# Explicit isomorphism $\tilde{H_n}(X)\simeq \tilde{H}_{n+1}(SX)$.

Let $X$ be a topological space and $S:\mathbf{Top}\to \mathbf{Top}$ be the suspension functor.

It's not hard to show using e.g. the long exact sequence of homology that $\tilde{H_n}(X)\simeq \tilde{H}_{n+1}(SX)$ (where $\tilde{H_n}$ denotes reduced homology).

However, I need to

"construct explicit chain maps $f:C_n(X)\to C_{n+1}(SX)$ inducing isomorphisms $\tilde{H_n}(X)\to \tilde{H_{n+1}}(SX)$"

(this is problem 21 in section 2.1 of Hatcher's book).

Here's my attempt:

Define $f:C_n(X)\to C_{n+1}(SX)$ as follows. If $\sigma:\Delta^n\to X$ is a singular $n$-chain, then its suspension is $S\sigma:S\Delta^n\to SX$.

It's geometrically clear that $S\Delta^n$ is the union of two $n+1$- standard simplexes, call them $\Delta^{n+1}_0$ and $\Delta^{n+1}_1$, identified by a face.

Let $f(\sigma):=S\sigma|_{\Delta^{n+1}_1}-S\sigma|_{\Delta^{n+1}_0}$. Then extend $f$ linearly to all of $C_n(X)$.

A little manipulation proves that $f$ is indeed a chain map.

Now the problem is: how to prove that $f_*:\tilde{H_n}(X)\to \tilde{H}_{n+1}(SX)$ is an isomorphism?

I thought perhaps the connecting homomorphism $\partial:H_{n+1}(CX,X)\to \tilde{H}_n(X)$ could help. Since $(CX,X)$ is a good pair, there is an isomorphism $\varphi:\tilde{H_{n+1}}(CX/X)=\tilde{H}_{n+1}(SX)\to H_{n+1}(CX,X)$.

But how to prove that $\partial \varphi$ is the inverse of $f_*$?

Or perhaps this is a terrible approach... but I've run out of ideas.

• It may be circumventing the intent of the exercise, but couldn't you just argue that your map is the "same" as the map in the long exact sequence, so induces an isomorphism? – Cheerful Parsnip May 1 '12 at 14:22
• @Jim: By "your map", do you mean $\partial \varphi$? Yes, being the composition of two isomorphisms it is an isomorphism, but how could I link it to $f_*$? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment, did you mean something else? – Bruno Stonek May 1 '12 at 14:28

I believe your map will work, but here's my suggestion.

We work with relative groups everywhere, since we want the conclusion to hold for reduced homology.

Consider the maps

$$C_*(X, *) \to C_{*+1}(CX, X) \to C_{*+1}(SX, *)$$

The first map is defined by taking a simplex $\Delta^n \to X$ to the simplex $\Delta^{n+1} = C\Delta^n \to CX$. The second map is the collapse map $(CX, X) \to (CX/X, X/X) = (SX, *)$. The second map is automatically a chain map, and it should be easy to check that the first map is also a chain map.

Consider the long exact homology sequence of the triple $(CX, X, *)$, then it should be easy to see, just by computing the map directly following chains around, that the connecting map $\delta: H_{*+1}(CX, X) \to H_*(X, *)$ is inverse to the induced map on homology $H_*(X, *) \to H_{*+1}(CX, X)$.

Using excision or what have you, you can then prove that the map $C_{*+1}(CX, X) \to C_{*+1}(SX, *)$ induces an isomorphism on homology. This shows that the above composition does the job.

I think if you do some work you can prove this map is homotopic to the map that you constructed, but this seems easier to me.

• Thank you for your answer. There's something I do not know (it is not in Hatcher's section prior to the exercise): what is the long exact homology sequence of a triple? – Bruno Stonek May 2 '12 at 18:20
• Ah, well say you have a triple of subspaces $A\subset B \subset Y$, then if you think through the algebra, this induces a short exact sequence of abelian groups: $0\to C_*(B, A) \to C_*(Y, A) \to C_*(Y,B) \to 0$, the induced long exact sequence on homology is the exact sequence of a triple. In the example above, $Y = CX$, $B = X$, and $A = *$. – Justin Young May 2 '12 at 18:29
• Ah, I see. Thanks, I'll think this through a little later. – Bruno Stonek May 2 '12 at 18:47
• @JustinYoung, I am stuck at this problem for some time now and stumbled upon your solution. One thing I cannot understand is that to apply long exact sequence, you need the maps in the chain groups to form a short exact sequence. I cannot see how the maps defined here is exact. – ChesterX Jan 7 '15 at 8:36
• It's basically one of the isomorphism theorems $G/H \cong (G/N)/(H/N)$. – Justin Young Feb 22 '16 at 16:20