:∫D→∫E defined by θ∗(b,x)=(b,θb(x)) is continuous and hence a map over B from πBD to πBE.
It is easy to see then that the construction ∫ defines a functor ∫:TopB→Top/B, where TopB denotes the category of functors from B to Top. In particular, with the previous notations, if θ is a natural isomorphism then θ∗ is an isomorphism of maps over B from πBD to πBE.
The following example shows that the functor ∫:TopB→Top/B is not essentially surjective.
Example 3.11**.**
Let B be the Sierpinski space S (as defined in subsection 2.1, with unique non-trivial open subset {0}). Let E be the topological space whose underlying set is {a,b,c} and whose topology is {∅,{a},{a,b},{a,c},{a,b,c}}. Let p:E→B be the continuous map given by p(a)=0 and p(b)=p(c)=1.
Suppose that there exists a functor D:B→Top such that the projection πBD is isomorphic to p as maps over B. Let α:E→∫D be a homeomorphism such that πBDα=p. Clearly, D(0) is a singleton and D(1) is a topological space with cardinality 2. Moreover, applying 3.2 we obtain that α induces a homeomorphism {b,c}→D(1) and hence D(1) is a discrete space. Let x be the only element of D(0), let y=D(0≤1)(x) and let z be the only element of D(1)−{y}. Note that JD(1,{z})={z} and hence {z} is an open subset of ∫D. But α−1(z)∈{b,c} and neither {b} nor {c} are open subsets of E, which entails a contradiction.
Therefore there does not exist any functor D:B→Top such that the projection πBD is isomorphic to p as maps over B. In particular, the functor ∫:TopB→Top/B is not essentially surjective.
The following theorem gives a characterization of the functors which satisfy that the canonical projection maps associated to their topological Grothendieck constructions are fiber bundles.
Theorem 3.12**.**
Let B be an Alexandroff space and let F be a topological space. Let D:B→Top be a functor. For each b∈B let σb:D(b)→KD(b) be the quotient map.
Then πB:∫D→B is a fiber bundle over B with fiber F if and only if each of the following holds.
(a)
KD:B→Top0* is a morphism-inverting functor.*
2. (b)
For all b∈B, D(b) is homeomorphic to F.
3. (c)
For all b1,b2∈B such that b1≤b2 and for all y∈KD(b2), there exists a bijective function fb1,b2,y:σb1−1((KD(b1≤b2))−1(y))→σb2−1(y).
Proof.
Suppose first that πB:∫D→B is a fiber bundle over B with fiber F. Clearly, item (b) holds since, for each b∈B, πB−1(b)={b}×D(b).
Let b1,b2∈B such that b1≤b2. We will prove that KD(b1≤b2) is a homeomorphism and that for all y∈KD(b2), there exists a bijective function fb1,b2,y as in item (c).
Let U be a trivializing neighbourhood of b2 and let φU:πB−1(U)→U×F be a trivialization map. Clearly, the map φU can be restricted to a homeomorphism φ:πB−1({b1,b2})→{b1,b2}×F. In addition, there exist homeomorphisms α1:D(b1)→F and α2:D(b2)→F such that φ(bj,x)=(bj,αj(x)) for j∈{1,2} and for all x∈D(bj).
We will prove now that for every open subset V of D(b2), D(b1≤b2)−1(V)=α1−1α2(V). Let V be an open subset of D(b2). Let E=πB−1({b1,b2}). Since J(b2,V)∩E is an open subset of E, we obtain that φ(J(b2,V)∩E) is an open subset of {b1,b2}×F. Note that
[TABLE]
Since φ(J(b2,V)∩E) is an open subset of {b1,b2}×F and b1≤b2 we obtain that α2(V)⊆α1(D(b1≤b2)−1(V)) and hence α1−1α2(V)⊆D(b1≤b2)−1(V). On the other hand, let x∈D(b1≤b2)−1(V). Let x′=D(b1≤b2)(x). Note that φ(b2,x′)=(b2,α2(x′))∈{b1,b2}×α2(V). Since α2 is a homeomorphism we obtain that φ−1({b1,b2}×α2(V)) is an open neighbourhood of (b2,x′) in E. Thus, there exists an open subset W of D(b2) such that (b2,x′)∈J(b2,W)∩E⊆φ−1({b1,b2}×α2(V)). Note that (b1,x)∈J(b2,W) since D(b1≤b2)(x)=x′∈W. Thus, φ(b1,x)∈{b1,b2}×α2(V) and hence α1(x)∈α2(V). Then x∈α1−1α2(V). Therefore, D(b1≤b2)−1(V)=α1−1α2(V).
Thus, applying 3.5 we obtain that KD(b1≤b2)=K(α2−1α1) and since α1 and α2 are homeomorphisms it follows that KD(b1≤b2) is a homeomorphism as well.
Now, let y∈KD(b2) and let y′=(KD(b1≤b2))−1(y). Hence, y′=(K(α2−1α1))−1(y) and since σb2α2−1α1=K(α2−1α1)σb1 and α2−1α1 is a homeomorphism we obtain that α2−1α1(σb1−1(y′))=σb2−1(y). Thus we may define fb1,b2,y:σb1−1(y′)→σb2−1(y) as a restriction of α2−1α1.
Conversely, suppose that (a), (b) and (c) hold. Let b∈B and let h:D(b)→F be a homeomorphism. For each β∈B such that β≤b and for each x∈D(β) let yβ,x=KD(β≤b)(σβ(x))∈KD(b). Let φ:πB−1(Ub)→Ub×F and ϕ:Ub×F→πB−1(Ub) be defined by
[TABLE]
for every (β,x)∈πB−1(Ub), and
[TABLE]
for every (β,z)∈Ub×F, respectively.
Clearly, if p:Ub×F→Ub is the projection map then the restriction πB∣:πB−1(Ub)→Ub of πB is equal to the composition pUb∘φ. In addition, for each (β,x)∈πB−1(Ub) we have that
[TABLE]
On the other hand, for each (β,z)∈Ub×F, let xβ,z=fβ,b,σb(h−1(z))−1(h−1(z))∈D(β). Note that σβ(xβ,z)=KD(β≤b)−1(σb(h−1(z))) and hence yβ,xβ,z=σb(h−1(z)). Thus we have that
[TABLE]
Hence, φ and ϕ are mutually inverse maps.
We will prove now that φ is a continuous map. Let v∈Ub and let W be an open subset of F. Let (β,x)∈πB−1(Ub). Then
[TABLE]
Thus, φ−1(Uv×W)=J(v,(KD(v≤b)σv)−1(σb(h−1(W)))). It follows that φ is a continuous map.
Now we will prove that ϕ is a continuous map. Let v≤b and let W be an open subset of D(v). Let (β,z)∈Ub×F and let xβ,z=fβ,b,σb(h−1(z))−1(h−1(z)). Then
[TABLE]
Thus, ϕ−1(J(v,W))=Uv×h(σb−1(KD(v≤b)σv(W))). It follows that ϕ is continuous.
Therefore, πB:∫D→B is a fiber bundle over B with fiber F.
