Browse Source

C: completed some lemmas

master
Joshua Moerman 12 years ago
parent
commit
dd5d85c84d
  1. 83
      thesis/4_Constructions.tex
  2. 1
      thesis/DoldKan.tex

83
thesis/4_Constructions.tex

@ -10,14 +10,23 @@ $$\del_{n-1} = d_0 - d_1 + \ldots + (-1)^n d_n \text{ for every } n > 0.$$
Using $A_n$ as the family of abelian groups and the maps $\del_n$ as boundary maps gives a chain complex.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We already have a collection of abelian groups together with maps, so the only thing to proof is $\del_n \circ \del_{n+1} = 0$.
We already have a collection of abelian groups together with maps, so the only thing to proof is $\del_n \circ \del_{n+1} = 0$. This can be done with a calculation:
\todo{C: insert calculation with sums}
\begin{align*}
\del_n \circ \del_{n+1} &= \textstyle (\sum_{i=0}^{n+1} (-1)^i d_i) \circ (\sum_{j=0}^{n+2} (-1)^j d_j) \\
&= \textstyle \sum_{i=0}^{n+1} \sum_{j=0}^{n+2} (-1)^{i+j} (d_i \circ d_j) \\
&= \textstyle \sum_{i=0}^{n+1} (\sum_{j=0}^{i} (-1)^{i+j} (d_i \circ d_j) + \sum_{j=i+1}^{n+2} (-1)^{i+j} (d_i \circ d_j)) \\
&= \textstyle \sum_{i=0}^{n+1} (\sum_{j=0}^{i} (-1)^{i+j} (d_i \circ d_j) + \sum_{j=i+1}^{n+2} (-1)^{i+j} (d_{j-1} \circ d_i)) \\
&= \textstyle \sum_{i=0}^{n+1} \sum_{j=0}^{i} (-1)^{i+j} (d_i \circ d_j) - \sum_{i=0}^{n+1} \sum_{j=i}^{n+1} (-1)^{i+j} (d_j \circ d_i) \\
&= \textstyle \sum_{i=0}^{n+1} \sum_{j=0}^{i} (-1)^{i+j} (d_i \circ d_j) - \sum_{i=0}^{n+1} \sum_{j=i}^{n+1} (-1)^{i+j} (d_j \circ d_i) \\
&= \textstyle \sum_{i=0}^{n+1} \sum_{j=0}^{i} (-1)^{i+j} (d_i \circ d_j) - \sum_{j=0}^{n+1} \sum_{i=j}^{n+1} (-1)^{i+j} (d_i \circ d_j) \\
&= 0.
\end{align*}
So indeed this is a chain complex.
We split the inner sum in two halves and we use the simplicial equations on the second sum. Then we do a shift of indices and change the roles of $i$ and $j$ in the second sum, so that the sums have an equal range and cancel out. So indeed this is a chain complex.
\end{proof}
This construction gives a functor $C : \sAb \to \Ch{\Ab}$\todo{C: prove this? Is it a adjunction?}. And in fact we already used it in the construction of the singular chaincomplex, where we defined the boundary maps as $\del(\sigma) = \sigma \circ d_0 - \sigma \circ d_1 + \ldots + (-1)^{n+1} \sigma \circ d_{n+1}$ (on generators). The terms $\sigma \circ d_i$ are the maps given by the $\mathbf{Hom}$-functor from $\Top$ to $\Set$, in fact this $\mathbf{Hom}$-functor can be used to get a functor $Sing : \Top \to \sSet$, applying the free abelain group pointwise give a functor $\Z^\ast : \sSet \to \sAb$, and finally using the functor $C$ gives the singular chain complex.
