I ended up re-writing and expanding the whole Idea-section (here).

I think also the Definition-section could do with a complete overhaul, but I will leave it as is for the time being.

]]>replaced the illustrating graphics (previously Wikipedia’s Suspension.svg) by a better one: here

]]>and to:

- Allen Hatcher, p. 8 in:
*Algebraic Topology*, Cambridge University Press (2002) [ISBN:9780521795401, webpage]

added pointer to:

- Klaus Jänich, p. 41 in:
*Topology*, Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer (1984, 1999) [ISBN:9780387908922, doi:10.1007/978-3-662-10574-0, Chapters 1-2: pdf]

fixed the pointer to

- Anatole Katok, Alexey Sossinsky, Chapter 1 of:
*Introduction to Modern Topology and Geometry*(2010) [toc pdf, pdf]

added pointer to suspension as a HIT

]]>So if the tensor is indeed the smash product and preserves hocolims, then it just follows directly, that’s probably what you have in mind.

]]>Let C be a pointed symmetric monoidal model category. One can define suspension as the homotopy colimit of the diagram $\ast \leftarrow X \to \ast$, as is done at suspension object, or as $X \otimes S^1$, where $S^1$ is the suspension of $S^0 = \ast \sqcup \ast$ in the former sense. Are these the same?

Maybe this only works in the case where C is the category of pointed objects in some cartesian model category, with the usual model structure and the smash product. In that case I think I have a proof, but it seems too easy…

]]>Okay, I see.

]]>I would say NO that would be revisionist history

initially I think the term `suspension' was motivated by the picture

the precise construction was useful in several ways

it then spawn adjectival versions such as the suspension homomorphism in both homology and homotopy ]]>

Right, I misspoke. Sorry.

]]>I think you mean “homology”. Suspension shifts homology but is more complicated on homotopy.

]]>The suspension is useful up to homeomorphism, where it defines the continuous structure of spheres, and even up to diffeomorphism, where it defines the smooth structure of cubes.

Okay, but doesn’t the very term “suspension” for the construction that the explicit formulas are models for refer to the homotopy-theoretic interpretation? Doesn’t it refer to the shifting-up of homotopy groups? (I don’t actually know, maybe not, but that’s what I always thought.)

]]>The suspension is useful up to homeomorphism, where it defines the continuous structure of spheres, and even up to diffeomorphism, where it defines the smooth structure of cubes. See the examples at suspension. (It seems that the spell checker in Firefox 4 knows “homeomorphism”, but not “diffeomorphism” yet).

]]>Okay, I don’t really know about that. So maybe I should say *strong homotopy equivalence* .

Urs, I could agree about strong homotopy equivalence, not weak one. The suspension is important in shape theory for example, where going up to weak equivalence would be a disaster for some spaces.

]]>Sorry Toby, I had forgotten to reply to your request:

yes, it seems what Tim had written is the standard construction, And, yes, I think that the concept of suspension is not too interesting up to homeomorphism, but natural in a context up to weak homotopy equivalence.

On all these points the entry deserves further expansion. But not by me right now.

]]>I wrote:

Please confirm that Tim’s reduced suspension is the same as yours.

Well, you both said that it’s the smash product with the circle, so that should be fine (although you seem to care about it only up to homotopy).

]]>Thanks, Toby. I didn’t see this for some reason.

]]>But reduced suspension already has its own page (started by Tim Porter), which has been linked from suspension for some time. I’ve edited these pages and suspension object accordingly. (Please confirm that Tim’s reduced suspension is the same as yours.)

]]>quick fix at suspension: distinction between plain and reduced/based suspension. More should be said here, but not by me right now.

]]>