In this post I want to sketch the idea of aspherical manifolds - manifolds which don't admit higher homotopically non-trivial spheres - and the related concepts of Eilenberg-MacLane-spaces and classifying spaces for groups.

DefinitionA topological space MM is called aspherical if all higher homotopy groups vanish, i.e. πn(M,m0)=0n>1\pi_n(M,m_0) = 0 \quad \forall n > 1 where m0Mm_0 \in M is an arbitrary basepoint and MM is assumed to be connected.

Since manifolds admit universal covers, you could equivalently define a manifold to be aspherical if and only if its universal cover is contractible.

Just one example illustrating how rich this class of spaces is:
Metric spaces that are of non-positive curvature (i.e. locally CAT(0)-spaces), for example the Bruhat-Tits building of a simple algebraic group over a field with a discrete valuation, are aspherical.

A good survey on aspherical manifolds was given by Wolfgang Lück.

DefinitionA connected topological space XX is called Eilenberg-MacLane-space for a group GG and a natural number n if its nth homotopy group is exactly GG and all other homotopy groups vanish, i.e.
πk(X,x0)={Gk=n0else.\pi_k(X,x_0) = \begin{cases} G & k=n \\ 0 & else.\end{cases}
Then one calls XX also K(G,n)K(G,n).

The standard examples of K(G,1)K(G,1) spaces are S1S^1, which is a K(Z,1)K(\mathbb{Z},1) and RP\mathbb{R}P^\infty, which is a K(Z/2,1)K(\mathbb{Z}/2,1).
Of course, every K(G,1)K(G,1) is aspherical and every aspherical space is a K(G,1)K(G,1) for GG being its fundamental group.

One can also define a functorial construction of a K(G,1)K(G,1) which gives a CW-complex model for every group GG and transforms group homomorphisms into continuous maps of spaces.

For this, we need the functorial nerve construction.
DefinitionThe nerve N(G)N(G) of a (discrete) group GG is the simplicial GG-set with n-simplices being the (n+1)-fold cartesian product of sets G×G××GG \times G \times \cdots \times G, face maps just omitting one factor in the cartesian product, degeneracies adding the identity element of GG in one factor.
By construction, seen as a discrete simplicial group, GG embeds into N(G)N(G) as the 0-skeleton. Observe that N(G)N(G) is contractible, since every n-simplex (g0,...,gn)N(G)n(g_0,...,g_n) \in N(G)_n is the face of (e,g0,...,gn)N(G)n+1(e,g_0,...,g_n) \in N(G)_{n+1} which also has the face (e,g1,...,gn)N(G)n(e,g_1,...,g_n) \in N(G)_n, thus allowing to move every point to the identity (e,...,e)N(G)m(e,...,e) \in N(G)_m which is just a degeneracy of eN(G)0=Ge \in N(G)_0 = G.
The group GG acts diagonally on N(G)N(G), i.e. it acts on an n-simplex by the formula (g,(g0,...,gn))(gg0,...,ggn)N(G)n(g,(g_0,...,g_n)) \mapsto (gg_0,...,gg_n) \in N(G)_n. This action is compatible with face and degeneracy maps, thus making N(G)N(G) into a simplicial GG-set. The action is free, i.e. no two elements of GG operate in the same way.

Using the nerve construction, we now define the classifying space:
DefinitionThe classifying space BGBG of a group GG is the quotient BG:=N(G)/GBG := |N(G)|/G of the geometric realisation N(G)|N(G) of the nerve construction by the group action described above. It turns out that GG operates on N(G)|N(G)| like a deck transformation group, thus giving BGBG the structure of a CW-complex with universal cover N(G)|N(G)| and fundamental group GG.
A group homomorphism ϕ:GH\phi : G \to H gives rise to a morphism of simplicial sets N(ϕ):N(G)N(H)N(\phi) : N(G) \to N(H) by pointwise application. Geometric realisation is also functorial, and due to $\phi$ being a homomorphism, the continuous map N(ϕ):N(G)N(H)|N(\phi)| : |N(G)| \to |N(H)| descends to a continuous map of classifying spaces Bϕ:BGBHB\phi : BG \to BH.