This construction gives a functor $C : \sAb \to \Ch{\Ab}$\todo{C: prove this? Is it an adjunction?}. And in fact we already used it in the construction of the singular chaincomplex, where we defined the boundary maps as $\del(\sigma) = \sigma \circ d_0 - \sigma \circ d_1 + \ldots + (-1)^{n+1} \sigma \circ d_{n+1}$ (on generators). The terms $\sigma \circ d_i$ are the maps given by the $\mathbf{Hom}$-functor from $\Top$ to $\Set$, in fact this $\mathbf{Hom}$-functor can be used to get a functor $Sing : \Top \to \sSet$, applying the free abelain group pointwise give a functor $\Z^\ast : \sSet \to \sAb$, and finally using the functor $C$ gives the singular chain complex.
\todo{C: is this a nice thing to add?}
Let us investigate whether this functor can be used for our sought equivalence. For a functor from $\Ch{\Ab}$ to $\sAb$ we cannot simply take the same collection of abelian groups. This is due to the fact that the degenracy maps should be injective. This means that for a simplicial abelian group $A$, if we know $A_n$ is non-trivial, then all $A_m$ for $m > n$ are also non-trivial.
@ -28,21 +37,32 @@ But for chain complexes it \emph{is} possible to have trivial abelian groups $C_
To repair this defect we should be more careful. Given a simplicial abelian group, simply taking the same collection for our chain complex will not work (as shown above). Instead we are after some ``smaller'' abelian groups, and in some cases the abelian groups should completely vanish (as in the example above).
Given a simplicial abelian group $A$, we define abelian groups $N(A)_n$ as:
$$ N(A)_n = \bigcap_{i=1}^{n} \ker(d_i : A_n \to A_{n-1}). $$
\begin{align*}
N(A)_n &= \bigcap_{i=1}^{n} \ker(d_i : A_n \to A_{n-1}), \\
N(A)_0 &= A_0.
\end{align*}
Now define group homomorphisms $\del : N(A)_n \to N(A)_{n-1}$ as:
$$ \del = d_0|_{N(A)_n}. $$
\begin{lemma}
The function $ \del $ is well-defined. Furthermore $ \del \circ \del = 0 $, hence $N(A)$ is a chain complex.
The function $ \del $ is well-defined. Furthermore $ \del \circ \del = 0 $.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\todo{C: This is easy}
Let $x \in N(A)_n$, then $d_i \del(x) = d_i d_0(x) = d_0 d_{i+1}(x) = d_0 (0) = 0$ for all $i < n$. So indeed $\del(x) \in N(A)_{n-1}$, because in particular it holds for $i > 0$. Using this calculation for $i = 0$ shows that $\del \circ \del = 0$. This shows that $N(A)$ is a chain complex.
\end{proof}
\todo{C: As an example calculate $N(\Z[\Delta[0]])$}
\todo{C: define $D(X)_n$}
\todo{C: work out following lemmas}
We will call this chain complex $N(A)$ the \emph{normalized chain complex} of $A$.
\todo{C: functoriality}
\begin{example}
We will look at the normalized chain complex of $\Z[\Delta[0]]$. Recall that it looked like:
$$ \Z[\Delta[0]] = \Z \to \Z \to \Z \to \cdots, $$
where all face and degeneracy maps are identity maps. Clearly the kernel of $\id$ is the trivial group. So $N(\Z[\Delta[0]])_i = 0$ for all $i > 0$. In degree zero we are left with $N(\Z[\Delta[0]])_0 = \Z$. So we can depict the normalized chain complex by:
$$ N(\Z[\Delta[0]]) = \cdots \to 0 \to 0 \to \Z. $$
So in this example we see that the normalized chain complex is really better behaved than the unnormalized chain complex, given by $C$.
\end{example}
To see what $N$ does exactly there are some lemmas. For the following lemmas let $X \in \sAb$ be an arbitrary simplicial abelian group and $n \in \N$.