∎
Corollary 3.13**.**
Let B be a connected non-empty Alexandroff space and let b0∈B. Let D:B→Top be a morphism-inverting functor. Then πB:∫D→B is a fiber bundle over B with fiber D(b0).
Proof.
We will prove that items (a), (b) and (c) of 3.12 hold. Clearly (a) holds since D is a morphism-inverting functor. In addition, since B is connected and D is morphism-inverting we obtain that (b) also holds.
Now, let b1,b2∈B such that b1≤b2 and let y∈KD(b2). Let σb1:D(b1)→KD(b1) and σb2:D(b2)→KD(b2) be the quotient maps. Since σb2D(b1≤b2)=KD(b1≤b2)σb1 and D(b1≤b2) is a homeomorphism it follows that D(b1≤b2) induces a bijective function σb1−1((KD(b1≤b2))−1(y))→σb2−1(y). Thus, (c) holds.
Therefore, by 3.12, πB:∫D→B is a fiber bundle over B with fiber D(b0).
∎
Note that the previous result does not hold if B is not connected since the spaces D(b), b∈B, may not be homeomorphic. However, we have the following version of the previous corollary when the Alexandroff space B is not connected. Its proof is similar to that of 3.13 and will be omitted.
Corollary 3.14**.**
Let B be an Alexandroff space and let F be a topological space. Let C:B→Aut(F) be a functor and let ι:Aut(F)→Top be the inclusion functor. Then the map πBιC:∫ιC→B is a fiber bundle with fiber F.
4. Classification of fiber bundles over Alexandroff spaces with T0 fiber
In this section we will prove that any fiber bundle over an Alexandroff space is isomorphic to the projection map associated to the topological Grothendieck construction of a suitable morphism-inverting functor, which can be canonically defined in the case that the fiber is a T0–space. Using this result we will give a classification theorem for fiber bundles over Alexandroff spaces with T0 fiber.
The following proposition will be needed for our purposes.
Proposition 4.1**.**
Let B be a topological space with underlying set {b0,b1} (with b0=b1) such that b0≤b1. Let F be a topological space and let pB:B×F→B be the canonical projection. Let φ:B×F→B×F be an automorphism of the trivial fiber bundle pB.
(1)
Let pF:B×F→F be the canonical projection. For each b∈B let jb:F→B×F be the map defined by jb(x)=(b,x) and let αb=pFφjb. Then K(αb0)=K(αb1).
2. (2)
Let φ0:{b0}×F→{b0}×F and φ1:{b1}×F→{b1}×F be restrictions of φ and let cb1:{b0}→{b1} be the only possible map. Then
K((cb1×IdF)φ0)=K(φ1(cb1×IdF)).
3. (3)
If F is a T0*–space, then there exists a map α:F→F such that φ=IdB×α. Moreover, such a map α is unique and a homeomorphism.*
Proof.
(1) Note that φ(b,x)=(b,αb(x)) for all (b,x)∈B×F. In addition, αb0 and αb1 are homeomorphisms.
Let U be an open subset of F. Note that φ(B×U)=({b0}×αb0(U))∪({b1}×αb1(U)). Since φ(B×U) is an open subset of B×F and b0≤b1 it follows that αb1(U)⊆αb0(U). Similarly, αb1−1(U)⊆αb0−1(U) for each open subset U of F. Hence, for every open subset V of F,
[TABLE]
Thus, αb0−1(V)=αb1−1(V) for every open subset V of F. Then, K(αb0)=K(αb1) by 3.5.
(2) Let αb0 and αb1 be defined as in the previous item. Let V be an open subset of {b1}×F. Then there exists an open subset U of F such that V={b1}×U. By the proof of the previous item αb0−1(U)=αb1−1(U). Hence,
[TABLE]
Thus K((cb1×IdF)φ0)=K(φ1(cb1×IdF)) by 3.5.
(3) Again, let αb0 and αb1 be defined as in the previous items. By (1), K(αb0)=K(αb1), and since F is a T0–space we obtain that αb0=αb1. The result follows.
∎
The following result follows immediately from item (3) of 4.1.
Corollary 4.2**.**
Let B be a connected non-empty Alexandroff space and let F be a T0–space. Let pB:B×F→B be the canonical projection and let φ:B×F→B×F be an automorphism of the trivial fiber bundle pB. Then there exists a map α:F→F such that φ=IdB×α. Moreover, such a map α is unique and a homeomorphism.
The following theorem is one of the main results of this article.
Theorem 4.3**.**
Let B be an Alexandroff space and let F be a topological space. Let p:E→B be a fiber bundle with fiber F. Then there exists a morphism-inverting functor Dp:B→Top such that the map πB:∫Dp→B is a fiber bundle isomorphic to p.
Proof.
Clearly, we may assume that B=∅. For each b∈B let σb:p−1(b)→K(p−1(b)) be the quotient map.
We define a functor D:B→Top as follows. For b∈B, let D(b)=K(p−1(b)). Now, for b,b′∈B such that b≤b′, choose any trivializing neighbourhood U of b′ and let φU:p−1(U)→U×F be a trivialization map for U. Observe that the map φU can be restricted to homeomorphisms φU,b:p−1(b)→{b}×F and φU,b′:p−1(b′)→{b′}×F. Let cb′:{b}→{b′} be the only possible map. Let δb,b′ be the composition
[TABLE]
We define D(b≤b′):K(p−1(b))→K(p−1(b′)) by D(b≤b′)=K(δb,b′).
We need to show that D is well-defined, so suppose that V is another trivializing neighbourhood of b′ and let φV:p−1(V)→V×F be a trivialization map for V. Let φV,b:p−1(b)→{b}×F, φV,b′:p−1(b′)→{b′}×F and φV,{b,b′}:p−1({b,b′})→{b,b′}×F be restrictions of φV and let φU,{b,b′}:p−1({b,b′})→{b,b′}×F be a restriction of φU. Note that φU,{b,b′} and φV,{b,b′} are homeomorphisms and that the map φV,{b,b′}(φU,{b,b′})−1:{b,b′}×F→{b,b′}×F is a bundle automorphism of the projection map p{b,b′}:{b,b′}×F→{b,b′}. By 4.1, the diagram
[TABLE]
commutes. Therefore, D is well-defined. Note that D is a morphism-inverting functor.
Now we will use the functor D to define the functor Dp. Let σF:F→KF be the quotient map. For each μ∈{#σF−1(z)∣z∈KF} choose a set Sμ such that #Sμ=μ. For each b∈B and for each y∈K(p−1(b)) choose a bijective function fb,y:σb−1(y)→S#σb−1(y). Note that, for all b,b′∈B such that b≤b′ and for all y∈K(p−1(b)), the homeomorphism δb,b′ induces a bijective function σb−1(y)→σb′−1(K(δb,b′)(y))=σb′−1(D(b≤b′)(y)), and thus #σb′−1(D(b≤b′)(y))=#σb−1(y).
