I'm reading Munkre's elements of algebraic topology. Lemma 58.1 is the following:

Let $C$ and $C'$ be chain complexes such that in each dimension the cycles form a direct summand in the chains. (This occurs, for instance, when $C$ and $C'$ are free). Then:

$$\Theta: \oplus_{p+q=m} H_p(C) \otimes H_q(C') \rightarrow H_m(C \otimes C')$$

is a monomorphism, and its image is a direct summand.

On the level of chains, is this an isomorphism?

I'd appreciate any insight into this Lemma what so ever, the explanations I get from people here always really help my understanding. In particular though, what exactly does it mean for "The cycles to be a direct summand in the chains"?


  • $\begingroup$ Presumably here "free" means free over a PID (so that it suffices to be free over $\mathbb{Z}$). $\endgroup$ Sep 3 '19 at 15:12

The cycles of $C$, $Z(C)$, is in general a subgroup of $C$. Asking for $Z(C)$ to be a direct summand is asking for the existence of another subgroup $K \subseteq C$ such that $C = Z(C) \oplus K$. This is not always true: consider the chain complex $$ \cdots \to 0 \to \mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z} \to 0 \to \cdots,$$ where the map $\mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ is the quotient map. Then the cycles inside of $\mathbb{Z}$ is the subgroup $2\mathbb{Z}$, which is not a summand of $\mathbb{Z}$. (Any two nonzero subgroups of $\mathbb{Z}$ intersect.)

Now on your question about an isomorphism on the level of chains. It's not clear what "chains" we would be discussing on the left-hand side: the group $$\bigoplus_{p+q=m} H_p(C) \otimes H_q(C')$$ doesn't arise as the homology of a relevant chain complex. Of course, it is the homology of a complex with zero differentials, but if $H_\ast(C)$ doesn't map into $C$, then we shouldn't expect this tensor product to map into $C \otimes C'$.

Edit: The map is induced by sending $H_p(C) \otimes H_q(C') \ni [c] \otimes [c'] \mapsto [c \otimes c'] \in H_{p+q}(C\otimes C')$. If $\varphi: C \to Z(C)$ and $\varphi':C' \to Z(C')$ are splittings, then sending

$$c \in Z(C \otimes C') \mapsto (\varphi \otimes \varphi')(c)\in Z(C) \otimes Z(C')\twoheadrightarrow H_\ast(C) \otimes H_\ast(C')$$

descends to a map on homology: the boundary map in $C \otimes C'$ is given by $\partial_C \otimes 1 \pm 1 \otimes \partial_{C'}$, and since $\varphi$ and $\varphi'$ are the identity on cycles, they are the identity on boundaries. So, a boundary in $C \otimes C'$ gets taken to zero under the above map. So we have maps

$$ \require{AMScd}\begin{CD}\bigoplus_{p+q=m} H_p(C) \otimes H_q(C') @>{[c]\otimes [c']\mapsto [c\otimes c']}>> H_m(C\otimes C') @>{\varphi\otimes \varphi'}>> \bigoplus_{p+q=m} H_p(C) \otimes H_q(C') \end{CD} $$ which compose to the identity, which shows the desired.

  • $\begingroup$ However, isn’t his claim about free chain complexes only true if the ring is semi simple? There are obvious counter examples over the integers. $\endgroup$ Sep 3 '19 at 14:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ConnorMalin What are those obvious counterexamples? Over a PID, if $C$ is a free chain complex, then the boundaries are free, so the short exact sequence $0 \to \ker\partial \to C \to^\partial \mathrm{im}\,\partial[-1]\to 0$ splits. $\endgroup$ Sep 3 '19 at 15:11
  • $\begingroup$ It is my mistake. I assumed that such a thing could not have torsion in the homology, but of course that is wrong. I guess really what I was thinking is that the boundaries are not direct summands. $\endgroup$ Sep 3 '19 at 18:13

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.