I want to check that my understanding is correct about cohomology.

Let $X$ be a topological space $G$ be an abelian group. The universal coefficients theorem, as stated in hatcher, says that the following sequence of $\mathbb{Z}$-modules is split exact $$0\to \text{Ext}(H_{n-1}(X),G)\to H^n(X,G)\to \hom(H_n(X),G)\to 0,$$ where $H_i(X)$ is the singular homology group with $\mathbb{Z}$-coefficients.

Later in a comment, Hatcher mentioned that we take the chain complex of free $R$-modules $$\cdots\to C_{n-1}(X,R)\to C_n(X,R)\to C_{n+1}(X,R)\to \cdots$$ and take its homology modules $H_n(X,R)$, as well as the homology modules after applying $\hom_R(-,R)$, denoted $H^n(X,R)$. Then the universal coefficients theorem says that the following is a split short exact sequence of $R$-modules $$0\to \text{Ext}_R(H_{n-1}(X,R),R)\to H^n(X,R)\to \hom_R(H_n(X,R),R)\to 0.$$

However I feel that Hatcher did not give the more general case, so the following is my speculation:

Since $\mathbb{Z}$ is initial in the category of unital rings, let $R$ be any unital ring, and $\varphi:\mathbb{Z}\to R$ be the unique homomorphism, making $R$ a $\mathbb{Z}-R$ left bimodule. Consider the chain complex with $\mathbb{Z}$ coefficients $$\cdots\to C_{n-1}(X)\to C_n(X)\to C_{n+1}(X)\to \cdots$$ and apply $\hom_\mathbb{Z}(-,R)$ to obtain a complex of $R$-modules $$\cdots\to \hom_\mathbb{Z}(C_{n+1}(X),R)\to \hom_\mathbb{Z}(C_{n}(X),R)\to \hom_\mathbb{Z}(C_{n-1}(X),R)\to \cdots,$$ whose homology yields $h^n(X,R)$.

My two questions are:

  1. $h^n(X,R) \cong H^n(X,R)$? Which one is the 'correct' definition of cohomology?
  2. Is there a split exact sequence of $R$-modules $$0\to \text{Ext}_\mathbb{Z}(H_{n-1}(X),R)\to h^n(X,R)\to \hom_\mathbb{Z}(H_n(X),R)\to 0?$$

2 Answers 2


EDIT: The version of (2) using homology with coefficients in R is not true. Consider $X = \Bbb{RP}^2$, and $R = \Bbb{Z}/4$.

The homology groups are $$ \Bbb Z, \Bbb Z/2, 0, \ldots $$ The universal coefficient theorem tells you that the homology and cohomology with mod-4 coefficients is $$ \Bbb Z/4, \Bbb Z/2, \Bbb Z/2, 0, \ldots $$ but your formula predicts that the cohomology with mod-4 coefficients is $$ \Bbb Z/4, \Bbb Z/2, \Bbb Z/2^2, \Bbb Z/2, 0, \ldots $$

However, (2) is true as you've stated it. Sorry; I got mixed up as to the two displayed equations.

  1. Remember that $C_n(X;R) \cong C_n(X) \otimes_\mathbb{Z} R$, and $\hom_R(M \otimes_\mathbb{Z} R, N) \cong \hom_\mathbb{Z}(M,N)$.

  2. Yes, apply your first exact sequence with $R$ instead of $G$.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ For 2 you need to observe,too, that since the universal coeffecient exact sequence is natural in the coefficients the maps given by multiplication by elements of $R$ commutes with the maps in the exact sequence; also, the splitting of the exact sequece is natural in the coefficients (and not on the space) so the splitting is also $R$-linear. $\endgroup$ Nov 9, 2014 at 19:17
  • $\begingroup$ Indeed, it could well be the case that the maps in the UCT sequence for a ring $R$ be not $R$-linear, or that the splitting is only $\mathbb Z$-linear. One has to check that this is not so. $\endgroup$ Nov 9, 2014 at 19:19
  • $\begingroup$ @MarianoSuárez-Alvarez Good point, I should have mentioned it; I didn't notice that the OP didn't state that the first exact sequence was just said to be of $\mathbb{Z}$-modules. $\endgroup$ Nov 9, 2014 at 19:43
  • $\begingroup$ @MarianoSuárez-Alvarez It appears to me that the counterexample that Tyler provided is correct, could you please help me confirm that? $\endgroup$
    – mez
    Nov 9, 2014 at 23:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Well, the exact sequence (with homology with coefficients in R) exists if R is a principal ideal domain. That is the standard hypothesis in this context. (For a general ring there is a universal coefficients spectral sequence, not short exact sequences) $\endgroup$ Nov 10, 2014 at 1:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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