(One version of) the Whitehead theorem states that a homology equivalence between simply connected CW complexes is a homotopy equivalence. Does the following generalisation hold true?

Suppose $X,Y$ are two connected CW complexes and $f:X\to Y$ is a continuous map that induces isomorphisms of the fundamental groups and on homology. Then $f$ is a weak equivalence.

It would be enough to show that the map $\tilde{f}$ obtained by lifting $f$ to the universal covers (for some arbitrary choice of base points) is a homology equivalence, but I've never studied the homology spectral sequence, so I don't know the relationship between the homology of the universal cover $\widetilde{X}$ and that of $X$, and I don't know how to prove that $\tilde{f}$ is a homology equivalence.

Also, are there any good, reasonably self contained and short accounts of the homology of covering spaces, preferably online?

EDIT 1 I've seen some lecture notes (second paragraph on page 5) where this theorem is used (without further comment). They used this proposition to establish that a certain type of homotopy colimit is well defined up to weak equivalence.

EDIT 2 Theorem 6.71 from Kirk and Davis (page 179 of the document or 164 internally) is probably what I need, but it involves isomorphisms with local coefficient systems for homology for the base spaces.

EDIT 3 Thank you @studiosus for the reference. I don't quite understand yet, could you help out? If I get it (using the theorem of the source), there are finite connected two dimensional complexes $X,Y$ and a homotopy equivalence $X\vee S^2\simeq Y\vee S^2$, yet $X$ and $Y$ aren't homotopy equivalent. From the assumption it follows immediately that $$X\hookrightarrow X\vee S^2\to Y\vee S^2\twoheadrightarrow Y$$ gives an isomorphism of the fundamental groups. From $$\tilde{H}(X)\oplus\tilde{H}(S^2)\simeq\tilde{H}(X\vee S^2)\simeq\tilde{H}(Y\vee S^2)\simeq\tilde{H}(X)\oplus\tilde{H}(S^2)\;,$$ $\tilde{H}(S^2)\simeq \Bbb Z[2]$ and the fundamental theorem of finitely generated abelian groups, it follows at once that $\tilde{H}(X)\simeq\tilde{H}(Y)$ abstractly. The only problem I have is that it doesn't seem to me that we get a map $X\to Y$ that induces isomorphisms on $\pi_1$ and is a homology equivalence, actually, I don't see why there should be a homology equivalence $X\to Y$ at all.

  • $\begingroup$ This generalisation seems unlikely (mainly because the homotopy group version of Whitehead's theorem seems close to a 'sharp' result), but I can't think of a counterexample at the moment. $\endgroup$
    – Dan Rust
    Apr 13 '14 at 12:26
  • $\begingroup$ Could you outline why it's enough to show the lift $\tilde{f}$ is a homology equivalence? I understand that this would show $\tilde{f}$ is a homotopy equivalence, but why would there be a homotopy inverse $\tilde{g}$ to $\tilde{f}$ which respects the projection mappings? Is there an equivariant Whitehead's theorem? $\endgroup$ Apr 14 '14 at 23:45
  • $\begingroup$ @JasonDeVito If $\tilde{f}$ is a homology equivalence, it follows from simple connectedness and Whitehead's homology theorem that it is a homotopy equivalence $\widetilde{X}\to\widetilde{Y}$. Since a covering projection induces an isomorphisms $p_*:\pi_n(\widetilde{X})\simeq\pi_n( X)$ for all $n\geq 2$, the commutative diagram $$\begin{array}{ccc}\pi_n(\widetilde{X})&\xrightarrow{\tilde{f}_*}&\pi_n( \widetilde{Y} )\\\downarrow&&\downarrow\\\pi_n(X)&\xrightarrow{f_*}&\pi_n(Y)\end{array}$$ that $f_*$ is an isomorphism for all $\pi_n$, $n\geq 2$. $\endgroup$ Apr 15 '14 at 0:23
  • $\begingroup$ @JasonDeVito Since by hypothesis $f_*$ is an isomorphism on $\pi_1$ and $\pi_0$, $f$ is a weak equivalence between CW complexes and Whitehead's theorem tells us that it is a homotopy equivalence. $\endgroup$ Apr 15 '14 at 0:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think that a counterexample is given at the top of p. 281 in McDuff and Segal's article on group completion (available here: maths.ed.ac.uk/~aar/papers/mcdsegal.pdf) but maybe there is an issue of basepoints. They consider the shift map on the infinite symmetric group (finitely supported permutations of $\mathbb{N}$). $\endgroup$
    – Dan Ramras
    Apr 15 '14 at 3:04

The answer is no. An easy example is provided in Allen Hatcher's Algebraic Topology, Example 4.35.


There, a CW-complex $X$ is formed by attaching an appropriate $(n+1)$-cell to the wedge $S^1 \vee S^n$ of a circle and an $n$-sphere. The inclusion of the $1$-skeleton $S^1 \to X$ induces an isomorphism on integral homology and on homotopy groups $\pi_i$ for $i < n$ but not on $\pi_n$.