We define the functor Dp:B→Top as follows. For b∈B, let Dp(b)=p−1(b). Now, for b,b′∈B such that b≤b′, let Dp(b≤b′):p−1(b)→p−1(b′) be defined by
[TABLE]
Note that the map Dp(b≤b′) is well-defined since #σb′−1(D(b≤b′)(σb(x)))=#σb−1(σb(x)) for all x∈p−1(b). Note also that, for each x∈p−1(b), σb′Dp(b≤b′)(x)=D(b≤b′)(σb(x)). Thus, σb′Dp(b≤b′)=D(b≤b′)σb and hence Dp(b≤b′) is a continuous map.
Clearly, Dp(b≤b)=Idp−1(b). Now let b,b′,b′′∈B such that b≤b′≤b′′ and let x∈p−1(b). Then
[TABLE]
Thus, Dp is indeed a functor.
We will prove now that Dp is a morphism-inverting functor. Let b,b′∈B such that b≤b′ and let g:p−1(b′)→p−1(b) be defined by g(x)=fb,D(b≤b′)−1(σb′(x))−1fb′,σb′(x)(x). Note that the map g is well-defined since, for all x∈p−1(b′),
[TABLE]
Note also that σbg=D(b≤b′)−1σb′. Thus g is a continuous map.
Now, for all x∈p−1(b),
[TABLE]
On the other hand, for all x∈p−1(b′),
[TABLE]
Hence, the functions Dp(b≤b′) and g are mutually inverse. Therefore, Dp is a morphism-inverting functor.
We will prove now that πB:∫Dp→B is a fiber bundle isomorphic to p. Clearly, it suffices to prove that πB:∫Dp→B and p are isomorphic as maps over B. Let ϕ:E→∫Dp be defined by ϕ(x)=(p(x),x). The function ϕ is clearly bijective with inverse ϕ−1:∫Dp→E defined by ϕ−1(b,x)=x and it is immediate that πBϕ=p. Thus, it remains to prove that ϕ and its inverse are continuous maps.
We will prove first that ϕ is a continuous map. Let b∈B and let V⊆p−1(b) be an open subset. We will prove that ϕ−1(J(b,V)) is an open subset of E. Let U be a trivializing neighbourhood of b and let φ:p−1(U)→U×F be a trivialization map. Let pF:U×F→F and pU:U×F→U be the corresponding projection maps. Since V⊆p−1(b) we obtain that pUφ(V)⊆{b}, and hence φ(V)={b}×pFφ(V). Note also that, for all x∈p−1(Ub),
[TABLE]
Thus, for every x∈E,
[TABLE]
Hence, ϕ−1(J(b,V))=φ−1(Ub×pFφ(V)). Since the restriction φ∣:p−1(b)→{b}×F is a homeomorphism it follows that φ(V) is an open subset of {b}×F and thus pFφ(V) is an open subset of F. Hence ϕ−1(J(b,V)) is an open subset of E and therefore ϕ is a continuous map.
We will prove now that ϕ is an open map. Let V be an open subset of E. We will prove that, for all x∈V,
[TABLE]
Let x∈V. Clearly ϕ(x)=(p(x),x)∈J(p(x),V∩p−1(p(x))). Let (b,y)∈J(p(x),V∩p−1(p(x))). Thus b≤p(x) and y∈p−1(b) since (b,y)∈∫Dp. We will prove that y∈V and thus (b,y)=ϕ(y)∈ϕ(V) and the result will follow.
Let U be a trivializing neighbourhood of p(x) and let φ:p−1(U)→U×F be a trivialization map for U. Let y′=δb,p(x)(y). Hence φ(y′)=(cp(x)×IdF)(φ(y)). Thus there exists x′∈F such that φ(y)=(b,x′) and φ(y′)=(p(x),x′).
Since (b,y)∈J(p(x),V∩p−1(p(x))), we obtain that Dp(b≤p(x))(y)∈V∩p−1(p(x)). Note that
[TABLE]
Since V∩p−1(p(x)) is an open subset of p−1(p(x)) we obtain that y′∈V∩p−1(p(x)). Hence
[TABLE]
Since V∩p−1(U) is an open subset of p−1(U), it follows that φ(V∩p−1(U)) is an open subset of U×F. Hence φ(y)=(b,x′)∈φ(V∩p−1(U)) and thus y∈V.
∎
Remark 4.4*.*
With the notations of the previous theorem and its proof observe that, if F is a T0–space, then #σF−1(z)=1 for all z∈KF. In addition, for all b∈B, the quotient map σb is a homeomorphism. Thus, for all b,b′∈B such that
b≤b′ we obtain that
σb′Dp(b≤b′)=D(b≤b′)σb=K(δb,b′)σb=σb′δb,b′
and thus Dp(b≤b′)=δb,b′. In addition, since KX≅X for T0–spaces X, by the naturality of the quotient maps σX it easily follows from the diagram of page 4 that the definition of the maps δb,b′ does not depend on the chosen trivialization map. Therefore, if F is a T0–space, the definition of the functor Dp only depends on the fiber bundle p.
The previous remark motivates the following definition.
Definition 4.5**.**
Let B be an Alexandroff space and let F be any T0–space. Let p:E→B be a fiber bundle with fiber F. The morphism-inverting functor Dp:B→Top constructed in the previous proof will be called the canonical representation of the fiber bundle p.
Remark 4.6*.*
The canonical representation of a fiber bundle with T0–fiber over an Alexandroff space does not depend on the choice of the fiber space. Indeed, let B be an Alexandroff space and let F be any T0–space. Let p:E→B be a fiber bundle with fiber F. Suppose that we also regard p as a fiber bundle with fiber F′. Clearly, there exists a homeomorphism α:F→F′. Let b,b′∈B such that b≤b′. Let U be a trivializing neighbourhood of b′ (considering the space F as the fiber) and let φU:p−1(U)→U×F be a trivialization map for U. Let φU′=(IdU×α)φU:p−1(U)→U×F′. Note that φU′ is a trivialization map for U regarding now the space F′ as the fiber. Following the notations of the proof of theorem 4.3, we obtain a commutative diagram
[TABLE]
And since the map Dp(b≤b′) does not depend on the choice of the trivialization map it follows that it does not depend on the choice of the fiber space either.
Remark 4.7*.*
Let B be an Alexandroff space, let p and q be fiber bundles over B with T0 fibers and let f be a map over B from p to q. For each b∈B let fb:p−1(b)→q−1(b) be defined as a restriction of f. Let f={fb:b∈B}. The collection of maps f is not, in general, a natural transformation from Dp to Dq.
For example, let S be the Sierpinski space and let p:S×S→S be the projection onto the first coordinate. Clearly, the canonical representation of p is the functor Dp:S→Top defined by Dp(0)={0}×S, Dp(1)={1}×S and Dp(0≤1)=c1×IdS, where c1:{0}→{1} is the only possible map. Let α:S×S→S×S be the fiber bundle morphism defined by α(0,x)=(0,x) for all x∈S and α(1,x)=(1,1) for all x∈S (equivalently, α(b,x)=(b,max{b,x}) for all (b,x)∈S×S). Let α0:{0}×S→{0}×S and α1:{1}×S→{1}×S be restrictions of α. It is easy to check that the collection α={α0,α1} is not a natural transformation from Dp to itself.
