-
About sectional category of the Ganea maps
Authors:
Jean-Paul Doeraene
Abstract:
We first compute the James' sectional category (secat) of the Ganea map g_k of any map f in terms of the sectional category of f: We show that secat(g_k) is the integer part of secat(f)/(k+1). Next we compute the relative category (relcat) of g_k. In order to do this, we introduce the relative category of order k (relcat_k) of a map and show that relcat(g_k) is the integer part of relcat_k(f)/(k+1…
▽ More
We first compute the James' sectional category (secat) of the Ganea map g_k of any map f in terms of the sectional category of f: We show that secat(g_k) is the integer part of secat(f)/(k+1). Next we compute the relative category (relcat) of g_k. In order to do this, we introduce the relative category of order k (relcat_k) of a map and show that relcat(g_k) is the integer part of relcat_k(f)/(k+1). Then we establish some inequalities linking secat and relcat of any order: We show that secat(f) <= relcat_k(f) <= secat(f) + k + 1 and relcat_k(f) <= relcat_(k+1)(f) <= relcat_k(f) + 1. We give examples that show that these inequalities may be strict.
△ Less
Submitted 8 April, 2016; v1 submitted 28 July, 2015;
originally announced July 2015.
-
Yet another Hopf Invariant
Authors:
Jean-Paul Doeraene,
Mohammed El Haouari
Abstract:
The classical Hopf invariant is defined for a map f: S^r -> X. Here we define `hcat' which is some kind of Hopf invariant built with a construction in Ganea's style, valid for maps not only on spheres but more generally on a `relative suspension' f: Sigma_A W -> X. We study the relation between this invariant and the sectional category and the relative category of a map. In particular, for f being…
▽ More
The classical Hopf invariant is defined for a map f: S^r -> X. Here we define `hcat' which is some kind of Hopf invariant built with a construction in Ganea's style, valid for maps not only on spheres but more generally on a `relative suspension' f: Sigma_A W -> X. We study the relation between this invariant and the sectional category and the relative category of a map. In particular, for f being the `restriction' of f on A, we have relcat(i) <= hcat(f) <= relcat(i) + 1 and relcat(f) <= hcat(f).
△ Less
Submitted 27 August, 2015; v1 submitted 15 January, 2015;
originally announced January 2015.
-
Up to one approximations of sectional category and topological complexity
Authors:
Jean-Paul Doeraene,
Mohammed El Haouari
Abstract:
James' sectional category and Farber's topological complexity are studied in a general and unified framework.
We introduce `relative' and `strong relative' forms of the category for a map. We show that both can differ from sectional category just by 1. A map has sectional or relative category less than or equal to $n$ if, and only if, it is `dominated' (in some sense) by a map with strong relati…
▽ More
James' sectional category and Farber's topological complexity are studied in a general and unified framework.
We introduce `relative' and `strong relative' forms of the category for a map. We show that both can differ from sectional category just by 1. A map has sectional or relative category less than or equal to $n$ if, and only if, it is `dominated' (in some sense) by a map with strong relative category less than or equal to $n$. A homotopy pushout can increase sectional category but neither homotopy pushouts, nor homotopy pullbacks, can increase (strong) relative category. This makes (strong) relative category a convenient tool to study sectional category. We completely determine the sectional and relative categories of the fibres of the Ganea fibrations.
As a particular case, the `topological complexity' of a space is the sectional category of the diagonal map. So it can differ from the (strong) relative category of the diagonal just by 1. We call the strong relative category of the diagonal `strong complexity'. We show that the strong complexity of a suspension is at most 2.
△ Less
Submitted 2 February, 2013; v1 submitted 2 June, 2011;
originally announced June 2011.
-
Ganea and Whitehead definitions for the tangential Lusternik-Schnirelmann category of foliations
Authors:
Jean-Paul Doeraene,
Enrique Macias-Virgós,
Daniel Tanré
Abstract:
This work solves the problem of elaborating Ganea and Whitehead definitions for the tangential category of a foliated manifold. We develop these two notions in the category $\Tops$ of stratified spaces, that are topological spaces $X$ endowed with a partition $\cF$ and compare them to a third invariant defined by using open sets. More precisely, these definitions apply to an element…
▽ More
This work solves the problem of elaborating Ganea and Whitehead definitions for the tangential category of a foliated manifold. We develop these two notions in the category $\Tops$ of stratified spaces, that are topological spaces $X$ endowed with a partition $\cF$ and compare them to a third invariant defined by using open sets. More precisely, these definitions apply to an element $(X,\cF)$ of $\Tops$ together with a class $\cA$ of subsets of $X$; they are similar to invariants introduced by M. Clapp and D. Puppe.
If $(X,\cF)\in\Tops$, we define a transverse subset as a subspace $A$ of $X$ such that the intersection $S\cap A$ is at most countable for any $S\in \cF$. Then we define the Whitehead and Ganea LS-categories of the stratified space by taking the infimum along the transverse subsets. When we have a closed manifold, endowed with a $C^1$-foliation, the three previous definitions, with $\cA$ the class of transverse subsets, coincide with the tangential category and are homotopical invariants.
△ Less
Submitted 19 March, 2010; v1 submitted 19 October, 2007;
originally announced October 2007.