That example is also worked out as Problem 1 here:


  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer, I somehow hadn't noticed it until today ... $\endgroup$ Oct 22 '16 at 15:17

There are two finite 2-dimensional complexes $A, B$ which are not homotopy-equivalent but are homology-equivalent, i.e., there exists a continuous map $$ f: A\to B $$ inducing isomorphism of fundamental groups and homology groups. See the last paragraph (page 522) of this paper, the actual example is due to Dunwoody.

Edit 1: The homology equivalence part follows from Dyer's paper, see the link above (read the very last paragraph of his paper). Dyer's results are by no means obvious: He proves that equality of Euler characteristics plus one extra condition ($m=1$, whatever $m$ is) imply homology equivalence of 2-d complexes with isomorphic fundamental groups. Then Dyer verifies his conditions in the case of Dunwoody's example (the only nontrivial condition is $m=1$, since equality of Euler characteristics is clear).

Edit 2: The correct version of the "homological Whitehead's theorem" is indeed requires a cohomology isomorphisms with sheaf coefficients, see the discussion and reference here.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the reference, I have a question though, too long for a comment. I added it in the main body of the question, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at it! $\endgroup$ Apr 15 '14 at 16:54
  • $\begingroup$ Just in case you already read my question, there was a mistake in my EDIT to the original question, the source I linked to wasn't the article by Dunwoody. $\endgroup$ Apr 15 '14 at 19:16
  • $\begingroup$ @OlivierBégassat: See the edit. $\endgroup$ Apr 15 '14 at 20:11
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, thank you for the explanation. I'll try to understand Dyer's result tomorow. $\endgroup$ Apr 15 '14 at 20:44
  • $\begingroup$ I left an answer to tell you what I understood from your examples, could you take a look at it and correct my understanding of it? $\endgroup$ Apr 20 '14 at 16:20

...it turns out there are non-trivial high dimensional smooth knots $S^n\subset S^{n+2}$ such that $\pi_1$ of the knot complement $X$ is infinite cyclic. The inclusion of the meridian $S^1 \subset X$ is a homology isomorphism, a $\pi_1$ isomorphism but is never a weak equivalence since by a result of Levine if it were then the knot would be trivial (we should assume $n \ge 3$ here).

John Klein @ https://mathoverflow.net/a/104534/1556

  • $\begingroup$ That's very interesting. I asked John Klein for a reference in the comment section of his answer; do you know of a reference for this? $\endgroup$ Apr 18 '14 at 12:38
  • $\begingroup$ @Olivier The first part (the inclusion of the meridian is a homology iso) follows from Alexander duality. The reference for the second part (codimension 2 sphere is unknotted iff its complement is homotopy equivalent to $S^1$) is, I believe, J. Levine, Unknotting spheres in codimension 2, Topology 4, 9–16 (1965) $\endgroup$
    – Grigory M
    Apr 18 '14 at 12:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Actually, the second part is due to John Stallings "On topologically unknotted spheres", Annals of Math., 1963. $\endgroup$ Apr 18 '14 at 16:39
  • $\begingroup$ @studiosus Oh, looks like you're right $\endgroup$
    – Grigory M
    Apr 18 '14 at 16:45

This is meant as a question directed at @studiosus and anybody who's familiar with his example.

M. Dyer's theorem seems to state, as a special case, that

Theorem Suppose $X,Y$ are finite, at most 2 dimensional, connected CW complexes with isomorphic fundamental groups (so called $[G,2]$-complexes, where $\pi_1(X)\simeq G\simeq\pi_1(Y)$). If $X$ and $Y$ have the same Euler characteristic $\chi$, and $\chi>\chi_{\min}(G,2)$, then $X$ and $Y$ are homology equivalent.

(From what I understood, when $\chi>\chi_{\min}(G,2)$ then automatically $m=1$, see the first sentence under his theorem)

To the trefoil knot group presentation $G=\langle a,b\mid a^3b^{-2}=1\rangle$ corresponds a $[G,2]$-complex with one $0$ cell, two $1$ cells and one $2$ cell ($Y$ in Dyer's paper) so that $\chi(Y)=0\geq\chi_{\min}(G,2)$, and thus with $X=Y\vee S^2$, which is manifestly still a $[G,2]$-complex, $1=\chi(X)>0\geq\chi_{\min}(G,2)$. This $X$ corresponds to the presentation $G=\langle a,b\mid a^3b^{-2}=1, 1=1\rangle$.

There is another presentation for $G$ defined in Dunwoody's paper with a complicated presentation (still on two generators and two relations, it's on the last page of his paper, so with $\chi=1$), and I take it, that the realization $Z$ of this presentation has $X\not\simeq Z$ (while, I take it, $X\vee S^2\simeq Z\vee S^2$).

So since $X$ and $Z$ are $[G,2]$-spaces with identical Euler characteristic equal to $1>0\geq\chi_{\min}(G,2)$, they should automatically have $m=1$ and thus be homology equivalent by M.Dyer's therem (for him this means: there is a map that is an isomorphism on $\pi_1$ and $H_*$), yet they aren't homotopy equivalent by Dunwoody's theorem.

