Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Cone length and Lusternik-Schnirelmann category in rational homotopy

Paul-Eugène Parent, Daniel Tanré

TL;DR

The paper addresses the rational-case relationship between Lusternik–Schnirelmann category and cone-length by generalizing Dupont’s counterexample: for every $k\ge3$ it constructs rational spaces with $cat X_k=k$ and $Cl X_k=k+1$. This is achieved through explicit Quillen models ${\mathscr L}_{k}$ built from carefully designed differential graded Lie algebras, using a connected-sum construction, attachment arguments that preserve $cat$, and a minimal-model analysis to obstruct shorter cone-lengths. The main technical contribution is showing that ${\mathscr L}_{k}$ has a decomposition of length $k+1$ but no isomorphism can shorten it to length $k$, thereby yielding the desired separation. Altogether, the results extend known rational examples of discrepancy between $cat$ and $Cl$, furnishing concrete algebraic models for all $k\ge3$.

Abstract

Lusternik-Schnirelmann category (LS-category) of a topological space is the least integer $n$ such that there is a covering of $X$ by $n+1$ open sets, each of them being contractible in $X$. The cone length is the minimum number of cofibations necessary to get a space in the homotopy type of $X$, starting from a suspension and attaching suspensions. The LS-category of a space is always less than or equal to its cone length. Moreover, these two invariants differ by at most one. In 1981, J.-M. Lemaire and F. Sigrist conjectured that they are always equal for rational spaces. This conjecture is clearly true for spaces of LS-category 1 and, in 1986, Y. Félix and J-C. Thomas verify it for spaces of LS-category 2. But, in 1999, the general conjecture is invalidated by N. Dupont who built a rational space of cone-length 4 and LS-category 3. In this work, we provide examples of rational spaces of cone-length $(k+1)$ and LS-category $k$ for any $k>2$.

Cone length and Lusternik-Schnirelmann category in rational homotopy

TL;DR

The paper addresses the rational-case relationship between Lusternik–Schnirelmann category and cone-length by generalizing Dupont’s counterexample: for every it constructs rational spaces with and . This is achieved through explicit Quillen models built from carefully designed differential graded Lie algebras, using a connected-sum construction, attachment arguments that preserve , and a minimal-model analysis to obstruct shorter cone-lengths. The main technical contribution is showing that has a decomposition of length but no isomorphism can shorten it to length , thereby yielding the desired separation. Altogether, the results extend known rational examples of discrepancy between and , furnishing concrete algebraic models for all .

Abstract

Lusternik-Schnirelmann category (LS-category) of a topological space is the least integer such that there is a covering of by open sets, each of them being contractible in . The cone length is the minimum number of cofibations necessary to get a space in the homotopy type of , starting from a suspension and attaching suspensions. The LS-category of a space is always less than or equal to its cone length. Moreover, these two invariants differ by at most one. In 1981, J.-M. Lemaire and F. Sigrist conjectured that they are always equal for rational spaces. This conjecture is clearly true for spaces of LS-category 1 and, in 1986, Y. Félix and J-C. Thomas verify it for spaces of LS-category 2. But, in 1999, the general conjecture is invalidated by N. Dupont who built a rational space of cone-length 4 and LS-category 3. In this work, we provide examples of rational spaces of cone-length and LS-category for any .
Paper Structure (6 sections, 5 theorems, 52 equations)

This paper contains 6 sections, 5 theorems, 52 equations.

Key Result

Proposition 1.3

For any path-connected normal ANR, $X$, there is a suspension $\Sigma Z$ such that ${\mathrm{Cl \,}}(X\vee \Sigma Z)=\mathrm{cat}\, X$. Moreover,

Theorems & Definitions (16)

  • Definition 1.1
  • Definition 1.2
  • Proposition 1.3: TakensOctav1
  • Definition 2.1
  • Remark 2.2
  • Proposition 3.1: Dupont
  • proof
  • Theorem 4.1
  • Proposition 5.1
  • proof
  • ...and 6 more