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 am trying to do the stated problem in Hatcher:

Show $H_1(X,A) = 0$ iff $H_1(A) \to H_1(X)$ is surjective and each path component of $X$ contains at most one path component of $A$.

Now I have reduced the problem to showing that $i_\ast : H_0(A) \to H_0(X)$ injective iff each path component of $X$ contains at most one path component of $A$. This comes from looking at the end of the LES of the pair $(X,A)$:

$$\ldots \to H_1(X) \to H_1(X,A) \to H_0(A) \to H_0(X) \to H_0(X,A) \to 0$$

Now one direction I have shown, the other that is giving me trouble is the converse. That is if $i_\ast$ is not injective then there is a path component of $X$ that contains at least two path components of $A$. I have the following:

Suppose $i_\ast$ is not injective. Then there is a $\tau \in C_0(A)$ such that $[\tau \circ i] = 0$ but $[\tau] \neq 0$. That is to say, $\tau \circ i = \partial(\sigma)$ for some $\sigma \in C_1(X)$ but $\tau$ is not the boundary of any $\sigma'\in C_1(A)$. However I'm confused because to me the only way for $\tau \circ i$ to be the boundary of a singular $1$ - simplex $\sigma$ in $X$ is if $\sigma$ is a loop. What's wrong here?

Thanks.

share|improve this question
    
Teri Hatcher? –  miracle173 Nov 10 '12 at 7:04
    
Why do you assume $\sigma'\in H_1(A)$ in contrast to $\sigma\in C_1(X)$? Homology classes are always represented by cycles, so this would mean that $\partial(\sigma')=0$. If it's just a typo, maybe you could correct it along with the map in the quote which is $H_1(A)\to H_1(X)$. –  Stefan Hamcke Nov 10 '12 at 17:41
    
@StefanH. I have corrected the first point in the comment. I don't understand which map you're talking about in the second. –  fpqc Nov 10 '12 at 22:40
    
Why must $\sigma$ be a loop? Are you assuming that $\tau$ is a single vertex rather than an arbitrary 0-chain in $A$? –  John Palmieri Nov 10 '12 at 23:49
    
@BenjaLim. I was talking about the map $H_1(A)\to H_1(X)$ in the quotation of the problem, where you switched $A$ and $X$. –  Stefan Hamcke Nov 11 '12 at 13:06
show 1 more comment

2 Answers

Let $a,b \in A$ lie in separate path components. So that $[a],[b]$ represent distinct classes in $H_0(A)$. If $i(a),i(b)$ lie in the same path component in $X$ then there is a path, or equivalently a 1-simplex $\sigma: [0,1] \rightarrow X$ with $\sigma(0)=i(a)$ and $\sigma(1)=i(b)$. Thus $\partial \sigma = i(a) - i(b)$ which shows that $i(a)$ and $i(b)$ represent the same class in $H_0(X)$. Thus $i_* :H_0(A) \rightarrow H_0(A)$ is not injective.

That gives one direction. I don't think the opposite direction should present too many problems, if you look a the above argument and see how it changes when $i(a)$ and $i(b)$ lie in different path components.

share|improve this answer
1  
You misunderstood my question, your answer above is the direction I have already done. –  fpqc Nov 10 '12 at 7:46
add comment

There is no need to use long exact sequence. I suggest you go with definitions. This problem should be quite straightforward.

share|improve this answer
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.