Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm wondering if the next exercise in 'An introduction to homological algebra' by Weibel is correct:

Let $G$ be the profinite group $\widehat{\mathbb{Z}}_p$. Show that $$H^i(G;\mathbb{Z}) = \begin{cases} \widehat{\mathbb{Z}}_p & \text{ if $i$ even}\newline 0 & \text{ if $i$ odd} \end{cases}$$

Is it possible that $\widehat{\mathbb{Z}}_p$ should be replaced by $\mathbb{Z}(p^\infty)$ ? I've found on the website of Weibel that it should be for $H^0(G;\mathbb{Z})=\mathbb{Z}$, $H^2(G;\mathbb{Z})=\mathbb{Z}(p^\infty)$ and for all other $i$ $H^i(G;\mathbb{Z})=0$, but shouldn't that be for odd $i$ and the rest still $\mathbb{Z}(p^\infty)$ ? Since the cohomology groups $H^i(\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z};\mathbb{Z})$ are $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$ for $i$ even ?

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 0 down vote accepted

If you're using continuous cochain cohomology, then things work out as follows. For $H^0$, you get the invariants, all of $\mathbb{Z}$ in this case. For $H^1$, you get the group of continuous homomorpisms from $\mathbb{Z}_p$ to $\mathbb{Z}$. The image of such a homomorphism is necessarily finite (by continuity, compactness of $\mathbb{Z}_p$, and discreteness of $\mathbb{Z}$), but $\mathbb{Z}$ has no non-trivial finite subgroups, so you get zero. The cohomology sequence associated to $0\rightarrow\mathbb{Z}\rightarrow\mathbb{Q}\rightarrow\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}\rightarrow 0$ shows that $H^2(\mathbb{Z}_p,\mathbb{Z})\cong H^1(\mathbb{Z}_p,\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z})$, which is the group of continuous homomorphisms from $\mathbb{Z}_p$ to $\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}$, i.e., the Pontryagin dual of $\mathbb{Z}_p$. This is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Q}_p/\mathbb{Z}_p$, or in your notation, $\mathbb{Z}(p^\infty)$. For $H^q(\mathbb{Z}_p,\mathbb{Z})$, $q>2$, all the groups are zero because the strict cohomological dimension of $\mathbb{Z}_p$ is $2$.

So, if Weibel intends the standard continuous cohomology of profinite groups, then what he says is not right. Otherwise I'm afraid I'm not sure.

EDIT: It seems the correction on Weibel's website is correct, again, assuming continuous cochains.

share|improve this answer
    
To prove that $H^2(\mathbb{Z}_p,\mathbb{Z})\cong H^1(\mathbb{Z}_p,\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z})$, don't you use that $H^2(\mathbb{Z}_p,\mathbb{Q}=0)$ (and if so, why is that?) ? Also, can you give another reason instead of the cohomological dimension that $H^q(\mathbb{Z}_p,\mathbb{Z})=0$ ? –  KevinDL Apr 12 '12 at 7:31
    
Yes, I'm using that $H^2(\mathbb{Z}_p,\mathbb{Q})=0$. The reason for this is that the group is $p$-primary (every element has order a power of $p$), while, on the other hand, because $\mathbb{Q}$ is uniquely divisible, multiplication by $p$ is an automorphism on cohomology. The only way both these things can be true is if the $H^2$ is zero. For proving the higher cohomology vanishes, it suffices to prove that $H^q(\mathbb{Z}_p,\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z})$ is zero for $q\geq 2$. I think this can be proved in a fairly elementary way using a limiting argument for the cohomology of finite cyclic groups –  Keenan Kidwell Apr 12 '12 at 9:27
    
as in Proposition 2 of Chapter XIII of Serre's Local Fields, which is for $\hat{\mathbb{Z}}$, but should still work for $\mathbb{Z}_p$, at least for discrete $p$-primary torsion coefficients (one has $H^q(\mathbb{Z}_p,\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z})=H^q(\mathbb{Z}_p,mathbb{Q}_p/\mathbb{Z}‌​_p)$ for $q\geq 1$. See also Exercise 1 of that chapter of Serre. –  Keenan Kidwell Apr 12 '12 at 9:29
    
That should be $H^q(\mathbb{Z}_p,\mathbb{Q}_p/\mathbb{Z}_p)$. –  Keenan Kidwell Apr 12 '12 at 18:17
add comment

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.