Maybe my question has an answer here, but I don't understand that. I will pose mine differently. The following definitions are from [1, Sec 4.1].

Consider a simplicial complex. The $k$-th chain group $C_k$ is the set of all $k$-chains $$\sum_i n_i \, \text{[oriented $k$-simplex $i$]}$$ with integer coefficients $n_i$. The boundary homomorphism $\partial_k : C_k \to C_{k-1}$ between chain groups is defined by $$ \partial_k [v_0, \ldots, v_k] = \sum_i (-1)^i [v_0, \ldots, \hat{v}_i, \ldots, v_n]. $$

The $k$-th homology group is $$H_k := \ker \partial_k / \operatorname{im} \partial_{k+1}.$$

As a finitely generated group, it is isomorphic to a direct sum of primary cyclic groups and infinite cyclic groups, or it decomposes into into the torsion subgroup and the free subgroup. The Betti number $\beta_k$ is the rank of the free subgroup.

Let $A_k \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}$ be the matrix representation of $\delta_k$ with respect to some basis. Consider it as an operator between the vector spaces $\mathbb{R}^n$ and $\mathbb{R}^m$ (over the reals). We can compute $$\tilde{\beta}_k := \dim \ker A_k - \dim \operatorname{im} A_{k+1}.$$ I think this is the dimension of the homology group obtained when in the chain group we admit with real coefficients(?).

How are $\beta_k$ and $\tilde{\beta}_k$ related?

[1] Zomorodian, Compuational topology, Notes, 2009.


I'll try showing $\beta_k=\tilde\beta_k$ by expanding out the relevant portions of the proof of the universal coefficient theorem.

The first thing is let's define $A_k$ instead to be the $\mathbb{Z}$-valued matrix for $\partial_k:C_k\to C_{k-1}$, with respect to the basis of oriented simplices. Assume the simplicial complex has only finitely many simplices for this matrix to be finite-dimensional. Let $\tilde{A}_k$ be the same matrix, but thought of as being $\mathbb{R}$-valued. So, using $\operatorname{rank}$ to mean free rank, \begin{align} \beta_k&=\operatorname{rank}(\ker A_k/\operatorname{im} A_{k+1})\\ \tilde{\beta}_k&=\dim(\ker \tilde{A}_k/\operatorname{im} \tilde{A}_{k+1})=\dim\ker\tilde{A}_k-\dim\operatorname{im}\tilde{A}_{k+1} \end{align} (where the latter equality is just the rank-nullity theorem).

A main way to change coefficients in algebra is tensor products. $\mathbb{Z}^n\otimes\mathbb{R}\cong\mathbb{R}^n$. If you are not familiar with the concept, just take this axiomatically for now. One can say that $\tilde{A}_k=A_k\otimes \mathbb{R}$ to represent the change of the coefficient ring. Tensor product properties:

  • $\mathbb{Z}\otimes\mathbb{R}\cong\mathbb{R}$.
  • $(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})\otimes\mathbb{R}\cong 0$.
  • If $A,B$ are abelian groups, $(A\oplus B)\otimes\mathbb{R}\cong (A\otimes\mathbb{R})\oplus(B\otimes\mathbb{R})$.
  • So: If $A$ is a finitely generated abelian group, $A\otimes\mathbb{R}\cong \mathbb{R}^{\operatorname{rank} A}$.

