I´ve a question about singular homology.

Theorem 29.6 in Kosniowski's book uses $\delta_j \delta_i = \delta_i \delta_{j+1}$, if $i \leq j$. My question is for the particular case $i=0 \leq j = 1 \leq n=2$ we have, for $\phi$ a singular $n$-simplex:

$$\delta_1 \delta_0(\phi) = \delta_0 (\phi(x_0,0,x_1)) = \phi(0,x_0,0,x_1)$$

$$\delta_0\delta_2(\phi) = \delta_0 (\phi(x_0,x_1,0)) = \phi(0,x_0,x_1,0)$$

and they are different. So, what is wrong in this proof?

  • $\begingroup$ How exactly does Kosniowski define his standard simplices? $\endgroup$ – Lord Shark the Unknown May 7 '18 at 9:19
  • $\begingroup$ As a subspace of $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$: $$\Delta_n = \{(x_0,\dots,x_n) \in \mathbb{R}^{n+1} : \sum_{i=0}^nx_i = 1, x_i \geq 0, i=0,1,\dots,n\}$$ $\endgroup$ – LH8 May 7 '18 at 10:11

Note that $\delta_j\delta_i\phi$ takes an $(n-2)$-simplex. With $n=2$, it takes a $0$-simplex, not a $1$-simplex. Hence we have


Now, $\phi(0,x_0,0)=\delta_2\phi(0,x_0)=\delta_0\delta_2(x_0)$.

Personally, I find the definition $\delta_i$ a little bit confusing since it makes you think the composition from outside to inside, unlike the usual map composition. That might have induced you in error.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Me too. It is a little stranger. I still don´t see why is not explained that the composition works in inverse order. $\endgroup$ – LH8 May 7 '18 at 10:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's just the way it is defined. If $\phi$ is any $n$-singular simplex (it can also be the case that $\phi=\delta_j\varphi$ for some $(n+1$)-singular simplex $\varphi$), then $\delta_i\phi(x_0,\dots, x_{n-1})=\phi(x_0,\dots, x_{i-1},0,x_i,\dots, x_{n-1})$. So you have to follow this definition [...] $\endgroup$ – Javi May 7 '18 at 10:23
  • $\begingroup$ [...] if $\phi=\delta_j\varphi$, then you compute $\delta_j\varphi(x_0,\dots, x_{i-1},0,x_i,\dots, x_{n-1}))=\varphi(x_0,\dots, x_{i-1},0,x_i,\dots, x_{j-1},0,x_j,\dots, x_{n-1})$. $\endgroup$ – Javi May 7 '18 at 10:25
  • $\begingroup$ The reason is that $\delta_i\phi$ is defined by means of the arguments of $\phi$. Usually, a composition $f\circ g$ is defined as $f$ acting over the image of $g$, not over it's arguments (which are in its domain, not its image). $\endgroup$ – Javi May 7 '18 at 10:29

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.