This is a question about a remark someone said to me without giving much precision.

Suppose you have two nice spaces $X,Y$ and are trying to build a map $X\to Y$ with certain nice properties. Suppose for simplicity (no pun intended) that $Y$ is a simple space, that is $\pi_1(Y)$ acts trivially on $\pi_n(Y)$ for all $n$.

Then one way to do this is to decompose $Y$ into a Postnikov tower $\dots \to Y_2\to Y_1$. As $Y$ is simple, we can choose each $Y_{n+1}\to Y_n$ to be a principal fibration.

I was told that the "obstruction to the existence of a lift $f:X\to Y_n$ to $\tilde f : X\to Y_{n+1}$ is a cohomology class in $H^{n+2}(X,\pi_{n+1}(Y))$" and that the "obstruction to the uniqueness of such a lift lies in $H^{n+1}(X,\pi_{n+1}(Y))$".

I understand the first bit : indeed if we look at a delooping of the fibration $Y_{n+1}\to Y_n$ we see that it is of the form $X_{n+1}\to X_n \to K(\pi_{n+1}(X), n+2)$, therefore if we hace $f: X\to Y_n$, it lifts (up to homotopy) to $Y_{n+1}$ if and only if it is sent to $0$ in $[X, K(\pi_{n+1}(X), n+2)] = H^{n+2}(X, \pi_{n+1}(Y))$, so the obstruction is the class of the pushforward of $f$ in $H^{n+2}(X, \pi_{n+1}(Y))$.

I have more trouble with the second bit, though. I understand that it is related to the fact that the fiber of the fibration $Y_{n+1}\to Y_n$ is $K(\pi_{n+1}(Y), n+1)$, so if somehow I could "subtract" maps I would definitely get the obstruction where I was told it was; but without that I seem to be stuck :

I have two maps $f_1,f_2 : X\to Y_{n+1}$ that lift $f:X\to Y_n$, what do I do with them ? How do I extract a map $X\to $fiber ? Or perhaps $X\to \mathrm{hofib}$ ?

I thought of focusing on one of the two maps, say $f_1$, fixing $f$ and seeing that a homotopy $p\circ f_1\to f$ (where $p: Y_{n+1}\to Y_n$) gives me a map $X\to$ some space that looks like the homotopy fiber, but I can't make that precise (I would want something like "the homotopy fiber over a point that moves along with $X$")

So my question is :

What is meant by "the obstruction to uniqueness of lifing lies in $H^{n+1}(X,\pi_{n+1}(Y))$" ?

  • $\begingroup$ If I were to pose this simpler problem, would you know what to do? And/or would knowing what to do be sufficient to you to settle your actual problem? Namely, given $K = K(G,m+1)$ and given two maps $g_0,g_1 : X \to K$, show that the obstruction to a homotopy from $g_0$ to $g_1$ lives in $H^{m}(X,G)$. $\endgroup$ – Lee Mosher Sep 22 '19 at 15:25
  • $\begingroup$ @LeeMosher : Right now I don't see, but I'll try to think about it. As far as I can see the simpler problem is the question of a lift $X\to K^2$ to $X\to K^I$. Perhaps there's a way to see that $K^I\to K^2$ is a principal fibration ? I'll see what I can find $\endgroup$ – Maxime Ramzi Sep 22 '19 at 15:51
  • $\begingroup$ And now I see that I mistyped. In my previous comment, change $H^m(X,G)$ to $H^{m+1}(X,G)$. $\endgroup$ – Lee Mosher Sep 22 '19 at 15:57
  • $\begingroup$ Ok here's a better solution to the simpler problem : $K$ is a loop space, so we have a natural multiplication map $K^2\to K$. Let's look more generally at the homotopy fiber of $\Omega Y^2\to \Omega Y$ : a point in it consists in a couple $(\gamma_1, \gamma_2)$ of loops together with a path $\gamma_1\gamma_2 \to *$ ($*$ being the constant loop, where $Y$ is based). But such a path can equally be interpreted as a path homotopy $\gamma_1\to \gamma_2^{-1}$. Since all these things happen at the level of parametrizations of $I$, this should be continuous, and in fact a homotopy equivalence. (1/2) $\endgroup$ – Maxime Ramzi Sep 22 '19 at 17:05
  • $\begingroup$ But inversion is a homotopy equivalence (in fact a homeomorphism $\Omega Y \to \Omega Y$ so in fact the homotopy fiber is the space of couples $(\gamma_1, \gamma_2)$ together with a homotopy $\gamma_1\to \gamma_2$, that is, the homotopy fiber is precisely $(\Omega Y)^I$, with the correct "inclusion" map (if I change $(x,y)\mapsto xy$ to $(x,y)\mapsto xy^{-1}$ ). This sounds more reasonable than what I had before, and in fact it corresponds more closely to the idea of subtracting maps in cohomology. It follows that we have a fiber sequence $K^I \to K^2 \to K$ (2/ more than 2 actually) $\endgroup$ – Maxime Ramzi Sep 22 '19 at 17:09

