Homotopy invariance of relative homology











up vote
3
down vote

favorite












I have studied the proof of the homotopy invariance of singular homology. If I understood correctly, the key step is to transform a homotopy $F : X times I to Y$ between the maps $f, g : X to Y$, into a chain homotopy between the induced chain maps $f_n, g_n : X_n to Y_n$. For this purpose, we define the prism natural transformation $P_n : mathcal C_n to mathcal D_n$ between the functors $mathcal C_n(X) = X_n$ and $mathcal D_n(X) = (X times I)_{n+1}$. This allows us to form the following chain homotopy:



Chain homotopy



Now I am trying to obtain a similar result for relative homology. Let $A subset X$ and $B subset Y$ be subspaces, and let $F : (X times I, A times I) to (Y,B)$ be a homotopy between $f, g : (X,A) to (Y,B)$. I want to construct the following commutative parallelepiped:



Chain homotopy



The homotopy invariance of absolute homology gives me the left and middle faces. If two chains in $X_n$ differ by a chain in $A_n$, their prisms differ by a chain in $(A times I)_{n+1}$, so the right face is well-defined as well. This gives me a copy of the first diagram, with $X_n$, $Y_n$, $(X times I)_n$ replaced with $X_n / A_n$, $Y_n / B_n$, $(X times I)_n / (A times I)_n$ respectively. The diagonals



$$frac {X_n} {A_n} longrightarrow frac {(X times I)_{n+1}} {(A times I)_{n+1}} longrightarrow frac {Y_{n+1}} {B_{n+1}}$$



constitute a chain homotopy between $f$ and $g$, so the relative homology groups are equal. Does this work? Is there anything missing?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 4




    The prism operator maps $ mathcal C_n(A)$ to $mathcal D_n(B)$ so it induces an operator $: mathcal C_n(X,A) to mathcal D_n(Y,B)$ on the relative chain groups. Then the proof goes through as in the absolute case. Or am I missing something?
    – Matematleta
    Nov 18 at 4:15















up vote
3
down vote

favorite












I have studied the proof of the homotopy invariance of singular homology. If I understood correctly, the key step is to transform a homotopy $F : X times I to Y$ between the maps $f, g : X to Y$, into a chain homotopy between the induced chain maps $f_n, g_n : X_n to Y_n$. For this purpose, we define the prism natural transformation $P_n : mathcal C_n to mathcal D_n$ between the functors $mathcal C_n(X) = X_n$ and $mathcal D_n(X) = (X times I)_{n+1}$. This allows us to form the following chain homotopy:



Chain homotopy



Now I am trying to obtain a similar result for relative homology. Let $A subset X$ and $B subset Y$ be subspaces, and let $F : (X times I, A times I) to (Y,B)$ be a homotopy between $f, g : (X,A) to (Y,B)$. I want to construct the following commutative parallelepiped:



Chain homotopy



The homotopy invariance of absolute homology gives me the left and middle faces. If two chains in $X_n$ differ by a chain in $A_n$, their prisms differ by a chain in $(A times I)_{n+1}$, so the right face is well-defined as well. This gives me a copy of the first diagram, with $X_n$, $Y_n$, $(X times I)_n$ replaced with $X_n / A_n$, $Y_n / B_n$, $(X times I)_n / (A times I)_n$ respectively. The diagonals



$$frac {X_n} {A_n} longrightarrow frac {(X times I)_{n+1}} {(A times I)_{n+1}} longrightarrow frac {Y_{n+1}} {B_{n+1}}$$



constitute a chain homotopy between $f$ and $g$, so the relative homology groups are equal. Does this work? Is there anything missing?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 4




