Alphabeta Math
PropositionStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-14
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.

The based loop space of BG recovers G weakly

Statement

Assume AC. For a well-pointed topological group G of CW type, path lifting in Milnor's bundle gives a continuous based endpoint-label map

ε:ΩBG⟶G.

Put δ=inv⁡∘ε. Under the canonical identification πk(ΩBG)≅πk+1(BG), the maps induced by δ are the connecting homomorphisms of Milnor's bundle; on components they give its connecting pointed-set map. Both ε and δ are weak homotopy equivalences. If G and ΩBG have CW type, they are based homotopy equivalences. Thus a chosen homotopy inverse G→ΩBG exists under those stronger hypotheses. No point-set connecting map independent of the chosen lifting function is asserted.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

Milnor's EG→BG is a numerable principal bundle and EG is contractible (Milnor's join model is a contractible free G-space).

[F2]

Assuming AC, a numerable bundle is a Hurewicz fibration, so its lifting function gives a continuous endpoint map on based loops (Numerable fiber bundles are hurewicz fibrations).

[F3]

The fibration long exact sequence includes πk+1(BG)→πk(G)→πk(EG) for k≥1 and the exact component segment π1(EG)→π1(BG)→π0(G)→π0(EG). Its boundary is computed by choosing a lift ending at the basepoint and restricting to the opposite face; the resulting class is independent of the lift. Under the library convention its component boundary is the inverse of the forward endpoint label (Long exact sequence of homotopy groups of a fibration).

[F4]

Assuming AC, Whitehead promotes a weak equivalence between CW models to a homotopy equivalence (Whitehead theorem).

[F5]

Inversion g↦g−1 is a based homeomorphism of a topological group.

[A1]

AC is used by the lifting-function and Whitehead suppliers, and nowhere else in this argument (The Axiom of Choice).

Proof

Given: The Milnor bundle, based by e0↦b0 and with its fiber identified by g↦e0g, and [A1].

1.1A1F1F2F5

By [A1, F1, F2], lift a loop γ from e0. Its endpoint lies in p−1(b0) and is uniquely e0g; define ε(γ)=g and δ(γ)=g−1. The lifting function is continuous and sends the constant loop to e0, so both maps are continuous and based. The exact AC expenditure is the well-ordering used by [F2] to construct the lifting function for a numerable bundle.

2.1F1F2F3step 1.1

We compare the chosen map δ with the class-level boundary in [F3]. Let a based Sk-family of loops be given. The lifting function produces a continuous family γ~s starting at e0 and ending at e0ε(γs). Right-translate the whole s-th lift by ε(γs)−1. The translated family still covers γs, now ends at e0, and its initial face is e0δ(γs). This is precisely the lift-and-restrict representative used to define the connecting homomorphism in [F3]. Hence, for every k≥1, δ∗ agrees with the connecting homomorphism after πk(ΩBG)≅πk+1(BG); the same argument for a single loop gives the asserted map on components. Notice that this compares induced classes, not two point-set maps obtained from unrelated lifting choices.

3.1F1F3step 2.1

Contractibility gives πj(EG)=0 for every j≥1 and one component. Exactness in [F3] therefore makes

δ∗:πk(ΩBG)≅πk+1(BG)⟶πk(G)

an isomorphism for every k≥1, while the component segment makes δ∗:π0(ΩBG)→π0(G) a bijection. Repeating the translated-lift comparison of Step 2.1 after rebasing at a representative loop gives the same isomorphisms at every basepoint. Thus δ is a weak homotopy equivalence. By [F5], ε=inv⁡∘δ is one as well. [F1, F3, F5, step 2.1]

4.1A1F4F5step 3.1

If both spaces have CW type, choose based CW models under [A1]. The induced comparison of models is weak by Step 3.1, so [F4] supplies a based homotopy inverse; transporting it through the model equivalences makes δ a based homotopy equivalence. Composing with inversion gives the same conclusion for ε. Besides the lifting-function use in Step 1.1, AC is spent here exactly through [F4]. Without those CW-type hypotheses, only the proved weak equivalences are asserted. □

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

28 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