If you are not into simplicial sets and geometric realisation, you can look for a more hands-on approach in Hatcher's book "Algebraic Topology", on page 87, chapter 1.B, more specifically Example 1B.7 on page 89.

Now back to our first definitions: An aspherical manifold is just a manifold which happens to be a K(G,1)K(G,1) for GG being its fundamental group. The classifying space is just an explicit (functorial!) construction which gives a K(G,1)K(G,1) for every group GG (although most authors would call our BGBG just one explicit model for BGBG...).

One would like to work only with CW-complexes, if possible, since they allow induction over the skeleton and cell-by-cell arguments. Is every manifold homeomorphic to a CW-complex - long time ago there was the "Hauptvermutung" (main conjecture) which asked this, but it's wrong. While compact manifolds admit a homotopy equivalent CW-model (by Kirby and Siebenmann), this is not true for topological manifolds in general. Let us look what one could do with a CW-model:

PropositionLet XX be a connected CW complex and YY be a K(G,1)K(G,1) (for example, your favourite aspherical manifold). Let ϕ:π1(X,x0)π1(Y,y0)=G\phi : \pi_1(X,x_0) \to \pi_1(Y,y_0) = G be a homomorphism of groups. Then there is a continuous map Φ:XY\Phi : X \to Y mapping x0x_0 to y0y_0 which induces ϕ\phi on fundamental groups; furthermore, the map Φ\Phi is unique up to homotopy relative x0x_0.

The proof of this proposition goes roughly like that: First, let Φ\Phi map x0x_0 to y0y_0. Now, for each 1-cell γ\gamma, take a representative of ϕ([γ])π1(Y,y0)\phi([\overline{\gamma}]) \in \pi_1(Y,y_0) to define Φ\Phi on γ\gamma. Then one has to extend the map given on the 1-skeleton to XX, using the fact that YY has no higher homotopy.

CorollaryEvery two CW-complexes X,YX,Y which are both K(G,1)K(G,1)-spaces are homotopy equivalent ("of the same homotopy type").

To prove this, just take isomorphisms f:π1(X,x0)Gf : \pi_1(X,x_0) \to G and g:π1(Y,y0)Gg : \pi_1(Y,y_0) \to G and define ϕ:=fg1\phi := f \circ g^{-1} which gives Φ:YX\Phi : Y \to X with inverse up to homotopy given by Ψ:XY\Psi : X \to Y induced by ψ:=gf1\psi := g \circ f^{-1}.

This justifies that every invariant of BGBG that depends only on the homotopy type, is actually an invariant of GG - a very useful idea. One can define group homology with integer coefficients of GG by the formula Hn(G,Z):=Hn(BG,Z)H_n(G,\mathbb{Z}) := H_n(BG,\mathbb{Z}).

One drawback of the classifying space via the nerve construction is that it is usually very large - there are simplices in arbitrary high dimensions. For example, the circle S1S^1, given as example of a K(Z,1)K(\mathbb{Z},1), is much more efficient than BZB\mathbb{Z}.

Of course, talking about aspherical manifolds, we don't want to forget the manifold structure. Given a group GG, one could expect that many non-homeomorphic aspherical manifolds with fundamental group GG exist - even many non-homotopy equivalent ones. At least we can say that such non-homotopy equivalent aspherical manifolds are not of CW homotopy type. There is an old conjecture on this theme:

Conjecture (Borel)Let M and N be closed aspherical manifolds, and let f:MNf : M \to N be a homotopy equivalence. Then ff is homotopic to a homeomorphism.

Together with the result of Kirby and Siebenmann (that every closed manifold is of CW homotopy type), this would imply that closed aspherical manifolds are classified by their fundamental group up to homeomorphism.

The property that every homotopy equivalence is homotopic to a homeomorphism is called topological rigidity.