To see what $N$ does exactly there are some lemmas. For the following lemmas let $X \in \sAb$ be an arbitrary simplicial abelian group and $n \in \N$. For these lemmas we will need the subgroups $D(X)_n \subset X_n$ of degenerate simplices, defined as:
$$ D(X)_n = \sum_{i=0}^n s_i(X_{n-1}). $$
\begin{lemma}
\label{le:decomp1}
@ -51,40 +71,53 @@ To see what $N$ does exactly there are some lemmas. For the following lemmas let
where $b \in N(X)_n$ and $c \in D(X)_n$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
define $P^k = \{ x \in X_n \I d_i x = 0, i > k\}$, then do induction (from $k$ to 0).
gives $x = b+c$ with $b \in P^0$, $c \in D(X)_n$.
Define the subgroup $P^k = \{ x \in X_n \I d_i x = 0 \text{ for all } i > k\}$. Note that $P^0 = N(X)_n$ and $P^n = X_n$. We will prove with induction that for any $k \leq n$ we can write $x \in X_n$ as $x = b + c$, with $b \in P^k$ and $c \in D(X)_n$.
For $k = n$ the statement is clear, because we can simply write $x = x$, knowing that $x \in P^n = X_n$.
Assume the statement holds for $k > 0$, we will prove it for $k-1$. So for any $x \in X_n$ we have $x = b + c$, with $b \in P^k$ and $c \in D(X)_n$. Now consider $b' = b - s_{k-1} d_k b$. Now clearly for all $i > k$ we have $d_i b' = 0$. For $k$ itself we can calculate:
$$ d_k(b') = d_k(b - s_{k-1} d_k b) = d_k b - d_k s_{k+1} d_k b = d_k b - d_k b = 0, $$
where we used the equality $d_k s_{k-1} = \id$. So $b' \in P^{k-1}$. Furthermore we can define $c' = s_{k-1} d_k b + c$, for which it is clear that $c' \in D(X)_n$. Finally conclude that
$$ x = b + c = b - s_{k-1} d_k b + s_{k-1} d_k b + c = b' + c',$$
with $b' \in P^{k-1}$ and $c' \in D(X)_n$.
Doing this inductively gives us $x = b + c$, with $b \in P^0 = N(X)_n$ and $c \in D(X)_n$, which is what we had to prove.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{le:decomp2}
For all $x \in X_n$, if $s_i x \in N(X)_{n+1}$, then $x = 0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Simply calculate using the simplicial equations: $0 = d_{i+1} s_i x = x$.
Using that $s_i x \in N(X)_{n+1}$ means $0 = d_{k+1} s_i x$ for any $k > 0$ and by using using the simplicial equations: $d_{i+1} s_i = \id$, we can conclude $x = d_{i+1} s_i x = 0$.
\end{proof}
The first lemma tells us that every $n$-simplex in $X$ can be written as something in $N(X)$ plus a degenerate $n$-simplex. The latter lemma asures that there are no degenerate $n$-simplices in $N(X)$. So this gives us:
The first lemma tells us that every $n$-simplex in $X$ can be decomposed as a sum of something in $N(X)$ and a degenerate $n$-simplex. The latter lemma asures that there are no degenerate $n$-simplices in $N(X)$. So this gives us:
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:NandD}
$X_n = N(X)_n \oplus D(X)_n$
\end{corollary}
We can extend the above lemmas to a more general statement. \todo{C: figure out what $\ast$ exactly is.}
We can extend the above lemmas to a more general statement.
\todo{C: define somewhere what $\beta^\ast$ exactly is.}
\begin{lemma}
\label{le:decomp3}
For all $x \in X_n$ we can write $x$ as:
$$ x = \sum_\beta \beta^\ast (x_\beta), $$
for certain $x_\beta \in N(X)_n$ and $\beta : [n] \epi [p]$.
for certain $x_\beta \in N(X)_p$ and $\beta : [n] \epi [p]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
induction using the first lemma
We will proof this using induction on $n$. For $n=0$ the statement is clear because $N(X)_0 = X_0$.
