Yes, Brown representability holds for such functors.
There are not really any material differences between this and the proof of Brown representability in the pointed case.
EDIT: My previous version of this was not rigorous enough. I was trying to be clever and get away with just simple cell attachments, which only work if you already know that the functor is represented by a space. Sorry for the delay in reworking, but this particular proof has enough details that it takes time to write up.
As you say, you begin by decomposing such functors so without loss of generality is a single point.
Start with as a point. Assume you've inductively constructed an -dimensional complex with an element so that, for all CW-inclusions of finite CW complexes with formed by attaching a -cell for , the map
is surjective.
Now, define a "problem" of dimension to be a CW-inclusion where is a subspace of formed by attaching a single -cell to , together with an element of
The fact that has a fixed embedding in means that there is a set of problems , whose elements are tuples with a map and is a compatible element of .
Let be the pushout of the diagram
where the lefthand maps are defined by the maps and the righthand maps are the given -inclusions. This is a relative -inclusion formed by attaching a collection of -cells; therefore, still has the extension property for relative cell inclusions of dimension less than .
The space is homotopy equivalent to the homotopy pushout of the given diagram, which is formed by gluing together mapping cylinders. Specifically, is weakly equivalent to the space
which decomposes into two CW-subcomplexes:
which deformation retracts to , and
which deformation retracts to with intersection . The Mayer-Vietoris property and the coproduct axiom then imply that there is an element whose restriction to is and whose restriction to is .
Taking colimits, you have a CW-complex with an element (constructed using a mapping telescope + Mayer-Vietoris argument) so that, for all CW-inclusions obtained by attaching a single cell, the map
is surjective.
Now you need to show that for any finite CW-complex , is a bijection.
First, surjectivity is straightforward by induction on the skeleta of . More specifically, for any with subcomplex , element of , and map realizing the restriction to , you induct on the cells of . Then, injectivity: if you have two elements with the same images in , you use the above-proven stronger surjectivity property to the inclusion to show that there is a homotopy between said maps.
No comments:
Post a Comment