I'll write $B^n A$ for $K(A, n)$. Given that there exists a lift, the space of lifts is the space of homotopy sections of the homotopy pullback of the bundle $Y_{n+1} \to Y_n$ to $X$ (this follows just from the universal property of the homotopy pullback). The bundle $Y_{n+1} \to Y_n$ is a principal $B^{n+1} \pi_{n+1}(Y)$-bundle whose pullback to $X$ admits a section, hence which is trivializable over $X$. The space of sections of the trivial bundle is the space of functions $[X, B^{n+1} \pi_{n+1}(Y)]$, whose $\pi_0$ is $H^{n+1}(X, \pi_{n+1}(Y))$, and so the space of sections of any trivializable bundle is naturally a torsor over this space.

(This is a special case of a very general pattern that is straightforward when stated abstractly but surprisingly hard to spot: if $a, b$ are isomorphic, the space of isomorphisms between them is naturally a torsor over the automorphism group of either. "Trivializable" means isomorphic to the trivial bundle, and the space of sections of a principal bundle can be naturally identified with the space of isomorphisms to the trivial bundle.)

  • $\begingroup$ No I really did mean Postnikov Tower. Perhaps there is also an obstruction theory using Whitehead towers, but I meant Postnikov : $Y_1$ is $K(\pi_1, 1)$, $Y_2$ has two (possibly) nontrivial homotopy groups etc. $\endgroup$ – Maxime Ramzi Sep 22 '19 at 21:28
  • $\begingroup$ Although your answer is still interesting ! $\endgroup$ – Maxime Ramzi Sep 22 '19 at 21:28
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, I see, I misread slightly. In any case the idea is the same although the example I gave isn't an example. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Sep 23 '19 at 5:04
  • $\begingroup$ I still have some things to unwind from your answer : for instance what is a principal something-bundle when something is not a group, why is $Y_{n+1}\to Y_n$ such a bundle, and why are these bundles stable under homotopy pullback; why are such bundles with a section trivializable (for principal $G$-bundles that's quite clear, but well I don't know what meaning you give to bundle here). Once I figure all this out I'll get it (right now I only understand the idea of what you're saying but the details are still elusive) $\endgroup$ – Maxime Ramzi Sep 23 '19 at 9:50
  • $\begingroup$ (if you can explain what bundles are in this context, or if you can give some reference where I can read about it, I'd be very grateful !) $\endgroup$ – Maxime Ramzi Sep 23 '19 at 9:58

Let me write another answer to try to understand this from another point of view and using things I learned recently.

Let me assume that $X$ is simply-connected and very nice.

We're back at our stage where we have $X\to Y_n$ and we're asking when we can lift it (uniquely) to $X\to Y_{n+1}$.

By taking the homotopy pullback of $Y_{n+1}\to Y_n$ along $X\to Y_n$ we get a fibration $P\to X$ with fiber $K(\pi_{n+1}(Y),n+1)$. Let me write $\pi = \pi_{n+1}(Y)$ for simplicity of notation.

The existence of a lift is equivalent to the existence of a section of that fibration, and then the space of lifts is equivalently the space of sections.

But now this fibration $P\to X$ is also a (Kan) fibration of $\infty$-groupoids, so in particular I can see it as an $\infty$-functor $X\to \mathcal S$ ($\mathcal S$ is the $\infty$-category of spaces).

Up to equivalence I may assume that this functor takes a constant value equal to $K(\pi,n+1)$ on objects.

It follows that we get a functor $\chi : X\to BAut(K(\pi,n+1))$ where by this I denote the full sub-$\infty$-groupoid of $\mathcal S^{\simeq}$ on $K(\pi,n+1)$, which classifies our fibration $P\to X$. Note that the space of sections of that fibration is the space of maps from the constant functor equal to a point to that functor

So now I have to examine what this space $BAut(K(\pi,n+1))$ is.

It has one vertex, with mapping space $Map^\simeq (K(\pi,n+1),K(\pi,n+1))$

Therefore its $\pi_0$ is trivial and $\pi_k$ of it is $\pi_0\Omega^k$ of it. $\Omega$ of it is $Map^\simeq(K(\pi,n+1),K(\pi,n+1))$ so we're left with computing the homotopy groups of that thing.

Its $\pi_0$ is a subset of $H^{n+1}(K(\pi,n+1),\pi) = \hom(\pi,\pi)$ and it's easy to check that it's precisely $Aut(\pi)$.

Then its $\pi_k$ at $id_\pi$ is $\pi_0\Omega^kMap(K(\pi,n+1),K(\pi,n+1)) = \pi_0Map(K(\pi,n+1), K(\pi,n+1-k)) = H^{n+1-k}(K(\pi,n+1),\pi) =$ $\pi$ if $k=n+1$, $0$ else.

So $BAut(K(\pi,n+1))$ has two homotopy groups : a $\pi_1= Aut(\pi)$, and a $\pi_{n+2} = \pi$.