Assume the statement is proven for $n$. Let $x \in X_{n+1}$, then from lemma~\ref{le:decomp1} we see $x = b + c$. Note that $c \in D(X)_n$, in other words $c = \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} s_i c_i$, with $c_i \in X_n$. So with the induction hypothesis, we can write these as $c_i = \sum_\beta \beta^\ast c_{i, \beta}$, where the sum quantifies over $\beta: [n] \epi [p]$. Now $b$ is already in $N(X)_{n+1}$, so we can set $x_\id = b$, to obtain the conclusion.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{le:decomp4}
For $\beta \neq \gamma$ we have $\beta^\ast(N(X))_p \cap \gamma^\ast(N(X))_q = 0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
?
Follows from $x = \beta^\ast y$ uniquely for a non-degenerate $y$. \todo{C: proof this in chapter about sAb}
\end{proof}
Again the former lemma of these two lemmas proofs the existence of a decomposition and the latter proofs the uniqueness. So combining this gives:
@ -108,18 +141,20 @@ Using corollary~\ref{cor:decomp} we can proof a nice categorical fact about $N$,
\begin{proof}
First we proof $N$ is injective on maps. Let $f: A \to B$ and assume $N(f) = 0$, for $x \in A_n$ we know $x = \sum_\beta \beta^\ast x_\beta$, so
\begin{align*}
f(x) &= \textstyle f(\sum_\beta N(\beta) (x_\beta)) \\
&= \textstyle \sum_\beta f(N(\beta) (x_\beta)) \\
&= \textstyle \sum_\beta N(f) (N(\beta) (x_\beta)) \\
&= \textstyle \sum_\beta N(\beta) (N(f) (x_\beta)) = 0,
f(x) &= \textstyle f(\sum_\beta \beta^\ast (x_\beta)) \\
&= \textstyle \sum_\beta f(\beta^\ast (x_\beta)) \\
&= \textstyle \sum_\beta \beta^\ast (f (x_\beta)) \\
&= \textstyle \sum_\beta \beta^\ast (N(f) (x_\beta)) = 0,
\end{align*}
where we used naturality of $f$ in the last step. We now see that $f(x) = 0$ for all $x$, hence $f = 0$. So indeed $N$ is injective on maps.
where we used naturality of $f$ in the second step, and the fact that $x_\beta \in N(X)_n$ in the last step. We now see that $f(x) = 0$ for all $x$, hence $f = 0$. So indeed $N$ is injective on maps.
Secondly we have to proof $N$ is surjective on maps. Let $g : N(A) \to N(B)$, define $f : A \to B$ as:
$$ f(x) = \sum_\beta \beta^\ast g(x_\beta), $$
again we have written $x$ as $x = \sum_\beta \beta^\ast x_\beta$. Clearly $N(f) = g$. \todo{C: is this clear?}
\end{proof}
If we reflect a bit on why the previous functor $C$ was not a candidate for an equivalence, we see that $N$ does a better job. We see that $N$ leaves out all degenerate simplices, so it is more carefull than $C$, which included everything. In fact, corollary~\ref{cor:NandD} exactly tells us $C(X)_n = N(X)_n \oplus D(X)_n$.
\subsection{From $\Ch{\Ab}$ to $\sAb$}
For the other way around we actually get a functor for free, via abstract nonsense. Let $F : \sAb \to A$ be any functor, where $A$ is an abelian category. We are after a functor $G : A \to \sAb$, this means that if we are given $C \in A$, we are looking for a functor $G(C) : \DELTA^{op} \to \Ab$. Fixing $C$ in the second argument of the $\mathbf{Hom}$-functor gives: $\Hom{A}{-}{C} : A^{op} \to \Ab$, because $A$ is an abelian category. We see that the codomain of this functor already looks good, now if we have some functor from $\DELTA^{op}$ to $A^{op}$, we can precompose, to obtain a functor from $\DELTA^{op}$ to $\Ab$.

1
thesis/DoldKan.tex

@ -18,7 +18,6 @@
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}
\newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}
\newtheorem{exlemma}[theorem]{Example/Lemma}
\input{../thesis/preamble}
\graphicspath{ {../thesis/images/}, {../presentation/images/} }