Thus, the assignment p↦Dp that sends each fiber bundle over B with T0 fiber to its canonical representation, can not be extended, in general, to a functor by means of the assignment f↦f that sends each morphism f of fiber bundles over B to the collection of maps f defined previously.
As a first application of theorem 4.3 we obtain the following.
Corollary 4.8**.**
Let B be a simply connected non-empty Alexandroff space and let p be a fiber bundle over B. Then p is a trivial fiber bundle.
Proof.
By 4.3 there exists a morphism-inverting functor Dp:B→Top such that the map πB:∫Dp→B is a fiber bundle isomorphic to p. Let ιB:B→LB be defined as in subsection 2.4. Since Dp is a morphism-inverting functor, there exists a functor Dp:LB→Top such that Dp=DpιB. Now, since B is simply connected and the groupoids LB and Π1(B) are isomorphic, we obtain that LB is an indiscrete category. It follows that the identity functor LB→LB is naturally isomorphic to a constant functor. And since Dp=DpιB=DpIdLBιB we obtain that the functor Dp is naturally isomorphic to a constant functor. Hence, from 3.10, 4.3 and 3.8 we obtain that p is a trivial fiber bundle.
∎
We will now give a classification theorem for fiber bundles over Alexandroff spaces with T0 fiber. Propositions 4.9 and 4.10 and lemma 4.11 are convenient for this purpose.
Proposition 4.9**.**
Let B be an Alexandroff space and let F be any T0–space. Let p and q be fiber bundles over B with fiber F. Then p and q are isomorphic fiber bundles if and only if their canonical representations Dp and Dq are naturally isomorphic.
Proof.
Suppose that p and q are isomorphic fiber bundles and let α be a homeomorphism such that qα=p. For each b∈B, let θb:Dp(b)→Dq(b) be defined as a restriction of α. It is clear that θb is a homeomorphism for all b∈B. We will prove that the maps θb, b∈B, define a natural transformation θ:Dp⇒Dq. To this end, let b1,b2∈B such that b1≤b2. Let U be a trivializing neighbourhood of b2 for the fiber bundle p, let φU:p−1(U)→U×F be a trivialization map and let αU:p−1(U)→q−1(U) be defined as a restriction of α. It follows that U is also a trivializing neighbourhood for the fiber bundle q and that ψU=φUαU−1:q−1(U)→U×F is a trivialization map for q. Since the maps Dp(b1≤b2) and Dq(b1≤b2) are independent of the choice of the trivialization maps, there is a commutative diagram
[TABLE]
where, as in the proof of theorem 4.3, φU,b1 and φU,b2 denote restrictions of φU and ψU,b1 and ψU,b2 denote restrictions of ψU. Thus, θ:Dp⇒Dq is a natural transformation.
Conversely, suppose that the canonical representations Dp and Dq are naturally isomorphic. By 3.10, the fiber bundles πBDp:∫Dp→B and πBDq:∫Dq→B are isomorphic. And by 4.3, the fiber bundle πBDp is isomorphic to p and the fiber bundle πBDq is isomorphic to q. Therefore, p and q are isomorphic fiber bundles.
∎
Proposition 4.10**.**
Let B be an Alexandroff space and let F be a T0–space. Let C:B→Aut(F) be a functor and let ι:Aut(F)→Top be the inclusion functor. Let DπBιC be the canonical representation of the fiber bundle πBιC:∫ιC→B. Then the functors ιC and DπBιC are naturally isomorphic.
Proof.
We may assume that B=∅. Let b∈B. By 3.2 the map ib:F→∫ιC defined by ib(x)=(b,x) is a topological embedding. And since ib(F)=(πBιC)−1(b)=DπBιC(b) we obtain that the restriction of ib to its image defines a homeomorphism αb:F→DπBιC(b).
We will prove that the collection of arrows {αb∣b∈B} is a natural isomorphism from ιC to DπBιC. Let b1,b2∈B such that b1≤b2. Let φ:(πBιC)−1(Ub2)→Ub2×F be the map defined by
φ(β,x)=(β,C(β≤b2)(x)) for every (β,x)∈(πBιC)−1(Ub2). From the proof of 3.12 it follows that φ is a trivialization map. As in the proof of theorem 4.3, let φb1:(πBιC)−1(b1)→{b1}×F and φb2:(πBιC)−1(b2)→{b2}×F be restrictions of φ. By remark 4.4, DπBιC(b1≤b2)=φb2−1(cb2×IdF)φb1 and thus DπBιC(b1≤b2)αb1=αb2C(b1≤b2). The result follows.
∎
The following lemma is an easy consequence of standard arguments in category theory. We include a proof for completeness.
Lemma 4.11**.**
Let B be an Alexandroff space and let F be a topological space. Let D:B→Top be a morphism-inverting functor such that, for each b∈B, D(b) is homeomorphic to F. Let ι:Aut(F)→Top be the inclusion functor. Then there exists a functor E:B→Aut(F) such that the functors ιE and D are naturally isomorphic.
Proof.
For each b∈B choose a homeomorphism γb:D(b)→F. Let E:B→Aut(F) be the functor defined by E(b)=F for each b∈B and E(b1≤b2)=γb2D(b1≤b2)γb1−1 for b1,b2∈B with b1≤b2. Clearly, E is a functor and the homeomorphisms γb, b∈B, define a natural isomorphism from D to ιE.
∎
We give now the aforementioned classification theorem for fiber bundles over Alexandroff spaces with T0 fiber.
Theorem 4.12**.**
Let B be an Alexandroff space and let F be any T0–space. Then there exists a canonical bijection between isomorphism classes of fiber bundles over B with fiber F and isomorphism classes of functors from B to Aut(F). This bijection is induced by the canonical representation and its inverse is induced by the topological Grothendieck construction.
Proof.
Clearly, we may assume that B=∅. Let [FibB(F)] denote the set of isomorphism classes of fiber bundles over B with fiber F and let [B,Aut(F)] denote the isomorphism classes of functors from B to Aut(F). Let ι:Aut(F)→Top be the inclusion functor.
We define a function λ:[FibB(F)]→[B,Aut(F)] as follows. Let p be a fiber bundle over B with fiber F and let [p] be its isomorphism class. Let Dp:B→Top be the canonical representation of p. By lemma 4.11 there exists a functor Ep:B→Aut(F) such that ιEp and Dp are naturally isomorphic. We define λ([p]) as the isomorphism class of the functor Ep.
We will prove now that λ is well-defined. Let p and q be isomorphic fiber bundles over B with fiber F, let Dp and Dq be the canonical representations of p and q respectively and let Ep,Eq:B→Aut(F) be functors such that ιEp is naturally isomorphic to Dp and ιEq is naturally isomorphic to Dq. By 4.9, Dp and Dq are naturally isomorphic and hence Ep and Eq are naturally isomorphic. Therefore, λ is well-defined.
