Let $(X,x_0), (Y,y_0)$ be well-pointed spaces (inclusion of the basepoints is a cofibration). Show the following homotopy equivalence $$ \Sigma (X\times Y) \simeq \Sigma X \lor \Sigma Y \lor \Sigma (X\land Y), $$ where $\Sigma$ means a suspension (or reduced suspension if one prefers since it doesn't matter for well-pointed spaces) and $\land$ is a smash product.

Assuming we are using reduced suspension, it is quite clear that $\Sigma X \lor \Sigma Y$ is a subspace of the lhs, but I don't know how to somehow pull it outside and get $\Sigma (X\land Y)$.

Edit: I know the homotopy equivalence can be deduced from general theorems on "homotopy functors" (I hope that's how they are called in English) from chapter 7.7 in Spanier. But I was told there is an explicit proof and that's the one I'm looking for.

  • $\begingroup$ As a possible method of attack, it might help to know that $\Sigma X\cong X\wedge S^1$ and for sufficiently well-behaved space (I think CW-complexes is enough), the smash product is commutative and associative up to homeomorphism. In particular, we can say that the RHS is homeomorphic to $\Sigma X\vee\Sigma Y\vee ((X\wedge Y)\wedge S^1)\cong\Sigma X\vee\Sigma Y\vee (X\wedge \Sigma Y)\cong\Sigma X\vee\Sigma Y\vee (\Sigma X\wedge Y)$. Whether this is a fruitful approach, I'm not sure. $\endgroup$ – Dan Rust Feb 12 '13 at 22:29
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielRust Associativity looks similar to $X\times(Y/\sim) \overset{?}{=} (X\times Y)/\sim$, so local compactness may (also) be sufficient here. Anyway, we can add general assumptions like local compactness or CW-stucture if it helps. $\endgroup$ – savick01 Feb 13 '13 at 12:17
  • $\begingroup$ Does this result hold with $X$ and $Y$ are not path-connected? $\endgroup$ – user17982 Nov 25 '13 at 6:31
  • $\begingroup$ @ColinTan I don't really know. You should go through details of the proof or ask Piotr. I tried to find a counterexample, but I failed. Trying to prove it, I ended up with a hypothesis $\sum({X\times Y}_{/X\times \{y_0\}}) = \sum Y \lor \sum(X\land Y)$. If it was true, we should be able to get a non-connected case by induction from the connected case (assuming finite number of connected components). It it was false and we had a counterexample, we probably could produce a counterexample for the original claim. $\endgroup$ – savick01 Nov 25 '13 at 16:30
  • $\begingroup$ Another reference: lemma 4.2.3 in Neisendorfer's Algebraic methods in unstable homotopy theory. $\endgroup$ – Bruno Stonek Oct 20 '15 at 7:43

I don't know how explicit we can go, but I'll give it a try. We have to go first through the homotopy-theoretical part.

Since $\{ * \} \subseteq X, \{ * \} \subseteq Y$ are cofibrations, $X \vee Y \subseteq X \times Y$ also is. Let $Z$ be a pointed space and consider the long exact sequence of homotopy for the pair $X \vee Y \subseteq X \times Y$, ie. the sequence

$\ldots \rightarrow [\Sigma ^{2}(X \vee Y), Z] \rightarrow [\Sigma(X \wedge Y), Z] \rightarrow [\Sigma(X \times Y), Z] \rightarrow [\Sigma(X \vee Y), Z] \rightarrow [X \wedge Y, Z] \rightarrow \ldots$,

where $[-,-]$ is the pointed set of homotopy classes of basepoint-preserving maps. Note that for any $n \geq 0$, $\Sigma^{n}(X \vee Y)$ is homeomorphic to $\Sigma^{n}X \vee \Sigma ^{n} Y$. I will not distinguish between the two.

Let $k \geq 1$ and define a map

$\psi ^{k}: \Sigma^{k}(X \times Y) \rightarrow \Sigma^{k}X \vee \Sigma^{k}Y$

$\psi ^{k} = \Sigma^{k}(i_{X} \pi_{X}) + \Sigma^{k}(i_{Y} \pi_{Y})$,

where $\pi: X \times Y \rightarrow X, Y$ are the projections and $i: X, Y \rightarrow X \vee Y$ are the inclusions. Addition is performed via the suspension structure on $\Sigma^{k}(X \times Y)$, so this is why we require $k \geq 1$. (Observe that even though I denote it by addition this is not necessarily commutative for $k=1$.)

If $j: X \vee Y \hookrightarrow X \times Y$ is the inclusion, then I claim that $\psi ^{k}$ is the left inverse to $\Sigma^{k}j$, ie. $\psi ^{k} \circ \Sigma^{k}j = id_{\Sigma^{k}(X \vee Y)}$. This is important because $\Sigma^{k}j$ are connecting maps in the long exact sequence of homotopy. Indeed, one computes

$\psi ^{k} \circ (\Sigma^{k}j) = (\Sigma^{k}(i_{X} \pi_{X}) + \Sigma^{k}(i_{Y} \pi_{Y})) \circ \Sigma^{k}j = \Sigma^{k}(i_{X} \pi_{X} j) + \Sigma^{k}(i_{Y} \pi _{Y} j) = \Sigma^{k}(id_{X} \vee const) + \Sigma^{k}(const \vee id_{Y}) \simeq (\Sigma^{k}id_{X} + const) \vee (const + \Sigma^{k}id_{Y}) \simeq \Sigma^{k}id_{X} \vee \Sigma^{k}id_{Y} \simeq id_{\Sigma^{k}X \vee \Sigma^{k}Y}$.

