Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Suppose that $G$ is a group, and $\mathbb{Z}[G]$ the group ring. Then $\mathbb Z$ can be considered as a $\mathbb{Z}[G]$-module if every $g (\in G)$ acts trivally, and every $n (\in \mathbb Z)$ acts by multiplication on $\mathbb Z$.

In order to find a projective resolution of the module $\mathbb Z$, thus finding the cohomology module, a book says (translated):

Consider the elements of $G$ as vertexes, then we can define a simplicial complex $K = K(G)$. Suppose that there is a well order in $G$, and $e$ is the first element in this order. So $K_n = \{ (g_0, g_1, \cdots, g_n) | g_i \in G, g_0 <g_1< \cdots <g_n \}$. Let $C_n$ be the free Abelian group in which the simplexes of $K_n$ form a basis. The group $G$ acts on $C_n$ by $g(g_0, \cdots, g_n) = (gg_0, \cdots, gg_n)$. The boundary operator $\partial_n : C_n \rightarrow C_{n-1}$ is $\partial_n(g_0, \cdots, g_n) = \sum_{i=0}^n (-1)^i (g_0, \cdots, \hat{g_i}, \cdots, g_n)$ and the augmentation morphism $\epsilon: C_0 \rightarrow \mathbb Z$ maps every element of $G$ to $1$. The sequence $\cdots \rightarrow C_n \rightarrow C_{n-1} \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow C_1 \rightarrow C_0 \rightarrow \mathbb Z \rightarrow 0$ is the $G$-module homomorphsim sequence.

In order to prove the exactness of this sequence, the author defines a group homomorphism $s_n: C_n \rightarrow C_{n+1} , (g_0, \cdots, g_n) \mapsto (e,g_0, \cdots, g_n)$ for $n =0,1,2, \cdots$, and use this to prove that the identity map in $C_n$ is null-homotopic. But this definition is unclear to me. I thought one vertex could appear only once in a simplex. So, what will happen if one of the $g_i$ in $\{g_0, \cdots, g_n \}$ is already $e$? Going back to the well-ordering assumption on $G$, is this well-order strict or not? If it is strict, then I think no duplication of vertexes in a simplex would be allowed; otherwise, the chain would be endless even if the group is finite.

Thanks to everyone.

share|cite|improve this question
1  
The action of $G$ on the $K_n$ doesn't seem to work - there was no condition that required that if $g_1 < g_2$ then $gg_1 < gg_2$ – Thomas Andrews Feb 27 '12 at 17:01
    
@Thomas Andrews: Thanks for the comment. I think the elements in $(gg_0, \cdots, gg_n)$ can be repositioned, i.e., take some $\delta \in S_{n+1}$ such that $\delta(gg_0) < \cdots < \delta(gg_n)$, so $(gg_0, \cdots, gg_n) = (-1)^{\delta} (\delta(gg_0), \cdots, \delta(gg_n))$. – ShinyaSakai Feb 28 '12 at 4:58

My understanding of $s_{n}: C_{n}\rightarrow C_{n+1}$ is as follows:

$(g_{0}, g_{1}, \cdots, g_{n}) \mapsto (e, g_{0}, g_{1}, \cdots, g_{n})$ if $g_{0}\neq e$ (in fact $g_{i}\neq e$ for all $0\leqslant i \leqslant n$)

if $g_{0}=e$, then $s_{n}$ will send $(g_{0}, g_{1}, \cdots, g_{n})$ to the zero element in $C_{n+1}$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.