Simplicial Lusternik-Schnirelmann category (Q1732289)

The paper under review continues the program set out in [\textit{D. Fernández-Ternero} et al., Topology Appl. 194, 37--50 (2015; Zbl 1327.55004)]. There a subset of the authors defined and developed a version of Lusternik-Schnirelmann (LS) category, called simplicial category, for simplicial complexes as well as finite spaces. Here the authors focus solely on simplicial category. Several concepts are developed, including the behavior of the simplicial category under barycentric subdivision, the geometric realization of the simplicial category and relation to classical LS category, the simplicial category of products, a Whitehead approach to simplicial category, simplicial cofibrations, and arboricity in graph theory. \par After the introduction, Section 2 reviews the necessary background and gives pertinent definitions. Two simplicial maps $f,g: K\to L$ between finite, abstract simpicial complexes are said to be contiguous if for every simplex $\sigma\in K$, $f(\sigma)\cup g(\sigma)$ is a simplex in $L$. Taking the transitive closure $\sim$ of this relation yields an equivalence relation on simplicial maps. We say that a subcomplex $U\subseteq K$ of $K$ is categorical in $K$ if the inclusion $i: U \to K$ has the property that $i\sim *$ for $*: U \to K$ the map sending all of $U$ to a vertex. The simplicial category of $K$, denoted $\mathrm{scat}(K)$, is the least integer $n$ such that there exist $n+1$ categorical subcomplexes of $K$ that cover $K$. The authors discuss some of the previously established properties of $\mathrm{scat}$, including its relationship to strong collapses and its invariance of strong homotopy type. \par Section 3 establishes some relationships between $K$ and $\mathrm{sd}(K)$, the barycentric subdivision of $K$. The main result of this section is that $\mathrm{scat}(\mathrm{sd}K)\leq \mathrm{scat}(K)$. Although this result was proved in the paper cited above, the authors give a more direct proof here. Furthermore, the example of $K=K_5$, the complete graph on five vertices, shows that this inequality can be strict. In fact, although it is not mentioned in the paper, the complete graph provides an example of a simplicial complex for the which the difference $\mathrm{scat}(\mathrm{sd}K)-\mathrm{scat}(K)$ can be made arbitrarily large. \par Section 4 looks at the classical category of the geometric realization $|K|$ of the complex $K$. The main result here is again a bound which is not in general an equality; that is, if $\mathrm{cat}$ denotes the classical Lusternik-Schnirelmann category of a topological space, then $\mathrm{cat}(|K|)\leq \mathrm{scat(K)}$. An example of strict inequality is provided by the ``Argentinian'', a two dimensional complex on $6$ vertices which is collapsible but not strongly collapsible. The simplicial category is $1$, but its geometric realization is contractible and hence has category $0$. \par Section 5 deals with the simplicial category of the product of complexes. Here the authors use the categorical product (categorical in the ``category and functor'' sense of the word) where the categorical product $K\times L$ of simplicial complexes consists of the vertex set $(v,w)$ for $v\in K$ and $w\in L$ (note the typo in the paper) along with simplices $\{(v_1,w_1), \ldots, (v_q, w_q)\}$ where $\{v_1, \ldots, v_q\}$ is a simplex in $K$ and $\{w_1, \ldots, w_q\}$ is a simplex in $L$. The main result of this section mirrors the result for products in the classical case; that is, \[ \mathrm{scat}(K\times L)+1\leq (\mathrm{scat}(K)+1)(\mathrm{scat}(L)+1). \] Section 6 is a very interesting one. In this section, the authors muse about whether or not a Whitehead definition of simplicial LS category is possible and if so, can it be shown to be equivalent to the one given above. The authors respond affirmatively in the former, but negatively in the latter. After establishing a simplicial version of a fat wedge, the authors are able to define a Whitehead version of simplicial category and show that it is well-defined up to strong homotopy type. While this simplicial Whitehead category does bound from above $\mathrm{scat}$, there are examples where the inequality is strict and hence, this definition is sadly not equivalent to $\mathrm{scat}$. The main reason for this discrepancy is further spelled out in Section 7 on simplicial cofibrations, or a contiguity extension property. These are unfortunately particularly hard to come by. In general, inclusion of a complex into its cone is not a simplicial cofibration so this concept does not carry over well into the simplicial setting. \par Finally, Section 8 restricts attention to graphs, looking at the classical notion of the arboricity of a graph; that is, the minimum number of trees it takes to cover the graph. There is a well-known explicit formula for this value, and the authors show that the geometric simplicial category of a graph $G$ coincides with its arboricity. Here the geometric simplicial category is one more than the minimum number of strongly collapsible subcomplexes it takes to cover the complex.