On the other hand, from 3.14 and 3.10 it follows that the topological Grothendieck construction induces a function μ:[B,Aut(F)]→[FibB(F)]. Finally, from 4.3, 3.10 and 4.10 it follows that the functions λ and μ are mutually inverse.
∎
Example 4.13**.**
Let S0 denote the [math]–sphere. Note that the non-Hausdorff suspension of S0 is the poset SS0 defined by the following Hasse diagram, where we have labeled the minimal elements by a and b and the maximal elements by c and d.
\bullet$$a$$\bullet$$b$$\bullet$$c$$\bullet$$d
By theorem 4.12, the isomorphism classes of fiber bundles over SS0 with fiber SS0 are in one-to-one correspondence with the isomorphism classes of functors from SS0 to Aut(SS0).
Note that Aut(SS0)={IdSS0,τab,τcd,τabτcd}, where τxy denotes the transposition that maps x to y (and y to x).
For each α∈Aut(SS0) let Gα:SS0→Aut(SS0) be the functor defined by Gα(a≤c)=Gα(a≤d)=Gα(b≤c)=IdSS0 and Gα(b≤d)=α. It is not difficult to check that for any functor G:SS0→Aut(SS0) there exists exactly one element α∈Aut(SS0) such that G is naturally isomorphic to Gα.
Therefore, there exist exactly four isomorphism classes of fiber bundles over SS0 with fiber SS0 which correspond to the functors Gα for α∈Aut(SS0).
It is interesting to observe that the total spaces of those fiber bundles are homeomorphic to the spaces T0,02, T1,12, K1,0 and K0,1 given in [5], which are the minimal finite models of the torus and the Klein bottle.
Remark 4.14*.*
Theorem 4.12 may not hold if the fiber F is not a T0–space. Indeed, let F be the indiscrete space with underlying set {1,2}. As in the previous example, let SS0 be the non-Hausdorff suspension of the [math]–sphere S0, let a and b be the minimal elements of SS0 and let c and d be its maximal elements.
Let f1:F→F be the identity map and let f2:F→F be defined by f2(1)=2 and f2(2)=1. For j∈{1,2} let Dj:SS0→Aut(F) be the functor defined by Dj(a≤c)=Dj(a≤d)=Dj(b≤c)=IdF and Dj(b≤d)=fj. A simple argument shows that the functors D1 and D2 are not naturally isomorphic. However, it is not difficult to verify that the only fiber bundle over SS0 with fiber F is the trivial bundle. This can be proved using the definition of fiber bundle and standard general topology arguments or applying 4.3, 4.11, 3.10, 3.8 and 3.6.
5. Construction of a universal bundle
In this section we will construct a universal bundle with fiber a given T0–space.
Proposition 5.1**.**
Let X and B be Alexandroff spaces and let f:X→B be a continuous map. Let D:B→Top be a functor. Then there is a pullback diagram
where the map g:∫Df→∫D is defined by g(x,y)=(f(x),y).
Proof.
First, we will prove that the map g is continuous. Let b∈B and let V be an open subset of D(b). It is not difficult to verify that
[TABLE]
Thus, g is a continuous map.
Observe that πBDg=fπXDf.
Now, let Z be a topological space and let α:Z→X and β:Z→∫D be continuous maps such that fα=πBDβ. Note that for each z∈Z, β(z)=(β1(z),β2(z)) with β1(z)∈B and β2(z)∈D(β1(z)). And since fα=πBDβ we obtain that β1(z)=f(α(z)) for all z∈Z. Let γ:Z→∫Df be defined by γ(z)=(α(z),β2(z)). It is clear that the function γ is well-defined and satisfies πXDfγ=α and gγ=β. Moreover, γ is the only function from Z to ∫Df which satisfies this property. It remains to prove that γ is continuous.
Let x∈X and let V be an open subset of Df(x). It is not difficult to verify that
[TABLE]
Therefore γ is a continuous map.
∎
The following result is an easy consequence of the previous proposition.
Proposition 5.2**.**
Let X and B be connected Alexandroff spaces and let f,g:X→B be continuous maps such that f≤g. Let D:B→Top be a morphism-inverting functor. Then πXDf:∫Df→X and πXDg:∫Dg→X are isomorphic fiber bundles.
Proof.
Note that the continuous maps f and g can be regarded as functors, and since f≤g, there exists a natural transformation ϕ:f⇒g (where, for each x in X, ϕx is the only morphism from f(x) to g(x)). Thus, we have a natural transformation Dϕ:Df⇒Dg, which is a natural isomorphism since D is a morphism-inverting functor. The result then follows from 3.10.
∎
Proposition 5.3**.**
Let B and X be Alexandroff spaces, let p:E→B be a fiber bundle with T0 fiber and let f:X→B be a continuous map. Let Dp:B→Top be the canonical representation of the fiber bundle p. Consider the pullback diagram
X$$P$$B$$Epullf$$q$$p
Then, the canonical representation Dq is naturally isomorphic to Dpf.
Proof.
By 4.3, the fiber bundle πBDp:∫Dp→B is isomorphic to p and the fiber bundle πXDq:∫Dq→X is isomorphic to q. Thus, we have a pullback diagram
Hence, by 5.1, the fiber bundles πXDq and πXDpf are isomorphic.
Let ι:Aut(F)→Top be the inclusion functor. By 4.11 there exist functors Ep,Eq:X→Aut(F) such that ιEp is naturally isomorphic to Dpf and ιEq is naturally isomorphic to Dq. By 3.10, the fiber bundle πXιEp is isomorphic to πXDpf and the fiber bundle πXιEq is isomorphic to πXDq. Thus, πXιEp and πXιEq are isomorphic fiber bundles and hence, from 4.12, we obtain that Ep and Eq are naturally isomorphic. Thus, the functors Dq and Dpf are naturally isomorphic.
∎
Proposition 5.4**.**
Let X and Y be non-empty Alexandroff spaces and let F be a T0–space. Let p:E→Y be a fiber bundle with fiber F and let f,g:X→Y be continuous maps. Let pf:Ef→X be the pullback of p along f and let pg:Eg→X be the pullback of p along g.
Let Dp:Y→Top be the canonical representation of the fiber bundle p, let ι:Aut(F)→Top be the inclusion functor and let Ep:Y→Aut(F) be a functor which satisfies that ιEp and Dp are naturally isomorphic.
Let A⊆X be such that for each connected component C of X, #(A∩C)=1. For each x0∈A let (Epf)∗,x0,(Epg)∗,x0:π1(X,x0)→π1(Aut(F),F)≅Aut(F) be the group homomorphisms induced by the functors Epf and Epg respectively.
The following are equivalent:
(1)
The fiber bundles pf and pg are isomorphic.
2. (2)
The functors Dpf and Dpg are naturally isomorphic.
3. (3)
For each x0∈A there exists νx0∈Inn(Aut(F)) such that (Epg)∗,x0=νx0(Epf)∗,x0.
Proof.
By 4.9, the fiber bundles pf and pg are isomorphic if and only if their canonical representations Dpf and Dpg are naturally isomorphic functors. By 5.3 this holds if and only if the functors Dpf and Dpg are naturally isomorphic.
