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

I'm having trouble understanding the definitions I've been reading, of what has been called an 'induced coboundary operator' or a 'connecting homomorphism' depending on what source you're reading.

Firstly, the what I've been working with is the Cech Homology groups are induced by the coboundary operator.

$$\check{H}^p(\mathcal{U},\mathscr{E}) = \frac{\ker(\delta:C^p(\mathcal{U},\mathscr{E}) \xrightarrow{} C^{p+1}(\mathcal{U},\mathscr{E}))}{\delta C^{p-1}(\mathcal{U},\mathscr{E})}$$

Where $\mathcal{U} = \{U_\alpha\}$ is a locally finite open cover of our manifold $M$.

Initially we start with a short exact sequence of Sheaves $$0 \xrightarrow{} \mathscr{E} \xrightarrow{\alpha} \mathscr{F} \xrightarrow{\beta} \mathscr{G}\xrightarrow{} 0$$

This induces a map on the Cech cochain complexes

$$C^p(\mathcal{U},\mathscr{E}) \xrightarrow{\alpha} C^p(\mathcal{U},\mathscr{F}) \xrightarrow{\beta} C^p(\mathcal{U},\mathscr{G})$$

Which consequently induces maps on the cohomology groups

$$\check{H}^p(\mathcal{U},\mathscr{E}) \xrightarrow{\alpha_*} \check{H}^p(\mathcal{U},\mathscr{F}) \xrightarrow{\beta_*} \check{H}^p(\mathcal{U},\mathscr{G})$$

All these definitions are fine so far, the problem I encounter is the source I'm reading: "Griffiths & Harris - Principles of Algebraic Geometry", gives a very loose definition of the induced coboundary map

$$\delta_*:\check{H}^p(\mathcal{U},\mathscr{G}) \xrightarrow{} \check{H}^{p+1}(\mathcal{U},\mathscr{E})$$

The definition is contained within a proof of another theorem, it involves diagram chasing, yet is rather difficult to interpret.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 2 down vote accepted

I managed to adapt a proof I found in here involving relative homology groups.

I will append a subscript $p$ to denote the maps from the respective cochain complexes and cohomology groups.

We can define the map $\delta_{*p}: \check{H}^{p}(\mathcal{U},\mathscr{G})\xrightarrow{} \check{H}^{p+1}(\mathcal{U},\mathscr{E})$ by taking $\sigma \in C^{p}(\mathcal{U},\mathscr{G})$ with $\delta_p \sigma = 0$, thus representing a cohomology class $[\sigma] \in \check{H}^{p}(\mathcal{U},\mathscr{G})$.

Since the map $\beta_p$ is surjective, there is a $\tau \in C^{p}(\mathcal{U},\mathscr{F})$ such that $\beta_p(\tau) = \sigma$.

Now $\delta_p(\tau) \in \ker(\beta_{p+1})$, since the diagram is commutative and $$\beta_{p+1} \delta_p \tau = \delta_p \beta_p(\tau) = \delta_p \sigma = 0$$ Using the exactness of the rows and injectivity of $\alpha$, we can say that there exists a unique $\lambda \in C^{p+1}(\mathcal{U},\mathscr{E})$ such that $\alpha_{p+1} (\lambda) = \delta_p(\tau)$ and again using commutivity, we can see that $$\alpha_{p+2} \delta_{p+1} \lambda = \delta_{p+1} \alpha_{p+1} \lambda = \delta_{p+1} \delta_p \tau = 0$$ Again, given $\alpha$ is injective, this implies $\delta_{p+1} \lambda = 0$ and $[\lambda] \in \check{H}^{p+1}(\mathcal{U},\mathscr{E})$.

We define $\delta_{*p} [\sigma] = [\lambda] \in \check{H}^{p+1}(\mathcal{U},\mathscr{E})$ $\square$

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.