Is this correct?

$\chi_{\min}(G,2)$ is the minimum over all Euler characteristics of $[G,2]$-complexes.The fact that $\chi_{\min}(G,2)$ is well defined strikes me as believable, at least not implausible, and I'm willing to accept it. Indeed, it seems that every $[G,2]$-complex $X$ should define a presentation $P$ of $G$, and a subcomplex $X'$ with the same $1$-skeleton, but possibly less $2$-cells, thus with smaller Euler characteristic, homotopy equivalent to the $[G,2]$-complex obtained from the presentation $P$. So it seems that, in order to show $\chi_{\min}(G,2)$ is well defined, one can forget about general $[G,2]$-complex and only consider those associated to presentations of $G$. Adding a new relation increases the Euler characteristic by one. Adding a new generator should introduce at least one new relation, thus at least one new $2$-cell, so it seems that ($\#$ of $2$-cells)$-$($\#$ of $1$-cells)$+1$ can only increase by adding new generators and relations to a given presentation of $G$. So it seems one can do the following:

  1. From any $[G,2]$-complex $X$ extract a subcomplex $X'$ with fewer $2$ cells and identical $1$ skeleton (thus reducing $\chi$) that remains a $[G,2]$-complex and is homotopy equivalent to a $[G,2]$-complex associated to a presentation of $G$.
  2. From a given presentation of $G$ extract a "minimal" presentation of $G$. Intuitively one that can't be reduced by either considering less generators or relations. From the intuitive argument above it follows that adding new generators or relations to a presentation can only increase teh Euler characteristic, so passing to "minimal" presentations should reduc the Euler characteristic of the associated $[G,2]$-complex.
  3. Only study the Euler characteristics of $[G,2]$-complexes associated to "minimal" presentations of $G$.
  4. Somehow show that they all have the same Euler characteristic, which then must be $\chi_{\min}(G,2)$.

EDIT 1 Proposition 1 on page 14 of these notes gives a lower bound for the Euler characteristic of any $[G,2]$-complex associated to any presentation of (finitely presentable) $G$ in terms of the rank of its first and second homology groups. So steps 3 and 4 aren't necessary, 4 might even be wrong.

  • $\begingroup$ I did not look at the staff before Edit 1, but what you say after Edit 1 is correct. The trick is to show that $0=\chi_{min}(G,2)$ in Dunwoody's example. You can see this from the fact that the presentation complex for $G$ is $K(G,1)$. $\endgroup$ Apr 20 '14 at 18:13
  • $\begingroup$ @studiosus But as I understand it, it is only required that the Euler characteristics be equal and $m=1$, and it seems to me he is saying that $m=1$ whenever $\chi>\chi_{\min}(G,2)$. Since we know by example (the complex associated to the presentation $\langle a,b\mid a^3=b^2\rangle$) that there is a $[G,2]$-complex with $\chi=0$ we have $0\geq\chi_{\min}(G,2)$, and so, for any $[G,2]$-complex with $\chi\geq 1$, $m=1$. My point is that it apparantly doesn't matter that $\chi_{\min}(G,2)=0$ or not, it only matters that it be less than our $\chi$. Am I correctly interpreting the article? $\endgroup$ Apr 20 '14 at 18:59
  • $\begingroup$ Also, are the spaces $X$ and $Z$ the actual spaces he uses to find homology equivalent (in $\pi_1$ and $H_*$), non homotopy equivalent spaces? $\endgroup$ Apr 20 '14 at 19:02
  • $\begingroup$ True on both counts. $\endgroup$ Apr 20 '14 at 19:40
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, if you say so ^^ I awarded you the bounty, I guess I need to read the articles more in depth to believe their claims and my own explanation ^^ $\endgroup$ Apr 20 '14 at 19:47

You know already that the answer for your question is no, nevertheless, there is a generalisation which you might like:

Suppose that $X$, $Y$ are path-connected, simple CW-complexes. If $f:X\rightarrow Y$ induces isomorphism in $H_n$ for all $n\geq 0$, then $f$ is a homotopy equivalence.

  • $\begingroup$ Hi Mihail, I only noticed your answer today, sorry about that. What is the definition of a simple CW complex ? $\endgroup$ Jul 31 '19 at 12:39
  • $\begingroup$ @OlivierBégassat A topological space is called simple if the action of a fundamental group on higher homotopy groups is trivial. For example, this is the case when the fundamental group is trivial. $\endgroup$
    – Mihail
    Aug 1 '19 at 22:54
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! ${}{}{}$ $\endgroup$ Aug 1 '19 at 22:55
  • $\begingroup$ I think that one also requires that the fundamental group is abelian usally. At least, that is the generalization that I know $\endgroup$ Nov 17 '20 at 23:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It acts on itself my inner automorphisms $\endgroup$ Mar 15 at 3:43

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.