Now, observe that the functors Dpf and Dpg are naturally isomorphic if and only if the functors Epf and Epg are naturally isomorphic. Let LX be the localization of X and let ιX:X→LX be defined as in subsection 2.4. Let Ef,Eg:LX→Aut(F) be functors such that EfιX=Epf and EgιX=Epg. Let A be the full subcategory of LX whose set of objects is A and let iA:A→LX be the inclusion functor. Observe that the functors Epf and Epg are naturally isomorphic if and only if the functors Ef and Eg are naturally isomorphic. And this holds if and only if the functors EfiA and EgiA are naturally isomorphic since iA is an equivalence of categories.
For each x0∈A let AutLX(x0) be the full subcategory of LX whose only object is x0 and let ix0:AutLX(x0)→A be the inclusion functor. Observe that the functors EfiA and EgiA are naturally isomorphic if and only if for each x0∈A there exists νx0∈Inn(Aut(F)) such that EgiAix0=νx0EfiAix0.
Let Cat∗ be the category of pointed small categories and basepoint-preserving functors. Recall that there exists a natural isomorphism ζ:AutL(⋅)(⋅)≅π1(B(⋅),⋅):Cat∗→Grp [11] (see also [4, Corollary 3.5]). For each x0∈A let α=ζ(X,x0)−1:π1(X,x0)→AutLX(x0). From the naturality of ζ it follows that (Epf)∗,x0=EfiAix0α and (Epg)∗,x0=EgiAix0α. Thus, there exists νx0∈Inn(Aut(F)) such that EgiAix0=νx0EfiAix0 if and only if there exists νx0∈Inn(Aut(F)) such that (Epg)∗=νx0(Epf)∗. The result follows.
∎
In [15], Thomason proves that Cat admits a closed model category structure which is Quillen equivalent to the usual model category structure of the category of simplicial sets. Recall that a functor F:C→D in Cat is a weak equivalence if and only if the induced continuous map BF:BC→BD is a homotopy equivalence. Thomason also proves that the cofibrant objects of this model category structure are posets.
Several authors study which posets are cofibrant objects of the Thomason model structure. Bruckner and Pegel prove in [3] that various classes of posets are cofibrant objects and May, Stephan and Zakharevich give in [9] a poset of six elements which is not cofibrant. Recall also that the double subdivision of a poset is a cofibrant object in Cat (see [15, Proposition 4.6]).
Definition 5.5**.**
Let X be an Alexandroff T0–space and let A⊆X be such that for each connected component C of X, #(A∩C)=1. Let F be a T0–space and let UF:QAut(F)→Aut(F) be the cofibrant replacement of Aut(F) in Cat (recall that QAut(F) is a poset). Let f,g:X→QAut(F) be continuous maps.
We say that f is equivalent to g if for each x0∈A there exists νx0∈Inn(Aut(F)) such that
[TABLE]
It is not difficult to verify that the definition of equivalent maps does not depend on the subset A.
Theorem 5.6**.**
Let F be a T0–space and let UF:QAut(F)→Aut(F) be the cofibrant replacement of Aut(F) in Cat.
Then, for every non-empty cofibrant object X of Cat there exists a canonical bijection between isomorphism classes of fiber bundles over X with fiber F and equivalence classes of continuous maps from X to QAut(F).
Proof.
Let X be a non-empty cofibrant object of Cat. Thus, X is a poset. Let A⊆X be such that for each connected component C of X, #(A∩C)=1. Let [FibX(F)] denote the set of isomorphism classes of fiber bundles over X with fiber F and let F denote the set of equivalence classes of continuous maps from X to QAut(F). Let ι:Aut(F)→Top be the inclusion functor.
Let ξ:F→[FibX(F)] be the function that sends the equivalence class of a continuous map f:X→QAut(F) to the pullback of the fiber bundle πQAut(F)ιUF:∫ιUF→QAut(F) along f.
We will prove first that ξ is well-defined. Suppose that f,g:X→QAut(F) are equivalent maps. Then for each x0∈A there exists νx0∈Inn(Aut(F)) such that (UFg)∗=νx0(UFf)∗:π1(X,x0)→π1(Aut(F),F)≅Aut(F). By 4.10, the canonical representation of the fiber bundle πQAut(F)ιUF is naturally isomorphic to the functor ιUF. Thus, by 5.4, the pullback bundles ξ(f) and ξ(g) are isomorphic. Hence ξ is well-defined.
Observe that injectivity of ξ follows from 5.4 and the argument of the previous paragraph.
Now we will prove that ξ is surjective. Let p:E→X be a fiber bundle over X with fiber F and let Dp:X→Top be its canonical representation. Let Ep:X→Aut(F) be a functor which satisfies that ιEp and Dp are naturally isomorphic. Since X is cofibrant and UF is a trivial fibration, there exists a functor f:X→QAut(F) such that UFf=Ep. Note that f can be regarded as a continuous map between Alexandroff T0–spaces. Let π=πQAut(F)ιUF and let pf be the pullback of π along f. By 5.3 the canonical representation Dpf of pf is naturally isomorphic to Dπf, which is naturally isomorphic to ιUFf=ιEp. And since ιEp and Dp are naturally isomorphic it follows that pf and p are isomorphic fiber bundles by 4.9.
∎
Remark 5.7*.*
The previous theorem and its proof show that if F is a T0–space and UF:QAut(F)→Aut(F) is the cofibrant replacement of Aut(F) in Cat then the fiber bundle πQAut(F)UF:∫UF→QAut(F) serves as a universal bundle with fiber F for bundles over posets which are cofibrant objects in Cat.
6. Fiber bundles over Alexandroff spaces are Hurewicz fibrations
In this section we will use theorem 4.3 to prove that fiber bundles over Alexandroff spaces are Hurewicz fibrations. To this end we will prove the following lemma for which we need to recall that a covering space of an Alexandroff space is an Alexandroff space [2, Proposition 2.1] and that if p:E→B is a covering map between Alexandroff spaces then for every e∈E the restriction p∣Ue:Ue→Up(e) is a homeomorphism (see proof of [2, Proposition 2.9]).
If X and Y are topological spaces, K is a compact subspace of X and U is an open subset of Y we denote W(K,U)={f:X→Y∣f is a continuous map and f(K)⊆U}.
Lemma 6.1**.**
Let B be an Alexandroff space and let γ:I→B be a continuous map. Then there exist an open subset V⊆BI such that γ∈V⊆W({0},Uγ(0))∩W({1},Uγ(1)) satisfying that for all α∈V and for all paths η0,η1∈BI such that η0(0)=γ(0), η0(1)=α(0), η0(I)⊆Uγ(0), η1(0)=α(1), η1(1)=γ(1) and η1(I)⊆Uγ(1) it holds that γ∼pη0∗α∗η1.
Proof.
Without loss of generality we may assume that B is connected, since we may replace B with the connected component of B that contains γ(0) (note that, if C is a connected component of B, then C is an open subset of B and thus CI=W(I,C) is an open subset of BI).