    The prism operator maps $ mathcal C_n(A)$ to $mathcal D_n(B)$ so it induces an operator $: mathcal C_n(X,A) to mathcal D_n(Y,B)$ on the relative chain groups. Then the proof goes through as in the absolute case. Or am I missing something?
    – Matematleta
    Nov 18 at 4:15













up vote
3
down vote

favorite









up vote
3
down vote

favorite











I have studied the proof of the homotopy invariance of singular homology. If I understood correctly, the key step is to transform a homotopy $F : X times I to Y$ between the maps $f, g : X to Y$, into a chain homotopy between the induced chain maps $f_n, g_n : X_n to Y_n$. For this purpose, we define the prism natural transformation $P_n : mathcal C_n to mathcal D_n$ between the functors $mathcal C_n(X) = X_n$ and $mathcal D_n(X) = (X times I)_{n+1}$. This allows us to form the following chain homotopy:



Chain homotopy



Now I am trying to obtain a similar result for relative homology. Let $A subset X$ and $B subset Y$ be subspaces, and let $F : (X times I, A times I) to (Y,B)$ be a homotopy between $f, g : (X,A) to (Y,B)$. I want to construct the following commutative parallelepiped:



Chain homotopy



The homotopy invariance of absolute homology gives me the left and middle faces. If two chains in $X_n$ differ by a chain in $A_n$, their prisms differ by a chain in $(A times I)_{n+1}$, so the right face is well-defined as well. This gives me a copy of the first diagram, with $X_n$, $Y_n$, $(X times I)_n$ replaced with $X_n / A_n$, $Y_n / B_n$, $(X times I)_n / (A times I)_n$ respectively. The diagonals



$$frac {X_n} {A_n} longrightarrow frac {(X times I)_{n+1}} {(A times I)_{n+1}} longrightarrow frac {Y_{n+1}} {B_{n+1}}$$



constitute a chain homotopy between $f$ and $g$, so the relative homology groups are equal. Does this work? Is there anything missing?










share|cite|improve this question















I have studied the proof of the homotopy invariance of singular homology. If I understood correctly, the key step is to transform a homotopy $F : X times I to Y$ between the maps $f, g : X to Y$, into a chain homotopy between the induced chain maps $f_n, g_n : X_n to Y_n$. For this purpose, we define the prism natural transformation $P_n : mathcal C_n to mathcal D_n$ between the functors $mathcal C_n(X) = X_n$ and $mathcal D_n(X) = (X times I)_{n+1}$. This allows us to form the following chain homotopy:



Chain homotopy



Now I am trying to obtain a similar result for relative homology. Let $A subset X$ and $B subset Y$ be subspaces, and let $F : (X times I, A times I) to (Y,B)$ be a homotopy between $f, g : (X,A) to (Y,B)$. I want to construct the following commutative parallelepiped:



Chain homotopy



The homotopy invariance of absolute homology gives me the left and middle faces. If two chains in $X_n$ differ by a chain in $A_n$, their prisms differ by a chain in $(A times I)_{n+1}$, so the right face is well-defined as well. This gives me a copy of the first diagram, with $X_n$, $Y_n$, $(X times I)_n$ replaced with $X_n / A_n$, $Y_n / B_n$, $(X times I)_n / (A times I)_n$ respectively. The diagonals



$$frac {X_n} {A_n} longrightarrow frac {(X times I)_{n+1}} {(A times I)_{n+1}} longrightarrow frac {Y_{n+1}} {B_{n+1}}$$



constitute a chain homotopy between $f$ and $g$, so the relative homology groups are equal. Does this work? Is there anything missing?







algebraic-topology homology-cohomology






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 18 at 20:50

























asked Nov 18 at 1:25









pyon

26719




26719








  • 4




    The prism operator maps $ mathcal C_n(A)$ to $mathcal D_n(B)$ so it induces an operator $: mathcal C_n(X,A) to mathcal D_n(Y,B)$ on the relative chain groups. Then the proof goes through as in the absolute case. Or am I missing something?
    – Matematleta
    Nov 18 at 4:15














  • 4




    The prism operator maps $ mathcal C_n(A)$ to $mathcal D_n(B)$ so it induces an operator $: mathcal C_n(X,A) to mathcal D_n(Y,B)$ on the relative chain groups. Then the proof goes through as in the absolute case. Or am I missing something?
    – Matematleta
    Nov 18 at 4:15








