5
$\begingroup$

I try to define abstract homology in the following way. $\newcommand{\Ob}{\operatorname{Ob}}$ $\newcommand{\Arr}{\operatorname{Arr}}$ $\newcommand{\Com}{\operatorname{Com}}$ $\newcommand{\Fun}{\operatorname{Fun}}$ $\newcommand{\dom}{\operatorname{dom}}$ $\newcommand{\cod}{\operatorname{cod}}$ $\newcommand{\img}{\operatorname{img}}$ $\newcommand{\coker}{\operatorname{coker}}$ $\newcommand{\imgs}{\operatorname{\underline{img}}}$ $\newcommand{\kers}{\operatorname{\underline{ker}}}$ $\newcommand{\cokers}{\operatorname{\underline{coker}}}$

Let $\mathcal A$ be an abelian category. Consider the category $\Com \mathcal A$ whose objects are endomorphisms $d$ on objects $A$ with of $\mathcal A$ with $d^2 = 0$ and whose morphisms between obejcts $d$ and $d'$ of $\Com \mathcal A$ are given by arrows $f \colon A → A'$ in $\mathcal A$ (where $A = \dom d$, $A' = \dom d'$) such that $fd = d'f$.

This can be viewed as a subcategory of the arrow category $\Arr \mathcal A$.

Then kernel and image define functors $\Com \mathcal A → \Arr \mathcal A$. For any $d ∈ \Ob \Com \mathcal A$, since $d^2 = 0$, we have $\img d ≤ \ker d$, that is: there exist a uniqe morphism $η_d \colon \imgs d → \kers d$ such that $\img d = (\ker d) η_d$ (where $\imgs d = \dom (\img d)$ and $\kers d = \dom (\ker d)$).

In turns out, this defines a natural transformation $η \colon \img → \ker$. As taking domains is a functor $\Arr \mathcal A → \mathcal A$, this also defines a natural transformation $η \colon \imgs → \kers$ of functors $\Com \mathcal A → \mathcal A$.

Since $\mathcal A$ is abelian, the functor category $\Fun (\Com \mathcal A, \mathcal A)$ is as well, and we may define $$h = \cokers η = \cod (\coker η),$$ yielding a functor $$h \colon \Com \mathcal A → \mathcal A.$$

Now, I think of $\mathcal A$ as the category of $ℤ$-indexed sequences of abelian groups whose morphisms are $ℤ$-indexed sequences of homomorphisms of some degree (they may uniformly vary the index, so e.g. be homomorphisms $A_i → A_{i+1}$). I might possibly further refine $\Com \mathcal A$ to only contain endomorphisms $d$ of degree one as objects and homomorphisms $f$ of degree zero as arrows …

My questions now are

  1. Have I successfully described homology as the functor $h$ in this way?
  2. If so, is there any book that does homological algebra based on this or a similar definition in a purely categorical way?

I would especially like to see homology not defined on chain complexes, but first defined on endomorphisms $d$, and only then specified to chain complexes. (Or is this completely useless?)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ So far I found it mentioned only briefly in Mac Lane, "Homology" and some remarks on compatibility in Spanier, "Algebraic Topology". $\endgroup$ – C-Star-W-Star Jul 21 '17 at 22:47
5
$\begingroup$

This is exactly how Michael Barr develops homology theory in section 2.4 of his book Acyclic Models.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ That’s neat! Thanks for the answer. I won’t accept this, though, as Michael Barr doesn’t do homological algebra in a purely categorical way in this book (that is, without falling back to the category of modules over some ring for convenience in proving theorems). $\endgroup$ – k.stm Jul 22 '17 at 7:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ A reference for a purely categorical approach is Theo Buehler's survey Exact categories. You can probably combine Barr's discussion of differential objects in additive categories with Buehler's to get what you want. $\endgroup$ – Vladimir Sotirov Jul 22 '17 at 17:31

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.