7
$\begingroup$

This question takes place in the category $\mathrm{CGWH}$ of compactly generated weak Hausdorff spaces.

Let $\lambda$ be a limit ordinal, and suppose we have a diagram $\Phi: \lambda \to \mathrm{CGWH}$, as indicated $$ X_0 \hookrightarrow X_1 \hookrightarrow \cdots \hookrightarrow X_\xi \hookrightarrow X_{\xi+1} \hookrightarrow \cdots . $$ We'll assume the inclusion maps are as nice as could be reasonably hoped for: they are all obtained by pushouts from closed cofibrations. I'm even prepared to go so far as to say each inclusion is a relative CW complex. Let's also assume that if $\xi< \lambda$ is a limit ordinal, then $X_\xi = \mathrm{colim}\, \Phi|_\xi$. Write $Y = \mathrm{colim}\, \Phi$.

Now suppose we have a map $p: E\to Y$, and we hope to prove that it is a quasifibration. If $\lambda = \omega$, then the diagram $\Phi$ can be taken to be $\mathbb{N}$-indexed, and there is a "classical" theorem with various technical conditions, whose heuristic import is that if all of the pullback maps $p_n : E_n \to X_n$ are quasifibrations, then so is $p$ (see, for example Theorem 2.7 in Peter May's paper "Weak equivalences and quasifibrations", available at https://www.math.uchicago.edu/~may/PAPERS/67.pdf).

Can this be extended to the more general ordinal-indexed case, possibly at the expense of imposing some additional conditions?

EDIT: If it is as easy and technical as Chris Schommer-Pries suggests, then it would be really nice to have a reference to point to!

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
2
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Doesn't the usual proof work? Any compact subspace of $E$ lies in some $E_\xi$ where $\xi < \lambda$ (but not necessarily a limit ordinal). So $\pi_i(E, p^{-1}(y_0))$ is the direct limit of the $\pi_i( E_\xi, p^{-1}(y_0))$, and so $\pi_i (E, p^{-1}(y_0)) \to \pi_i(Y, b)$ is an isomorphism if each map $\pi_i(E_\xi, p^{-1}(y_0)) \to \pi_i (X_\xi, y_0)$ is an isomorphism. This is the same argument as given in Hatcher Lemma 4K.3. $\endgroup$
    – Chris Schommer-Pries
    May 24, 2021 at 15:48
  • $\begingroup$ @ChrisSchommer-Pries I'll check it out! Thanks for the pointer to Hatcher. $\endgroup$
    – Jeff Strom
    May 24, 2021 at 16:42

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

It appears that the notion of a closed inclusion into a nice enough (meaning heriditarily normal) space is defined by a left lifting property with respect to a certain map of finite topological spaces (in the category of all topological spaces). Could this observation be helpful for your argument, i.e. take " the inclusion maps are as nice as could be reasonably hoped for" to mean this lifting property ? If I understand correctly, this observation in other words can be stated as saying that cofibrations between nice enough spaces are characterised by a left lifting property with respect to a certain map of finite topological spaces. Actually, I am interested to know the right statement characterising cofibrations in this way if there is one.

This characterisation is discussed in the following question. Closed embedding into a normal Hausdorff space and left lifting property

Namely, a map into a heriditarily normal Hausdorff space is a closed embedding iff it satisfies the left lifting property with respect to a certain map of finite topological spaces.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

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