10
$\begingroup$

I know that, for every $\Delta$-complex $X$, there is a canonical isomorphism $\phi_n : H_n ^\Delta (X) \to H_n (X) $, where $H^\Delta _n (X)$ is the $n$-th simplicial homology group, and $H_n (X)$ is the $n$-th singular homology group.

For simplicial $\Delta$-complexes, we have also the notion of order-preserving simplicial maps, and every simplicial map $f:X\to Y$ induces a morphism $f^\Delta _{\bullet_*}$ in simplicial homology $H^\Delta _\bullet $.

My question is: are the morphisms $f^\Delta _{\bullet_*}$ and $f _{\bullet_*}$ (the induced morphism in singular homology) "the same" via the canonical isomorphisms? I believe that this is true, but I'm having troubles proving this, because if $\sigma$ is a $n$-simplex of $X$ and $f$ sends $\sigma$ in a simplex of $Y$ such that $\dim f(\sigma) < \dim \sigma$, then $ f_n (\sigma)=0 $, but if we denote $c_\sigma : \Delta ^n \to X $ the characteristic map of $\sigma$ in the $\Delta$-complex structure of $X$, then $ f\circ c_\sigma :\Delta^n \to Y$ is a well defined $n$-singular simplex of $Y$.

Thank you.

$\endgroup$
9
$\begingroup$

Yes, this is true. Here's one way to prove it. For $0\leq j<n$, write $s_j^{n-1}:\Delta^n\to\Delta^{n-1}$ for the map induced by the order-preserving surjection $\{0,\dots,n\}\to\{0,\dots,n-1\}$ that maps both $j$ and $j+1$ to $j$. Say that a singular simplex $\Delta^n\to X$ is degenerate if it factors through $s_j^{n-1}$ for some $j$. Note that the boundary of a degenerate simplex is a linear combination of degenerate simplices: all but possibly two of its faces are degenerate (the two exceptions being the faces corresponding to omitting the vertices $j$ and $j+1$), and those two faces cancel out. So if we write $D_n(X)\subseteq C_n(X)$ for the span of the degenerate simplices, $D_\bullet(X)$ is a subcomplex of $C_\bullet(X)$. Write $N_\bullet(X)=C_\bullet(X)/D_\bullet(X)$.

Now note that given an order-preserving simplicial map $f:X\to Y$, the induced maps $C^\Delta_\bullet(X)\to C^\Delta_\bullet(Y)\to C_\bullet(Y)\to N_\bullet(Y)$ and $C^\Delta_\bullet(X)\to C_\bullet(X)\to C_\bullet(Y)\to N_\bullet(Y)$ are equal, since the $n$-simplices $\sigma$ that you're worried about have the property that $f\circ c_\sigma$ is degenerate. So to show that $f^\Delta_{\bullet_*}=f_{\bullet_*}$, it suffices to show that the map $C_\bullet(Y)\to N_\bullet(Y)$ induces isomorphisms on homology. By the long exact sequence in homology associated to the short exact sequence $0\to D_\bullet(Y)\to C_\bullet(Y)\to N_\bullet(Y)\to 0$, it suffices to show that $D_\bullet(Y)$ has trivial homology.

We can show this by constructing a chain homotopy. Given a degenerate $n$-simplex $\sigma:\Delta^n\to Y$, let $j(\sigma)\in\{0,\dots,n-1\}$ be the least $j$ such that $\sigma$ factors through $s_j^{n-1}$. Now define $H:D_n(Y)\to D_{n+1}(Y)$ by $H(\sigma)=(-1)^{j(\sigma)}\sigma\circ s^n_{j(\sigma)}$. An elementary computation then shows that $H\partial+\partial H:D_n(Y)\to D_n(Y)$ is the identity map. It follows that $D_\bullet(Y)$ has no homology.

To give a sense of the computation $H\partial+\partial H=1$, let's show what happens when you take a $3$-simplex $\sigma$ with $j(\sigma)=1$; the general case works very similarly. Let's write $\sigma=[a,b,b,c]$; all the simplices built from $\sigma$ will be written using similar expressions with the obvious meaning (here $a$, $b$, and $c$ are the vertices of $\sigma$, with $b$ repeated since it factors through $s^2_1$). We then have $H(\sigma)=-[a,b,b,b,c]$, so $$\begin{align}\partial H(\sigma)=&-[b,b,b,c]+[a,b,b,c]-[a,b,b,c]+[a,b,b,c]-[a,b,b,b]\\=&-[b,b,b,c]+[a,b,b,c]-[a,b,b,b].\end{align}$$ On the other hand, $\partial\sigma=[b,b,c]-[a,b,c]+[a,b,c]-[a,b,b]=[b,b,c]-[a,b,b]$. We have $H([b,b,c])=[b,b,b,c]$ and $H([a,b,b])=-[a,b,b,b]$. Thus we get $$H(\partial\sigma)=[b,b,b,c]+[a,b,b,b].$$ When we add together $\partial H(\sigma)$ and $H(\partial\sigma)$, all the terms cancel except $[a,b,b,c]$, which is just $\sigma$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ This is reminiscent of the normalized bar resolution having the same homology as the unnormalized bar resolution. $\endgroup$ – Pedro Tamaroff Dec 26 '15 at 2:18
  • $\begingroup$ @PedroTamaroff: Yes, both are special cases of the fact that for any simplicial object in an abelian category, the associated chain complex is homotopy-equivalent to the "normalized" chain complex you get by modding out the subcomplex of degenerates. $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Dec 26 '15 at 2:24
  • $\begingroup$ Aha, that doesn't come as a surprise. :) $\endgroup$ – Pedro Tamaroff Dec 26 '15 at 2:27

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.