Let B be the universal cover of B and let p:B→B be the associated covering map. Let b∈p−1(γ(0)) and let γ∈BI be the unique lift of γ such that γ(0)=b. Let p0:Uγ(0)→Uγ(0) and p1:Uγ(1)→Uγ(1) be restrictions of p. Note that p0 and p1 are homeomorphisms.
Let BI×pB be the pullback of the diagram BI⟶ev0B⟵pB. As usual, we regard BI×pB as a subspace of the product space BI×B. Let λ:BI×pB→BI be the unique path lifting function for p. Since λ−1(ev1−1(Uγ(1))) is an open neighbourhood of (γ,b) in BI×pB there exists an open subset V′⊆BI such that (γ,b)∈V′×Ub and (V′×Ub)∩(BI×pB)⊆λ−1(ev1−1(Uγ(1))). Let V=V′∩W({0},Uγ(0))∩W({1},Uγ(1)). Note that V is an open neighbourhood of γ.
We will prove now that the open subset V satisfies the required condition. Let α∈V and let η0,η1∈BI such that η0(0)=γ(0), η0(1)=α(0), η0(I)⊆Uγ(0), η1(0)=α(1), η1(1)=γ(1) and η1(I)⊆Uγ(1). Let η0=p0−1η0, let η1=p1−1η1 and let α be the unique lift of α such that α(0)=p0−1(α(0)). Note that η0(1)=p0−1η0(1)=p0−1α(0)=α(0). On the other hand, observe that (α,p0−1(α(0)))∈(V×Ub)∩(BI×pB)⊆λ−1(ev1−1(Uγ(1))). Hence α(1)∈Uγ(1) and since pα(1)=α(1)=η1(0) it follows that α(1)=η1(0). Therefore, (η0∗α)∗η1 is a well-defined path in B from η0(0) to η1(1).
Note that η0(0)=p0−1η0(0)=p0−1γ(0)=b and similarly η1(1)=γ(1). Thus, (η0∗α)∗η1 and γ are paths in B from b to γ(1). Since B is simply connected we obtain that γ∼pη0∗α∗η1. Therefore, γ∼pη0∗α∗η1.
∎
Theorem 6.2**.**
Let B be an Alexandroff space and let p:E→B be a fiber bundle over B. Then p is a Hurewicz fibration.
Proof.
By 4.3, there exists a morphism-inverting functor D:B→Top such that the projection πBD:∫D→B is a fiber bundle isomorphic to p. Clearly, it suffices to prove that πBD is a Hurewicz fibration.
Let LD:LB→Top be the functor induced by D and let D be the composition Π1(B)≅LB⟶LDTop. Let BI×πBD∫D be the pullback of the diagram BI⟶ev0B⟵πBD∫D. We regard BI×πBD∫D as a subspace of the product space BI×∫D.
Let Λ:(BI×πBD∫D)×I→∫D be defined by Λ(γ,b,x,t)=(γ(t),D([γ[0,t]])(x)) and let Λ♯:BI×πBD∫D→(∫D)I be the map induced by Λ by the exponential law. We will prove that Λ♯ is a path-lifting function for πBD. Note that Λ(γ,b,x,0)=(γ(0),D([γ[0,0]])(x))=(b,x) and that πBDΛ(γ,b,x,t)=γ(t) for all (γ,b,x)∈BI×πBD∫D and t∈I. Thus, it remains to prove that Λ is a continuous map.
Let β∈B and let W be an open subset of D(β). Let (γ,b,x,t)∈Λ−1(JD(β,W)). Hence γ(t)≤β and D(γ(t)≤β)(D([γ[0,t]])(x))∈W. Let W0=D([γ[0,t]])−1D(γ(t)≤β)−1(W). Note that W0 is an open neighbourhood of x in D(γ(0)).
By the previous lemma there exists an open subset V⊆BI such that γ[0,t]∈V⊆W({0},Uγ(0))∩W({1},Uγ(t)) satisfying that for all α∈V and for all paths η0,η1∈BI such that η0(0)=γ(0), η0(1)=α(0), η0(I)⊆Uγ(0), η1(0)=α(1), η1(1)=γ(t) and η1(I)⊆Uγ(t) it holds that γ[0,t]∼pη0∗α∗η1.
Let ν:BI→BI be defined by ν(σ)=σ[0,t]. It is not difficult to prove that ν is a continuous map. Let L⊆I be an open interval such that t∈L⊆L⊆γ−1(Uγ(t)). Let
A=ν−1(V)∩W(L,Uγ(t)), let N0=A×JD(γ(0),W0) and let N=N0∩(BI×πBD∫D). Note that N is an open subset of BI×πBD∫D.
We will prove that (γ,b,x,t)∈N×L⊆Λ−1(JD(β,W)). Clearly γ∈A and (b,x)∈JD(γ(0),W0) since γ(0)=b. Hence (γ,b,x,t)∈N×L. Now let (γ′,b′,x′,t′)∈N×L. Note that γ′(t′)≤γ(t)≤β since t′∈L. If t′≥t let ξ=γ[t,t′]′, otherwise let ξ=γ[t′,t]′. In any case, ξ is a path in B from γ′(t) to γ′(t′) whose image is contained in Uγ(t) since γ′∈W(L,Uγ(t)). Note that γ′(0)≤γ(0) since γ[0,t]′∈V. Let η0=η(γ′(0)≤γ(0)).
We have that
[TABLE]
since η0(I)⊆Uγ(0) and (ξ∗η(γ′(t′)≤γ(t)))(I)⊆Uγ(t).
Thus
[TABLE]
and since D(γ′(0)≤γ(0))(x′)∈W0 it follows that D(γ′(t′)≤β)(D([γ[0,t′]′])(x′))∈W. Thus, Λ(γ′,b′,x′,t′)∈JD(β,W). It follows that Λ−1(JD(β,W)) is an open subset of (BI×πBD∫D)×I. Therefore, Λ is a continuous map.
∎
7. The topological Grothendieck construction as an equivalence of categories
In this section we will define a suitable category of functors and prove that is equivalent to the category of fiber bundles over a fixed Alexandroff space by means of the topological Grothendieck construction. To this end, we need to define a convenient notion of arrows between functors which relies on the following definition.
Definition 7.1**.**
Let X and Y be topological spaces, let TY be the topology of Y and let C(X,Y) be the set of continuous maps from X to Y. We define a preorder ⪯ in C(X,Y) by
[TABLE]
Observe that, with the notations of the previous definition, if f⪯g and g⪯f then K(f)=K(g) by 3.5.
The following proposition states that this preorder coincides with the pointwise preorder in the case that the codomain is an Alexandroff space.
Proposition 7.2**.**
Let X be a topological space and let Y be an Alexandroff space. Let f,g:X→Y be continuous maps. Then f⪯g if and only if f(x)≤g(x) for all x∈X.
Proof.
Suppose that f⪯g and let x∈X. Then x∈g−1(Ug(x))⊆f−1(Ug(x)) and thus f(x)≤g(x). Conversely, suppose that f≤g and let V be an open subset of Y. Let x∈g−1(V). Then g(x)∈V and since f(x)≤g(x) we obtain that f(x)∈V. Hence, g−1(V)⊆f−1(V).
