Definitions Let $X$ be a nice space with universal covering $\widetilde{X}$.

  • Homology $H_*(X,R)$ with Ring Coefficients $R$ is the homology of \begin{align*} C_n(X;R) :=&\; \text{ free left $R$-module with basis $S_n(X)$}, \\ \cong&\; R \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} C_n(X) \end{align*} where $C_*(X)$ is the singular chain complex.
  • Homology $H_*(X;M)$ with Module Coefficients $M$, where $M$ is a left $R$-module, is the homology of $$ C_n(X;M) := M \otimes_R C_n(X;R) $$

  • Homology $H_*(X;A)$ with Local Coefficients in $A$, where $A$ is a left $R[\pi_1X]$-module, is the homology of $$ C_n(\widetilde{X};R) \otimes_{R[\pi_1X]} A $$ where we view $C_n(\widetilde{X};R)$ as a right $R[\pi_1X]$-module using the monodromy action on $\widetilde{X}$.

Question: Is the local homology with local coefficients given by a left $R[\pi_1X]$-module $A$ (def. 3) the same as the homology with module coefficients in $A$, viewed as a $R[\pi_X]$-module (def. 2)? In other words, is the expression $$ H_n(X;A) $$ even well-defined? If not, what is a counter example?


They are distinguished by their $\pi_1X$ action. Your definition of coefficients in a module, is the so-called untwisted homology by:

$$ C_n(X;M) := M \otimes_R C_n(X;R) = M \otimes_R R^{|n|} = M^{|n|}, $$ where $|n|$ denotes the number of $n$-cells of $X$ with no $\pi_1$ action on it. (3) in contrast is the twisted homology. As suggested by the name, (2) is the "regular" case, and (3) generalizes it by a non-trivial $\pi_1X$ action.

So if you want, define $M$ as a $R[\pi_1X]$-module by the trivial action, which then gives module homology as a special case of local coefficients. You can read about this in Hatcher's Algebraic Topology, more specifically you are going to learn if the action on $A$ is given by $a:\pi_1 X\to Aut(A)$, it suffices to look at a cover corresponding to $ker(a)$ while tensoring over $R[\pi_1(X)/ker(a)]$ the group ring over the deck transformations. In the trivial action case, that gives you the equivalence (up to the left- and right-stuff which you have to be careful with).

As you noticed correctly, this potentially leads to confusion. When being sloppy we get weird looking things like

$$ H_1(S^1;\mathbb Z/3) = \mathbb Z/3 \neq 0 = H_1(S^1;\mathbb Z/3), $$ as computed here Homology with twisted coefficients of the circle . The difference is that on the left hand side I interpreted $\mathbb Z/3$ as a $\mathbb Z$-module, while on the right hand side I mean a module with a non-trivial fundamental group action, that is a $\mathbb Z[\mathbb Z]$-module with non-trivial $\mathbb Z$-action.

Therefore it is common practice to potentially think of every homology coefficients $A$ as $\mathbb [\pi_1X]$-modules via $a: \pi_1X \to Aut(A)$ and write $$ H_i(X;A), $$ if $a=1$ and otherwise specify $$H_i(X;a),$$ by explicitely mentioning the twisting. However if the twisting is clear from context, often the former is (ab)used anyway.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, this clears up my understanding. But still the thing is, given a ring $R$ and a $R[\pi_1X]$-module $A$, there are two ways to arrive at $H_*(X;A)$. First use the definition of twisted homology. Second, consider $S = R[\pi_1X]$ as the new base ring (forget that its a group ring!), and view $A$ as a usual module over $S$, and we get $H_*(X;A)$ as the untwisted homology with coefficients in the $S$-module $A$. Are they the same? $\endgroup$ – xxpauly Jul 29 '16 at 7:55
  • $\begingroup$ In other words, is twisting again just a special case of taking the untwisted homology with coefficients in a $R[\pi_1X]$-module? I don't think it is, because the former involves $\widetilde{X}$, while the second one uses only $X$ itself. $\endgroup$ – xxpauly Jul 29 '16 at 8:25

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.