2

I am going around in circles trying to answer the following question:

Let $Y$ be a $\Delta$-complex. Describe a $\Delta$-complex structure of

  1. its cone $CY=(Y\times[0,1])/(Y\times\{0\})$
  2. its suspension $\Sigma Y=(Y\times[0,1])/(Y\times\{0,1\})$.

I know that the suspension can be given as two cones glued together along $Y\times\{1\}$, but I'm struggling to even describe the cone's $\Delta$-complex structure.

(P.S. I know that this is a question about $\Delta$-complexes and not simplicial complexes, but we don't have a $\Delta$-complex tag.)

Edit: Drawing some pictures I've managed to half-convince myself that $C\Delta^n\cong\Delta^{n+1}$ and $\Sigma S^n\cong S^{n+1}$, but I still can't prove even these simple cases. I'm struggling to understand how to write the product of simplices, and then the quotient.

Tim
  • 3,349
  • Start with the simplest case. What do you get if $Y = \Delta^n$? –  May 16 '16 at 22:53
  • @MikeMiller Drawing some pictures I see that $C\Delta^n\cong\Delta^{n+1}$, but I'm struggling to formalise it – I keep on thinking that we have infinitely many $n$-simplices: $\Delta^n\times{x}$ for $x\in(0,1]$, but I know that this isn't the case! – Tim May 17 '16 at 16:55
  • OK, well you're going to want to try to prove that. You just need to show that there's a "canonical" homeomorphism $C(\Delta^n) \to \Delta^{n+1}$ - try to prove this from the definitions of the simplices. Once you know that, to get a $\Delta$-structure on the cone of $X$, you just have a copy of $C(\Delta^k)$ for each $\Delta^k$ in the decomposition of $X$! –  May 24 '16 at 14:33
  • @MikeMiller I'm currently working on some other things and so haven't really had a chance to look at this again properly. The bounty ends soon though, so if you do get a chance to post a full answer then I'd be happy to accept. If not, then thank you for the hints :) – Tim May 25 '16 at 13:38

1 Answers1

1

Here are some thoughts that could hopefully help.

First of all, trying to give the product of two simplices a simplicial (or $\Delta$-complex) structure is in general annoying. There's a reason that the relevant sections of Hatcher are rather technical (see for example the proof of Theorem 2.10 - page 112 here (PDF)).


Here's one thing that is neat about simplices (when I say simplices I mean $\Delta$-complexes but I'm being sloppy) though, and this construction actually underlies a lot of what you're doing.

Let's suppose that $\sigma = [v_0, \cdots, v_n]$ is an $n$-simplex. Then it has an $(-1)^n$-oriented codimension-1 face $\tau = [v_0, \cdots, v_{n-1}]$, and this is just an $(n-1)$-simplex.

Now let's add a point $v_{n+1}$ to everything - just put it at the end of every simplex. We boost $\sigma$ to an $(n+1)$-simplex $\tilde{\sigma} = [v_0, \cdots, v_n, v_{n+1}]$. And now it has an $(-1)^n$-oriented face $\tilde{\tau} = [v_0, \cdots, v_{n-1}, v_{n+1}]$ which is still codimension-1, and this is just an $n$-simplex.

This is actually super-neat. Let's suppose we have a description of a space $X$ realized as a collection of simplices $\{\sigma_i\}$. Then a simplicial description of $CX$ is given by $\{\sigma_i, [c], \tilde{\sigma}_i\}$, where $\tilde{\sigma}_i$ just denotes adding $c$ to the end of the list of vertices of $\sigma_i$.

If you want to see some poorly-drawn examples, here you go: A $\Delta$-complex structure on $C(\Delta^0)$.

A $\Delta$-complex structure on $C(\Delta^1)$.

Hopefully these convince you that $C(\Delta^n) = \Delta^{n+1}$.


For the suspension, there's a really important point that your notation makes it unclear whether you get it. So I'll say it, and you may well already know it. You identify $Y \times \{0\}$ to one point, and $Y \times \{1\}$ to a different point. Otherwise the equality $\Sigma S^n = S^{n+1}$ wouldn't be true.

Perhaps it's better to think about the suspension as two cones smushed together. Given a space $X$ we can form cones $C_+X$ and $C_-X$, and these come with canonical inclusions $X \to C_{\pm}X$. Then the suspension is just the union of $C_+X$ and $C_-X$ with the two copies of $X$ identified. In the case of the sphere, these correspond to the north and south hemispheres.

In particular, if we start off with $S^0$ as two points (0-simplices), then $S^1 = \Sigma S^0$ is four 1-simplices, one for each quadrant in the standard embedding $S^1 \to \mathbb R^2$, $S^2 = \Sigma S^1$ is eight 2-simplices, one for each octant in $\mathbb R^3$, and so on and so forth.

If you want another poorly-drawn picture, here you go:

A $\Delta$-complex structure on $\Sigma S^0 = S^1$.

Thurmond
  • 1,103
  • these pictures (especially for the cone) actually make things much clearer – exactly what I was looking for, thanks! – Tim May 26 '16 at 10:45