Now since $X$ is simply-connected, the map $X\to BAut(K(\pi,n+1))$ lifts to $X\to K(\pi,n+2)$ because of the fiber sequence $K(\pi,n+2)\to BAut(K(\pi,n+1)) \to K(Aut(\pi),1)$

So our fibration is classified by some cohomology class $\alpha \in H^{n+2}(X,\pi)$. More precisely, the space of fibrations of this type is $Map(X,BAut(K(\pi,n+1)))\simeq Map(X,K(\pi,n+2))$

If the fibration has a section, then we get a map of fibrations from $X\to X$ to $P\to X$ which translates to a map of functors $cst_* \to \chi$ and it follows that $\alpha = 0$.

Therefore the obstruction to lifting is indeed a cohomology class $\alpha \in H^{n+2}(X,\pi)$ (not sure how useful that construction is, though)

Now how about uniqueness ?

Well if our fibration is known to be trivial, that is, of the form $K(\pi,n+1)\times X$, then the space of sections is $Map(X,K(\pi,n+1))$ (whose $\pi_0$ is indeed $H^{n+1}(X,\pi)$)

More generally, the existence of a map $cst_*\to \chi$ should guarantee the existence of $cst_{K(\pi,n+1)}\to \chi$ because $K(\pi,n+1)$ is a "group". But one would need $\chi$ to be a functor with values in $K(\pi,n+1)$ modules, or, equivalently, $P\to X$ to have a compatible $K(\pi,n+1)$ action. Is that clear ?

It seems to me like this amounts to claiming that any (split ?) fibration $G\to P\to X$ with $G$ an $E_1$-space automatically inherits a (canonical) $G$-action on $P$ which induces the right action on $G$.

I'll have to think about that, it might be right, but it doesn't seem to be that obvious.


Here's a more lowbrow point of view, with, I think, no gap - as opposed to my previous attempt at an answer .

The idea is that instead of separating uniqueness and existence, we consider the two similarly, by simply using a relative version of the obstruction to lifting.

So suppose we have a map $X\to Y_n$, a map (think of it as a cofibration) $A\to X$ together with a lift of $A\to X\to Y_n$ to $Y_{n+1}$. That is, we have a commutative square

$\require{AMScd}\begin{CD} A @>>> Y_{n+1} \\ @VVV @VVV \\ X @>>> Y_n\end{CD}$

What is the obstruction to filling this diagram with a diagonal map $X\to Y_{n+1}$ ? (up to homotopy, say)

So this is a relative version of the obstruction to existence, but we'll see that it can be adapted to provide obstruction to unicity as well.

Just as before, if $Y$ is good enough, the Postnikov tower consists of principal fibrations, and in fact, $Y_{n+1}\to Y_n$ is the pullback of the fibration $*\to K(\pi_{n+1}(Y), n+2)$ along some map $Y_n\to K(\pi_{n+1}(Y),n+2)$

It follows that we actually have a larger diagram

$\require{AMScd}\begin{CD} A @>>> Y_{n+1} @>>> *\\ @VVV @VVV @VVV\\ X @>>> Y_n @>>> K(\pi_{n+1}(Y),n+2)\end{CD}$

Now finding a diagonal filler in the original diagram is the same as finding a diagonal filler in

$\require{AMScd}\begin{CD} A @>>> *\\ @VVV @VVV\\ X @>>> K(\pi_{n+1}(Y),n+2)\end{CD}$

by pullback properties.

But now that diagram corresponds to a map $cofiber(A\to X)\to K(\pi_{n+1}(Y),n+2)$, and if that map is not nullhomotopic, there is no lifting. In fact, the obstruction to getting a diagonal filler is precisely this map; that is, it's a cohomology class in $H^{n+2}(Cofiber(A\to X), \pi_{n+1}(Y))$.

Now how does this help us ? Well in the $A=\emptyset$ scenario, we get back the non-relative lifting problem, that is, the obstruction to lifting is a cohomology class in $H^{n+2}(X, \pi_{n+1}(Y))$, as initially announced.

What the relative version buys us, though, is that if we take $A= X\times \partial I \to X\times I$ as our cofibration, the problem of finding a diagonal filler is essentially the problem of uniqueness of a lift. That is, if we have two lifts of the same map, they correspond to a diagram

$\require{AMScd}\begin{CD} X\times \partial I @>>> Y_{n+1} \\ @VVV @VVV \\ X\times I @>>> Y_n\end{CD}$

and a diagonal filler is precisely a homotopy between the two. So the obstruction to such a filler is precisely the obstruction to uniqueness, so it's a cohomology class in $H^{n+2}(X\times I/ X\times \partial I, \pi_{n+1}(Y))= H^{n+1}(X,\pi_{n+1}(Y))$, which is what we wanted.

(this last equality can be seen from the answer here. The idea is simply that $(X\times I)/(X\times \partial I) = \Sigma(X_+)$, so the reduced cohomology is that of $X$, shifted by one degree)


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.