∎
Remark 7.3*.*
Let X and Y be topological spaces, let TX be the topology of X and let TY be the topology of Y. If f:X→Y is a continuous map then f induces an order-preserving map f:(TY,⊆)→(TX,⊆) defined by f(V)=f−1(V).
Hence, if f,g:X→Y are continuous maps then f⪯g if and only if g≤f.
Definition 7.4**.**
Let B be an Alexandroff space and let C,D:B→Top be functors. Let {θb:C(b)→D(b)}b∈B be a collection of continuous maps. We say that {θb}b∈B is a weak natural transformation from C to D if for all b1,b2∈B such that b1≤b2 we have that D(b1≤b2)θb1⪯θb2C(b1≤b2).
It is not difficult to verify that for any Alexandroff space B there exists a category (that will be denoted by TopwB) whose objects are the functors from B to Top and whose morphisms are the weak natural transformations, with composition defined in a similar way as vertical composition of natural transformations.
Let B be an Alexandroff space. The topological Grothendieck construction induces a functor ∫:TopwB→Top/B which sends each object C of TopwB to the map πBC:∫C→B and each weak natural transformation τ={αb}b∈B∈HomTopwB(C,D) to the map ∫τ:∫C→∫D defined by ∫τ(b,x)=(b,αb(x)).
Proof.
Let τ={αb}b∈B∈HomTopwB(C,D). We will prove that ∫τ is a continuous map. For simplicity, let α=∫τ. Let b1∈B and let V be an open subset of D(b1). We will prove that α−1(JD(b1,V)) is an open subset of ∫C. Let (b0,x)∈α−1(JD(b1,V)). Then (b0,αb0(x))∈JD(b1,V) and thus b0≤b1 and D(b0≤b1)(αb0(x))∈V. Hence x∈(D(b0≤b1)αb0)−1(V). Let W=D(b0≤b1)−1(V) and let U=αb0−1(W). Note that (b0,x)∈JC(b0,U). We will prove that JC(b0,U)⊆α−1(JD(b1,V)). Let (β,z)∈JC(b0,U). Then β≤b0 and C(β≤b0)(z)∈U. Thus z∈C(β≤b0)−1αb0−1(W) and since {αb}b∈B is a weak natural transformation we obtain that z∈(D(β≤b0)αβ)−1(W). Hence D(β≤b0)αβ(z)∈W and thus D(b0≤b1)D(β≤b0)αβ(z)∈V. Then α(β,z)=(β,αβ(z))∈JD(b1,V). Therefore, α is a continuous map. The result follows.
∎
Proposition 7.6**.**
Let B be an Alexandroff space and let C,D:B→Top be functors. Then the functor ∫:TopwB→Top/B induces a one-to-one correspondence between HomTopwB(C,D) and HomTop/B(πBC,πBD).
Proof.
Let ω:HomTopwB(C,D)→HomTop/B(πBC,πDC) be defined by ω(τ)=∫τ. We will prove that ω admits an inverse.
For each α∈HomTop/B(πBC,πBD) and for each b∈B we define αb:C(b)→D(b) as the only map such that α(b,x)=(b,αb(x)) for all x∈C(b). Note that αb is a continuous map by 3.2.
We will prove that, for all α∈HomTop/B(πBC,πBD), the collection {αb}b∈B is a weak natural transformation from C to D. Let α∈HomTop/B(πBC,πBD) and let b1,b2∈B such that b1≤b2. Let V be an open subset of D(b2). We have to prove that (αb2C(b1≤b2))−1(V)⊆(D(b1≤b2)αb1)−1(V). Let x∈(αb2C(b1≤b2))−1(V) and let y=C(b1≤b2)(x). Then αb2(y)∈V and thus (b2,y)∈α−1(JD(b2,V)). Hence, there exist b3∈B and an open subset U⊆C(b3) such that (b2,y)∈JC(b3,U)⊆α−1(JD(b2,V)). Note that (b1,x)∈JC(b3,U) since b1≤b2≤b3 and C(b1≤b3)(x)=C(b2≤b3)(y)∈U. Thus, (b1,αb1(x))=α(b1,x)∈JD(b2,V). Hence, D(b1≤b2)αb1(x)∈V.
Let ρ:HomTop/B(πBC,πDC)→HomTopwB(C,D) be defined by ρ(α)={αb}b∈B. Clearly, ρ and ω are mutually inverse functions.
∎
Observe that the functor ∫:TopwB→Top/B does not yield an equivalence of categories since it is not essentially surjective, as it was shown in 3.11. However, it induces equivalences of categories between certain full subcategories of TopwB and categories of fiber bundles over B, which are stated in the following theorem.
Theorem 7.7**.**
(1)
Let B be an Alexandroff space and let F be a topological space. Let Aut(F)B denote the full subcategory of TopwB whose objects are the functors from B to Aut(F) and let FibB(F) denote the category of fiber bundles over B with fiber F. Then, the functor ∫:TopwB→Top/B induces an equivalence of categories between Aut(F)B and FibB(F).
2. (2)
Let B be a connected non-empty Alexandroff space. Let (TopwB)′ denote the full subcategory of TopwB whose objects are the morphism-inverting functors and let FibB denote the category of fiber bundles over B. Then, the functor ∫:TopwB→Top/B induces an equivalence of categories between (TopwB)′ and FibB.
Proof.
By 3.14 the functor ∫:TopwB→Top/B can be restricted to a functor Aut(F)B→FibB(F), which is fully faithful by 7.6 and essentially surjective by 4.3, 4.11 and 3.10. This proves (1).
Similarly, by 3.13 the functor ∫:TopwB→Top/B can be restricted to a functor (TopwB)′→FibB which is fully faithful by 7.6 and essentially surjective by 4.3. This proves (2).
∎
Bibliography15
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] Alexandroff, P. Diskrete Räume. Mat. Sb. 2 (1937), 501–518.
2[2] Barmak, J. A., and Minian, E. G. A note on coverings of posets, A 𝐴 A -spaces and polyhedra. Homol. Homotopy Appl. 18 , 1 (2016), 143–150.
3[3] Bruckner, R., and Pegel, C. Cofibrant objects in the Thomason model structure. ar Xiv preprint ar Xiv:1603.05448 (2016).
4[4] Cianci, N. Regular coverings and fundamental groupoids of Alexandroff spaces. ar Xiv preprint ar Xiv:1907.02624 (2019). Disponible en https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.02624 .
5[5] Cianci, N., and Ottina, M. Poset splitting and minimality of finite models. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 157 (2018), 120–161.
6[6] Fernández, X., and Minian, E. G. Homotopy colimits of diagrams over posets and variations on a theorem of Thomason. Homol. Homotopy Appl. 18 , 2 (2016), 233–245.
7[7] Gabriel, P., and Zisman, M. Calculus of fractions and homotopy theory . Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, Band 35. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York, 1967.
8[8] Hurewicz, W. On the concept of fiber space. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 41 (1955), 956–961.