4




4




The prism operator maps $ mathcal C_n(A)$ to $mathcal D_n(B)$ so it induces an operator $: mathcal C_n(X,A) to mathcal D_n(Y,B)$ on the relative chain groups. Then the proof goes through as in the absolute case. Or am I missing something?
– Matematleta
Nov 18 at 4:15




The prism operator maps $ mathcal C_n(A)$ to $mathcal D_n(B)$ so it induces an operator $: mathcal C_n(X,A) to mathcal D_n(Y,B)$ on the relative chain groups. Then the proof goes through as in the absolute case. Or am I missing something?
– Matematleta
Nov 18 at 4:15










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote



accepted










The missing step is the actual calculation. By the homotopy invariance of absolute homology, we have



$$partial_{n+1} F_{n+1} P_n gamma + F_n P_{n-1} partial_n gamma = g_n gamma - f_n gamma$$



Let $gamma in X_n$ be a relative cycle. In other words, suppose that $partial_n gamma in A_{n-1}$. Then $F_n P_{n-1} partial_n gamma in B_n$, hence $g_n gamma - f_n gamma$ is a relative boundary, hence $f$ and $g$ have the same relative homology at the level $n$.






share|cite|improve this answer























    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3003042%2fhomotopy-invariance-of-relative-homology%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    0
    down vote



    accepted










    The missing step is the actual calculation. By the homotopy invariance of absolute homology, we have



    $$partial_{n+1} F_{n+1} P_n gamma + F_n P_{n-1} partial_n gamma = g_n gamma - f_n gamma$$



    Let $gamma in X_n$ be a relative cycle. In other words, suppose that $partial_n gamma in A_{n-1}$. Then $F_n P_{n-1} partial_n gamma in B_n$, hence $g_n gamma - f_n gamma$ is a relative boundary, hence $f$ and $g$ have the same relative homology at the level $n$.






    share|cite|improve this answer



























      up vote
      0
      down vote



      accepted










      The missing step is the actual calculation. By the homotopy invariance of absolute homology, we have



      $$partial_{n+1} F_{n+1} P_n gamma + F_n P_{n-1} partial_n gamma = g_n gamma - f_n gamma$$



      Let $gamma in X_n$ be a relative cycle. In other words, suppose that $partial_n gamma in A_{n-1}$. Then $F_n P_{n-1} partial_n gamma in B_n$, hence $g_n gamma - f_n gamma$ is a relative boundary, hence $f$ and $g$ have the same relative homology at the level $n$.






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        up vote
        0
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        0
        down vote



        accepted






        The missing step is the actual calculation. By the homotopy invariance of absolute homology, we have



        $$partial_{n+1} F_{n+1} P_n gamma + F_n P_{n-1} partial_n gamma = g_n gamma - f_n gamma$$



        Let $gamma in X_n$ be a relative cycle. In other words, suppose that $partial_n gamma in A_{n-1}$. Then $F_n P_{n-1} partial_n gamma in B_n$, hence $g_n gamma - f_n gamma$ is a relative boundary, hence $f$ and $g$ have the same relative homology at the level $n$.






        share|cite|improve this answer














        The missing step is the actual calculation. By the homotopy invariance of absolute homology, we have



        $$partial_{n+1} F_{n+1} P_n gamma + F_n P_{n-1} partial_n gamma = g_n gamma - f_n gamma$$



        Let $gamma in X_n$ be a relative cycle. In other words, suppose that $partial_n gamma in A_{n-1}$. Then $F_n P_{n-1} partial_n gamma in B_n$, hence $g_n gamma - f_n gamma$ is a relative boundary, hence $f$ and $g$ have the same relative homology at the level $n$.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Nov 20 at 0:24

























        answered Nov 19 at 16:55









        pyon

        26719




        26719






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3003042%2fhomotopy-invariance-of-relative-homology%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            AnyDesk - Fatal Program Failure

            How to calibrate 16:9 built-in touch-screen to a 4:3 resolution?

            QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater