In homotopy theory (a branch of mathematics), the Whitehead theorem states that if a continuous mapping f between CW complexes X and Y induces isomorphisms on all homotopy groups, then f is a homotopy equivalence. This result was proved by J. H. C. Whitehead in two landmark papers from 1949, and provides a justification for working with the concept of a CW complex that he introduced there. It is a model result of algebraic topology, in which the behavior of certain algebraic invariants (in this case, homotopy groups) determines a topological property of a mapping.

In more detail, let X and Y be topological spaces. Given a continuous mapping

${\displaystyle f\colon X\to Y}$

and a point x in X, consider for any n ≥ 0 the induced homomorphism

${\displaystyle f_{*}\colon \pi _{n}(X,x)\to \pi _{n}(Y,f(x)),}$

where π_n(X,x) denotes the n-th homotopy group of X with base point x. (For n = 0, π₀(X) just means the set of path components of X.) A map f is a weak homotopy equivalence if the function

${\displaystyle f_{*}\colon \pi _{0}(X)\to \pi _{0}(Y)}$

is bijective, and the homomorphisms ${\displaystyle f_{*}}$ are bijective for all x in X and all n ≥ 1. (For X and Y path-connected, the first condition is automatic, and it suffices to state the second condition for a single point x in X.) The Whitehead theorem states that a weak homotopy equivalence from one CW complex to another is a homotopy equivalence. (That is, the map f: X → Y has a homotopy inverse g: Y → X, which is not at all clear from the assumptions.) This implies the same conclusion for spaces X and Y that are homotopy equivalent to CW complexes.

Combining this with the Hurewicz theorem yields a useful corollary: a continuous map ${\displaystyle f\colon X\to Y}$ between simply connected CW complexes that induces an isomorphism on all integral homology groups is a homotopy equivalence.

A word of caution: it is not enough to assume π_n(X) is isomorphic to π_n(Y) for each n in order to conclude that X and Y are homotopy equivalent. One really needs a map f : X → Y inducing an isomorphism on homotopy groups. For instance, take X= S² × RP³ and Y= RP² × S³. Then X and Y have the same fundamental group, namely the cyclic group Z/2, and the same universal cover, namely S² × S³; thus, they have isomorphic homotopy groups. On the other hand, their homology groups are different (as can be seen from the Künneth formula); thus, X and Y are not homotopy equivalent.

The Whitehead theorem does not hold for general topological spaces or even for all subspaces of Rⁿ. For example, the Warsaw circle, a compact subset of the plane, has all homotopy groups zero, but the map from the Warsaw circle to a single point is not a homotopy equivalence. The study of possible generalizations of Whitehead's theorem to more general spaces is part of the subject of shape theory.

• Whitehead, J. H. C. (1949). "Combinatorial homotopy. I". Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society. 55 (3): 213–245. doi:10.1090/s0002-9904-1949-09175-9.
• Whitehead, J. H. C. (1949). "Combinatorial homotopy. II". Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society. 55 (5): 453–496. doi:10.1090/S0002-9904-1949-09213-3. MR 0030760.
• A. Hatcher, Algebraic topology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002. xii+544 pp. ISBN 0-521-79160-X and ISBN 0-521-79540-0 (see Theorem 4.5)
• "8.8 Whitehead's theorem and Whitehead's principle.". Homotopy Type Theory: Univalent Foundations of Mathematics. The Univalent Foundations Program Institute for Advanced Study. 12 March 2013.
• May, J.P. (8 September 1983). "The dual Whitehead theorems". Topological Topics: 46–54. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511600760.004. ISBN 978-0-521-27581-1.
• May, J. P.; Ponto, K. (2011). More Concise Algebraic Topology. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226511795.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-226-51178-8.
• Griffiths, Phillip; Morgan, John (2013). "The Whitehead Theorem and the Hurewicz Theorem". Rational Homotopy Theory and Differential Forms. Progress in Mathematics. Vol. 16. pp. 27–40. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-8468-4_4. ISBN 978-1-4614-8467-7.