4
$\begingroup$

If $F:\pi_1(X)\rightarrow Ab$ is a system of local coefficiens, on the topological space $X$, then we can define the homology of $X$ with coefficients $F$ by taking the homology of the chain complex $C_p(X,F)=\bigoplus F(\sigma(e_1))$ where the sum is taken over all continuous $\sigma:\Delta^p \rightarrow X $, and the differentials are obvious (or more or less, care must be taken when computing $d_0\sigma$).

An alternative definition, in the case $X$ admits a universal cover $p:(\tilde X,\tilde x) \rightarrow (X,x)$, is to consider $S(\tilde X)$ as a left $\mathbb Z[\pi_1(X,x)]$ module ($\pi_1(X,X)$ is isomorphic to $Aut(p)$ , by taking $\gamma$ to the unique deck transformation that sends $\tilde x$ to $\tilde x \gamma$), and given $F$ a right $\mathbb Z[\pi_1(X,x)]$ module , we take the tensor product $F\otimes S(X)$ over $\mathbb Z[\pi_1(X,x)]$, and compute the homology of this complex.

If $F:\pi_1(X)\rightarrow Ab$, by restricting the functor to the automorphism group of $x$, which is ismorphic to the opposite of the fundamental group $\pi_1(X,x)$, we get a right $\mathbb Z[\pi_1(X,x)]$ module. Computing thus the homology in this two different ways, do we get the same? Are this definitions ok? Any reference where this is shown?

I could define a morphism from the first chain complex to the second, but I'm having trouble on defining one from the second chain complex to the first (hoping to eventually get an equivalence).

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I cannot parse your 3rd paragraph. Restricting what functor to what automorphism group of $x$? What are the two different ways you mention? In your 4th paaragraph: which are the first complex? the one you described in your 1st paragraph? $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Aug 25 '14 at 13:16
  • $\begingroup$ Restricting the functor $F$ (the one after "If"), to the automorphism group of $x$ (an object of the fundamental grupoid of $X$). Given $F:\pi_1(X)\rightarrow Ab$, we can compute certain homology groups (as defined in the first paragraph), and some others (as defined in the second paragraph, by consider the right $\mathbb Z[\pi_1(X)]$ module induced by F). The first complex is the one referenced to in the first paragraph. Maybe this is too specific. Thanks anyway. $\endgroup$ – Bill Aug 26 '14 at 4:33
0
$\begingroup$

Silly me! If I'm not mistaken this is theorem 24.1 of Eilenberg "Homology of Spaces with Operators".

$\endgroup$

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.