How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Every Whitehead class is realized by a finite CW homotopy equivalence
Statement
For a connected finite CW complex , and , there is a finite CW complex such that is a homotopy equivalence and . Only relative cells in two consecutive degrees , with even , are needed. For a disconnected finite , a prescribed class on each of its finitely many components is realized componentwise.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A connected finite and a Whitehead class .
Each Whitehead class has a representative , with finite ; a zero class may be represented by an identity matrix (K₁ of a ring and the Whitehead group of a discrete group).
The relative boundary of a two-high-layer pair is the matrix of the triple homotopy boundary in oriented lifted-cell bases (Two high relative cell layers have free homotopy bases and their cellular boundary matrix).
For a simply connected -connected CW pair with nonempty simply connected base, the relative Hurewicz map is an isomorphism without any choice principle (Relative Hurewicz comparison through a choice-free weak model).
The cellular complex of a CW pair computes its relative singular homology (Cellular homology computes singular homology).
A weak homotopy equivalence between finite CW complexes is a homotopy equivalence without any choice principle (Whitehead theorem).
Attaching cells of dimension at least three preserves components and fundamental groups (High relative cells do not change lower homotopy); based maps from simply connected spheres lift to universal covers (Lifting criterion for maps from path-connected locally path-connected spaces).
Inclusion torsion is the torsion of its based relative universal-cover complex, with two-term sign when the upper cells have degree (Whitehead torsion of a finite CW homotopy equivalence, Composition and based-pair sum formulas for Whitehead torsion).
Proof
Choose with representing , allowing and for . Choose an even integer . Attach -cells by constant maps at the chosen base vertex to form . By [F6], and no lower relative homotopy is introduced.
Each is a finite integral sum of elements of . The th wedge sphere, preceded by a based whisker representing a group element and repeated by signed pinch maps, realizes its coefficient in . Since , this is an abelian group and finite sums of these maps are represented by based maps . For each column choose one such map whose relative coordinates are ; only finitely many explicit choices are needed. Attach -cells along the to form finite . The right-module column convention and [F2] make the relative cellular differential exactly .
By [F6] the map induces a component bijection and an isomorphism on . The inverse image of in the universal cover is the connected universal cover of : the -isomorphism makes the restricted cover connected, and a loop in it maps to a null loop in and hence is null in . Both and are simply connected. Their relative cellular chain complex is in degrees , so it has zero homology in every degree because is invertible. By [F4], for every .
Suppose some were nonzero and take the least such . Since the pair has no relative cells below , it is at least -connected and ; its base is simply connected. The choice-free comparison [F3] gives , a contradiction. Hence all relative homotopy groups vanish. Coverings induce isomorphisms on higher homotopy groups by lifting spheres and homotopies; together with the -isomorphism of step 3.1, is a weak homotopy equivalence.
Both and are finite, so the finite choice-free clause [F5] makes a homotopy equivalence. Its relative complex has upper degree , and is even, so . Therefore [F7] gives . For finitely many connected components, repeat the construction separately on each component and take their finite disjoint union; no component transport or infinite choice is involved. ∎
Depends on
- K₁ of a ring and the Whitehead group of a discrete group
- Whitehead torsion of a finite CW homotopy equivalence
- Two high relative cell layers have free homotopy bases and their cellular boundary matrix
- Relative Hurewicz comparison through a choice-free weak model
- Cellular homology computes singular homology
- Whitehead theorem
- Lifting criterion for maps from path-connected locally path-connected spaces
- Composition and based-pair sum formulas for Whitehead torsion
- High relative cells do not change lower homotopy
Used by
- Ordinary acyclicity forgets nonzero group-ring torsion Counterexample
Dependency tree · two levels
74 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Lück, Lemma 2.18(2), printed pp.35–36 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Lurie, Remark 6, printed p.2 (standard reference, not scraped)