(One can also see this geometrically.) This immediately implies that for all $k \geq 1$ and all $Z$ the $[\Sigma^{k}(X \times Y), Z] \rightarrow [\Sigma^{k}(X \vee Y), Z]$ induced by $j$ is surjective and - by exactness of the long exact sequence - that for all $n \geq 1$ the map $[\Sigma^{n}(X \smash Y), Z] \rightarrow [\Sigma^{n}(X \times Y), Z]$ has zero kernel. In particular, for $k=1$ we have the short exact sequence of groups

$0 \rightarrow [\Sigma(X \wedge Y), Z] \rightarrow [\Sigma(X \times Y), Z] \rightarrow [\Sigma(X) \vee \Sigma(Y), Z] \rightarrow 0$

Moreover, the map induced by $\psi^{1}$ splits it and shows that there is a natural isomorphism

$\phi: [\Sigma(X \wedge Y), Z] \rtimes [\Sigma(X) \vee \Sigma(Y), Z] \rightarrow [\Sigma(X \times Y), Z]$,

of groups, where the product is only semi-direct, because our groups are not necessarily abelian. This is enough for our purposes, since we also have natural bijections

$[\Sigma(X \wedge Y), Z] \rtimes [\Sigma(X) \vee \Sigma(Y), Z] \simeq [\Sigma(X \wedge Y), Z] \times [\Sigma(X) \vee \Sigma(Y), Z] \simeq [\Sigma(X \wedge Y) \vee \Sigma(X) \vee \Sigma(Y), Z]$.

(The second one follows from from the fact that $\vee$ is the direct sum in the category of pointed spaces.) Yoneda lemma establishes that there is an isomorphism

$\theta: \Sigma(X \times Y) \rightarrow _{\simeq} \Sigma(X \smash Y) \vee \Sigma(X) \vee \Sigma(Y) $

in the homotopy category of pointed spaces, ie. a homotopy equivalence that we were after. It takes a little bookkeeping in the above Yoneda-lemma argumentation to see that such map is given by

$\theta = \Sigma(p) + \psi^{i} = \Sigma(p) + \Sigma^{1}(i_{X} \pi_{X}) + \Sigma^{1}(i_{Y} \pi_{Y})$,

where $p: X \times Y \rightarrow X \wedge Y$ is the natural projection. (This is what we get if we start with $id \in [\Sigma(X \wedge Y) \vee \Sigma(X) \vee \Sigma(Y), \Sigma(X \wedge Y) \vee \Sigma(X) \vee \Sigma(Y)]$ and trace it back by all the bijections above to $[\Sigma(X \times Y), \Sigma(X \wedge Y) \vee \Sigma(X) \vee \Sigma(Y)]$ - and this is the way to discover the isomorphisms "hidden" by Yoneda lemma.)

I understand that my exposition is far from perfect, but if you would like me to go into more detail over some parts, please comment.

  • $\begingroup$ Great! Thank you very much. It seems that the problem is more complex than I expected / was told. I don't know the long exact sequence of a cofibration that you're using in the proof, can you give me any reference? It looks a bit similar to the exact sequence of homotopy groups of a fibration $Map(X\land Y,Z)\to Map(X\times Y,Z)\to Map(X\lor Y, Z)$ - can I deduce your sequence from this one? $\endgroup$ – savick01 Mar 2 '13 at 17:39
  • $\begingroup$ It's very probable that there exist more elementary proofs, but this one is rather natural, since the basic property of all the spaces involved is that they form a cofibration sequence. One just proves that after one suspension this sequence "splits". The long exact sequence of homotopy for cofibrations I mention is purely dual to the one for fibrations. This is covered, for example, on page. 399 in Hatcher's "Algebraic Topology". Also, May in ch. 8 "Concise Course (...)" covers both of these long sequences on equal footing (highly recommended). $\endgroup$ – Piotr Pstrągowski Mar 2 '13 at 18:30

This is proposition 4I.1 in Hatcher. The argument given there is geometric and elementary. It goes as follows:

We assume $X$ and $Y$ are CW complexes and we use the reduced suspension everywhere (which in this case is homotopy equivalent to the free suspension). I assume that your more general situation of well-pointed spaces works the same.

Consider the reduced Join $X*Y$ which is, like the regular join, the quotient of $X\times Y\times [0,1]$ by the relations

$$ (x,y_1,0)\sim(x,y_2,0) $$ $$ (x_1,y,1)\sim(x_2,y,1) $$

but we also collapse to a point the segment $(x_0,y_0,t)$. i.e. we collapse one "face" of the "cube" to $X$ and the opposite to $Y$ and the segment connecting the base points. Now, we glue in the cones on $X$ and $Y$ respectively along the collapsed faces and obtain a space

$$ Z=CX\sqcup_X (X*Y) \sqcup_Y CY $$

We will show that it is homotopy equivalent to the two spaces in your question.

On the one hand, if we collapse the two cones $CX$ and $CY$, what we get (by unwinding the definitions) is precisely the reduced suspension of $X\times Y$ (note that we used the reduced join). Since collapsing a contractible subcomplex does not change the homotopy type, we have a homotopy equivalence $Z\simeq \Sigma (X\times Y)$.

On the other hand, inside the reduced join $X*Y$, we have the spaces $X*y_0$ and $x_0*Y$ which are also contractible, as they are just cones on $X$ and $Y$ respectively, and collapsing them gives $\Sigma(X)\vee \Sigma(X\wedge Y)\vee \Sigma(Y)$. As before, this space is homotopy equivalent to $Z$ and we are done.


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.