Let $G$ be a group and $n$ a positive integer. A connected topological space $Y$ is called an Eilenberg–MacLane space of type $K(G, n)$, if $\pi_n(Y) \cong G$ and all other homotopy groups of $Y$ are trivial; as such as spaces are unique up to weak homotopy equivalence, we often denote such a space by $K(G, n)$.

If $G$ is an abelian group and $X$ is a CW complex, then $$[X, K(G, n)] \cong H^n(X; G);$$ where the cohomology is singular cohomology.

Does there exist a family of topological spaces $J(G, n)$ which satisfy a similar relationship for singular homology? More precisely,

Let $G$ be an abelian group and $n$ a positive integer. Does there exist a connected topological space $J(G, n)$ such that, for any CW complex $X$, $$[J(G, n), X] \cong H_n(X; G)?$$ If so, is it unique up to homotopy equivalence? Can $J(G, n)$ be characterised in other ways (as is the case for Eilenberg-MacLane spaces)?


There can't be such a $J$ for any $n>0$.

For if that were the case, then $$H_n(X \times Y) \cong [J(G,n), X \times Y] \cong [J(G,n), X] \times [J(G,n), Y] \cong H_n(X) \times H_n(Y).$$

But this is obviously not true; if $Y = \{0, 1\}$ this would imply $H_n(X) \oplus H_n(X) \cong H_n(X \sqcup X) \cong H_n(X)$ for $n>0$.

If you want a connected example, one can show $H_n(X \times S^1) \cong H_n(X) \oplus H_{n-1}(X)$. This is usually not $H_n(X) \oplus H_{n}(S^1)$; you can pick $X$ so that this is not true for all $n>1$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There is, I think, a way to represent any homology theory $H_*$ by a spectrum $E$ such that $H_*(X)\cong \pi_*(E \wedge X_+)$, where $X_+$ is $X$ with a disjoint basepoint (and I really mean the suspension spectrum). Hopefully someone more knowledgeable about this than me will say something. $\endgroup$ – user98602 May 29 '15 at 21:30
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ For ordinary homology $E$ is just the Eilenberg-Maclane spectrum again, equivalently $H_n(X;\pi)=\varinjlim\pi_{n+k}(K(\pi,k)\wedge X_+)$ $\endgroup$ – Kevin Arlin May 29 '15 at 21:41
  • $\begingroup$ For reference, the result @KevinCarlson mentioned above is given in, for example, Chapter 4 of Hatcher. $\endgroup$ – anomaly May 29 '15 at 21:44

If you want to replace homotopy classes of maps out with homotopy classes of maps in, what you get is homotopy, not homology. This is part of the yoga of Eckmann-Hilton duality. Because it's a "maps-in" construction, homotopy behaves well with respect to homotopy limits (e.g. the long exact sequence of a fibration). Both homology and cohomology, on the other hand, behave well with respect to homotopy colimits (e.g. the Mayer-Vietoris sequence).

The categorical way to think about homology is to think of it as coming from a higher analogue of taking the free abelian group on a set (rather than taking either functions in or out of the set). There are a number of ways to make this precise, such as the Dold-Kan theorem and the Dold-Thom theorem, as well as the more abstract approach involving spectra, which are the higher analogues of abelian groups.

You can think of taking the free abelian group as a "tensor product" operation $\mathbb{Z} \otimes X$, which among other things gives you the right expectations as to its behavior with respect to limits and colimits (it preserves colimits in the $X$ variable). The way this generalizes to spectra is that if $E$ is a spectrum, then $E$-homology is the homotopy groups of the "derived tensor product" $E \otimes X$ (formally, the smash product of $E$ with the suspension spectrum $\Sigma^{\infty}_{+} X$, which you should think of as the free spectrum on $X$). If $E$ is a ring spectrum, this can be thought of as the free $E$-module spectrum on $X$.

It might help to organize everything into the following table, which also includes the analogous operations in homological algebra:

Homotopy   | Ext(A, -) | Maps in  | Covariant     | Preserves limits 
Homology   | Tor(A, -) | Tensor   | Covariant     | Preserves colimits
Cohomology | Ext(-, A) | Maps out | Contravariant | Sends colimits to limits

(I should clarify that the statements in the last column aren't literally true as written; first, limits and colimits should be replaced by homotopy limits and colimits, and second, depending on whether you take homotopy groups or not "preserves" should be replaced by the existence of a nice spectral sequence.)

| cite | improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.