I was given a definition and to check this is a chain complex is left as an exercise, so it is supposed to be easy. However, I am thoroughly confused by the definition.

Definition given

Let $C, D$ be chain complexes (of abelian groups, not R-modules, that one already has an answer), then the tensor product is defined to be

$$(C \otimes D)_n = \bigoplus_{p = 0}^n (C_p \otimes D_{n - p})$$

and the boundary operator is defined to be induced by the bilinear maps

$$g_{n, p}: C_p \times C_{n - p} \to (C \otimes D)_{n - 1}, \ \ \ \ (x, y) \mapsto \partial^D_p(x) \otimes y + (-1)^p x \otimes \partial_{n - p}^D(y)$$

My try at understanding it

Since $(C \otimes D)_{n - 1}$ is a direct sum, I take it to mean that we send $(x, y)$ to $n - 1$ tuple that is $0$ everywhere except on the $p - 1$'th coordinate where it is the thing specified by the map. But how does this make sense? For $p = 0$ this sends $(x, y)$ to $0 \otimes y + x \otimes 0$, but $0 \otimes y \in C_0 \otimes D_n$ which does not occur in $\bigoplus_{p = 0}^{n - 1}(C_p \otimes D_{n - 1 - p})$.

By the universal property of the tensor product, this induces maps $h_{n, p}: C_p \otimes C_{n - p} \to (C \otimes D)_{n - 1}$. Then by the universal property of the direct sum these maps induce a morphism between $(C \otimes D)_n$ and $(C \otimes D)_{n - 1}$.

Now somehow $\partial_{n - 1}^{C \otimes D} \circ \partial_{n}^{C \otimes D}$ must be equal to $0$. How does one do this with all those implicit induced maps? Call the epimorphism the tensor product $C_p \otimes D_{n - p}$ is equiped with $f$ then it is easy to prove the diagram

enter image description here

where $d$ is induced by $\partial_{n - 1}^{C \otimes D} \circ g_{n, p}$ via the universal property of the tensor product commutes, so it suffices to prove $d$ is $0$ (I think, a map from a direct product is $0$ precisely when all the components it is induced by are $0$ right?). I am at a complete loss at how to do this since $\partial_{n - 1}^{C \otimes D} \circ g_{n, p}$ is a huge mess of induced maps I do not have explicitely.

  • $\begingroup$ The key is to not write a bunch of diagrams and induced maps but rather to just explicitly write out what the map is. $\endgroup$ – Connor Malin Oct 3 at 21:38

I believe you have some notation issues.

It should be $g_{n,p}(x,y) = (\partial^C_p (x) \otimes y)+ (-1)^p ( x \otimes \partial^D_{n-p}(y))$.

The first term of this lives in $C_{p-1}\otimes D_{n-p}$ and the second term lives in $C_{p} \otimes D_{n-p-1}$, so this sum should be thought of as happening in the giant direct sum $(C \otimes D)_{n-1}$ (but note that it lands in two pieces of it, rather than a single one as you described in the question).

To check that the composition is zero, it's enough to do it on homogenous pieces. The induced map thing isn't a problem: it's still exactly what you think it should be (i.e. $\partial_{n,p}(x\otimes y) = (\partial^C_p (x) \otimes y)+ (-1)^p ( x \otimes \partial^D_{n-p}(y))$ on homogeneous pieces and extend by linearity). When you do the double composition, you'll get four terms: one will die by virtue of their being a composition of $C$'s differentials, another will die by similar reasoning for $D$'s differentials, and the final two will cancel out thanks to the clever choice of sign in $g_{n,p}$.

  • $\begingroup$ What is a homogeneous piece? $\endgroup$ – Pel de Pinda Oct 3 at 22:25
  • $\begingroup$ Do you mean we can write any element of $A \otimes B$ as a finite sum of elements of the form $x\otimes y$? If so, I do not understand why that is possible. $\endgroup$ – Pel de Pinda Oct 3 at 23:40
  • $\begingroup$ By homogenous piece I mean you need to say what it does on an element that is nonzero in exactly one direct summand of the type $C_p \otimes D_{n-p}$ in $(C\otimes D)_n$. Then the map extends by linearity. $\endgroup$ – user113102 Oct 4 at 14:11

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.