One part to this is that we have a chain complex with $\mathbb{Z}$-coefficients $$\cdots\xrightarrow{A_{k+1}} \mathbb{Z}^{n_k}\xrightarrow{A_k} \mathbb{Z}^{n_{k-1}}\xrightarrow{A_{k-1}}\cdots$$ which can be converted to $\mathbb{R}$-coefficients by tensoring with $\mathbb{R}$ to get $$\cdots\xrightarrow{\tilde A_{k+1}} \mathbb{R}^{n_k}\xrightarrow{\tilde A_k} \mathbb{R}^{n_{k-1}}\xrightarrow{\tilde A_{k-1}}\cdots$$

Now, the difficulty is to find a way to relate the homology groups for each of these chain complexes. Let $H_k$ denote the $k$th homology group of the $C_k$ complex. By definition of $H_k$, there are short exact sequences $$0\to \operatorname{im} A_{k+1}\hookrightarrow \ker A_k\to H_k\to 0$$ Since $\operatorname{im} A_{k+1}$ and $\ker A_k$ are free abelian groups, $(\operatorname{im} A_{k+1})\otimes\mathbb{R}\cong \operatorname{im}\tilde A_{k+1}$ and $(\ker A_k)\otimes\mathbb{R}\cong \ker \tilde A_k$, and the inclusion map tensored with $\mathbb{R}$ remains injective. This ends up meaning there is a short exact sequence $$0 \to \operatorname{im}\tilde A_{k+1} \hookrightarrow \ker \tilde A_k \to H_k\otimes \mathbb{R}\to 0$$

By the first isomorphism theorem, $H_k\otimes \mathbb{R}\cong \ker \tilde A_k / \operatorname{im}\tilde A_{k+1}$. This latter quotient is the definition of the homology with real coefficients, so $$\tilde\beta_k=\dim(H_k\otimes\mathbb{R})=\dim(\mathbb{R}^{\operatorname{rank} H_k})=\operatorname{rank} H_k=\beta_k$$

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the tensor product bit, that'll definitely help. I don't understand the last equality: $\operatorname{rank} H_k = \beta_k$. Isn't it $\operatorname{rank} H_k = \beta_k + [\text{# of torsion subgroups}]$? But I think, using $(\mathbb{Z} / n \mathbb{Z}) \otimes \mathbb{R} \cong 0$, I can see... $\endgroup$ – user66081 Oct 18 '17 at 5:04
  • $\begingroup$ Here I'm meaning free rank rather than number of generators. Sorry for the confusion. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Miller Oct 18 '17 at 5:09
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, thanks for the clarification. The haze is lifting. $\endgroup$ – user66081 Oct 18 '17 at 5:10

Better notation would be $A_k$ for what you just call $A$. Then indeed $\dim\ker A_k-\dim\text{Im}\,A_{k+1}$ is $\beta_k$. This follows from the Universal Coefficient Theorem for homology, but can probably be proved from first principles.


I outline a more naive approach.

I'm assuming that the simplicial complex is finite. The matrix $A_k$ represents a map $\partial_k:C_k\to C_{k-1}$ as well as a linear map $\overline\partial_k:C_k\otimes\Bbb R\to C_{k-1}\otimes\Bbb R$. The groups $C_k$ are free Abelian. Therefore the kernel and image of $\partial_k$ are free Abelian groups. Each free Abelian group has a rank and so we may consider $\text{rk}\ker(\partial_k)$ and $\text{rk}\,\text{im}(\partial_k)$. Now these are the same as the nullity and rank of the linear map $\overline\partial_k$. This follows since the rank of an integer matrix is the same as the rank of the $\Bbb Z$-span of its rows (to be pretentious one might say that $\Bbb R$ is a flat $\Bbb Z$ modules). From this observation, $\beta_k=\tilde\beta_k$ is immediate.

  • $\begingroup$ That is a sensible comment which I took to heart. Now, /how/ does $\beta_k = \tilde{\beta}_k$ follow from the Universal Coefficient Theorem? I don't understand the statement of the theorem. And I wrote first thing that I don't understand this answer. $\endgroup$ – user66081 Oct 18 '17 at 2:29
  • $\begingroup$ @user66081 The UCT is easy to apply in this case, as the Tor term vanishes, and we get $H_k(C;\Bbb R)\cong H_k(C)\otimes\Bbb R$. $\endgroup$ – Lord Shark the Unknown Oct 18 '17 at 17:51

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.