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 have been studying a course in algebraic topology that follows Hatcher's textbook on the subject. I have some queries as to how certain things are defined.

The first part of the text defines the cochain groups $S_n (X)$ to be the free abelian groups generated by singular n simplices on $X$. Then the cochain groups are $S^n (X;G):=Hom(S_n (X),G)$.

Then in chapter 3.2 we consider cohomology with coefficients in a commutative ring $R$. So now we appear to have $S^n (X;R):=Hom(S_n (X),R)$.

In order that this is well defined I think we must treat $R$ as a group when considering these homomorphisms. So we would have to view $R$ as a group under it's addition or multiplication and since we don't necessarily have $1 \in R$ we must choose the addition for this. None of this is discussed in Hatcher and is glossed over in every text I can find.

Things then get more complicated when discussing the cap product. At this stage it is shown in Hatcher (page 249 "connection with cup product") that for $\psi \in S^l(X;R), \phi \in S^k(X;R)$ and $\alpha \in S_{k+l}(X;R)$: \begin{equation} \psi (\alpha \cap \phi) = (\phi \cup \psi) (\alpha) \end{equation} But the proof of this requires that $\psi (r \sigma) = r \psi(\sigma)$ i.e. $\psi$ is an $R$-homomorphism. This suggests that the definitions we are working with are in fact: $S_n (X) = S_n (X;R)$ (coefficients in $R$) and $S^n (X;R):=Hom_R(S_n (X;R),R)$.

So we come to my questions:

  1. How are the chain groups really meant to be defined when we have coefficients in a ring $R$?
  2. If we do have several definitions floating about how do we know which one is being used.
share|cite|improve this question
But what is the problem? ${\rm Hom}_R$ simply means $R$-homomorhisms, and $R$ is certainly a module over itself. – M.B. Mar 6 '14 at 21:24
Since $S_n(X;R)\cong S_n(X)\otimes R$, one gets $Hom_R(S_n(X;R),R)\cong Hom(S_n(X),R)$ canonically. – archipelago Mar 6 '14 at 23:33
Thank you for your replies. My problem was that this definition was never given in the text and so it was not clear that the co-chains were in fact R-homomorphisms. I see now that the isomorphism given by @archipelago means that the two definitions I was thinking of are in fact the same. However I still think that this should have been discussed in the text. – EHH Mar 7 '14 at 8:59
  1. Take the underlying additive group of $R$. The multiplicative structure only enters when discussing the cup product.

  2. The two definitions you've given are equivalent.

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.