0
$\begingroup$

I am studying for an exam and would appreciate if someone could spell me a proof on the following:

If $ X_0 \subset X_1 \subset \dots $ is a CW-complex with pushouts

$$ \newcommand{\ra}[1]{\kern-1.5ex\xrightarrow{\ \ #1\ \ }\phantom{}\kern-1.5ex} \newcommand{\ras}[1]{\kern-1.5ex\xrightarrow{\ \ \smash{#1}\ \ }\phantom{}\kern-1.5ex} \newcommand{\da}[1]{\bigg\downarrow\raise.5ex\rlap{\scriptstyle#1}} \begin{array}{c} % \bigsqcup_{i \in I} S^{n} & \ra{\hspace{0.35cm} <\varphi_i>_i \hspace{0.35cm}} & X_n \\ \da{inc} & & \da{inc}\\ \bigsqcup_{i \in I} D^{n+1} & \ras{<\phi_i>_i} & X_{n+1}\\ \end{array} \\ \begin{array}{c} % \bigsqcup_{i \in I} S^{n} & \ra{\hspace{0.35cm} <\varphi_i'>_i \hspace{0.35cm}} & X_n \\ \da{inc} & & \da{inc}\\ \bigsqcup_{i \in I} D^{n+1} & \ras{<\phi_i'>_i} & X_{n+1}\\ \end{array} $$

where '$inc$' denotes the set-inclusion in all cases, then $$ H_n(<\varphi_i>_i) = \pm H_n(<\varphi_i'>_i) $$

What I do know, is that $$ H_n(\overline{<\phi_i>_i}),\,H_n(\overline{<\phi_i>_i}): H_n(\vee_{i \in I} (D^{n+1}/S^n)) \longrightarrow H_n(X_{n+1}/X_n) $$ differ by at most $-1$.

I have also tried toying around with the related diagrams and obvious relationship coming from the commutative diagrams in the category of topological spaces, but I haven't managed to prove this (and I have an exam coming up on Friday, so I don't have much time for this).
I have shown $$ H_n(X_n \rightarrow X_{n+1}/X_n) \circ H_n(<\varphi_i>_i) = \pm H_n(X_n \rightarrow X_{n+1}/X_n) \circ H_n(<\varphi_i'>_i) $$ (with the respective left maps being induced by the projection of $X_n$ into $X_n \in X_n+1/X_n$. However, I don't think this will help much, because this only shows $$H_n(<\varphi_i>_i) \mp H_n(<\varphi_i'>_i)(x) \in \ker(H_n(X_n \rightarrow X_{n+1}/X_n))\,,\; x \in H_n(\vee_{i \in I} (D^{n+1}/S^n))$$ (and I don't see how that is going to help).

I also tried playing around with the Mayer-Vietoris sequences for the pushout squares, but didn't come up with anything useful.

Looks like I'm going for a fail or bad grade as I'm way behind with the lecture notes, but help would still be greatly appreciated.

Note: At this point, I'm only starting to learn about cellular homology, so results from this cannot be used here.

EDIT: It's possible that I understood the question in a too general sense, and that the homework question was referring to a specific case (possibly a map that would be an answer to this question of mine ).
So maybe, this statement is wrong. I am leaving it open, because I would be curious about a counterexample in the general case, or a proof.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I'm learning cellular homology at that time like you . But I have some troubles with your notations and don't really understand what you're trying to do . Can you express it in another way ? $\endgroup$ Apr 19 '17 at 15:20
  • $\begingroup$ @BangPhamKhoa I can't really help you, unless you are more specific... I can think of two things: The $<\varphi_i>_i$-part: Those are the maps coming from the universal property of the disjoint union/topological sum. The other: Putting the arrow-notation as the $H_n$-argument. But that simply means to take the homology of the obvious map (here: the projections precomposed with inclusion). $\endgroup$ Apr 19 '17 at 16:46
0
$\begingroup$

It appears that at least some basic things about cellular homology are needed here.

In the lecture, we introduced two definitions for the cellular chain complex, namely, for $n \ge 0$:

$$ \begin{align} C^\text{cell, geo}_n(X) &:= \bigoplus_{e \in \Pi_0(X_n\setminus X_{n-1})} \mathbb{Z}\quad, \\ C^\text{cell}_n(X) &:= H_n(X_n\,, X_{n-1}) \end{align} $$

and both $0$ for for $n\lt0$, with a somewhat more contrived definition for the boundary homomorphisms in the geometric case based on the degrees of maps (for a fixed isomorphism-choice $D^n/S^{n-1}\cong S^n$) $$ S^n \overset{\varphi_i}\longrightarrow X_n/X_{n-1} \underset\cong{\overset {\bar{<\bar\psi_\nu>_\nu}} \longleftarrow} \vee_\nu D^n/S^{n-1} \overset{pr_l}\longrightarrow D^n/S^{n-1} \cong S^n $$ and indices $i$,$\,l$, where $\psi_l$ comes from an attaching diagram

$$ \newcommand{\ra}[1]{\kern-1.5ex\xrightarrow{\ \ #1\ \ }\phantom{}\kern-1.5ex} \newcommand{\ras}[1]{\kern-1.5ex\xrightarrow{\ \ \smash{#1}\ \ }\phantom{}\kern-1.5ex} \newcommand{\da}[1]{\bigg\downarrow\raise.5ex\rlap{\scriptstyle#1}} \begin{array}{c} % \bigsqcup_{l \in L} S^{n-1} & \ra{\hspace{0.35cm} \hspace{0.35cm}} & X_{n-1} \\ \da{inc} & & \da{inc}\\ \bigsqcup_{l \in L} D^{n} & \ras{<\psi_l>_l} & X_{n}\\ \end{array} \\ $$

We then showed that these are chain-isomorphic, and the proof we used then implies the statement in this answer.

$\endgroup$

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.