2
$\begingroup$

I am a bit confused about how the "product attaching-maps" work.

For instance, if I wanted to find the cell structure for $S^1\times S^1$ then I can proceed similarly to here.

So we will call $e_0$ and $f_0$ the zero-cells of $S^1$ and $S^1$, respectively. Similarly, $e_1$ and $f_1$ are the respective one-cells. Then $\phi$ and $\psi$ are the attaching maps taking the boundary of $D^1$ to $e_0$ and $f_0$ respectively.

When we attach the cell $e_1\times f_1$ to the one-skeleton of $S^1\times S^1$, we do so via the attaching map $\phi\times \psi$. But $\phi\times \psi$ are only defined on $\partial D^1 \times \partial D^1$, and not on $\partial (D^1\times D^1) = (\partial D_1\times D_1) \cup (D_1\times \partial D_1)$. This is where I get confused.

If anyone can explain what's going on I would highly appreciate it.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Be careful! You forgot the 1-cells $e_0\times f_1$ and $e_1\times f_0$ which are attached to the 0-cell $e_0\times f_0$ in the obvious way to form the 1-skeleton $S^1\vee S^1$ of $S^1\times S^1$. Now glue your 2-cell $e_1\times f_1$ to the 1-skeleton.

Edit to bring the discussion into the answer The attaching map $\phi$ of a cell $e^n$ of a CW-complex $X$ defines the characteristic map of this $n$-cell $$ e^n\hookrightarrow X_{n-1}\amalg e^n\to X_n\hookrightarrow X $$ and restricting the characteristic map to $\partial e^n$ gives the attaching map, so with an abuse of notation they have the same name $\phi$. Then the product of attaching maps is actually taken as the restriction of the set-theoretic product of characteristic maps (using $e^n\times e^m\cong e^{n+m}$), so they are not the set-theoretic product of attaching maps but $\phi\times 1\cup 1\times\psi$ (where the $1$ is the obvious identification).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry I didn't phrase what I mean properly. I see that we have a zero-cell and two-one cells and their attachment maps make sense to me. My issue is that when I glue the 2-cell to the one-skeleton, the attaching map is not well-defined. Intuitively, I see what should happen. My issue is with where I am misunderstanding how $\phi\times\psi$ works. $\endgroup$ – Quoka Oct 7 '18 at 20:19
  • $\begingroup$ The attaching map is well-defined. The attaching map that we write as $\phi\times\psi$ is not the set-theoretic $\phi\times\psi$, but $\phi\times 1\cup 1\times\psi$. $\endgroup$ – user10354138 Oct 8 '18 at 7:34
  • $\begingroup$ That makes sense (if you write this as an answer I'll accept it). Thank you. $\endgroup$ – Quoka Oct 9 '18 at 17:24
  • $\begingroup$ I've added some details of this discussion to the answer. $\endgroup$ – user10354138 Oct 9 '18 at 18:11

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.