Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
1 to 5 of 5
I got stuck on something that should probably be obvious in Section VII.6 in CWM (the bar construction).
If A is an Ab-category and ⟨L,ε:L⇒IA,ν:L⇒L2⟩ is a comonad in A (that is, a comonoid in the strict monoidal category AA), then because the opposite (augmented) simplicial category Δop has the universal comonoid, there is a unique strict monoidal functor Δop→AA with 1↦L, (δ00)op↦ε and (σ10)op↦ν (using the indexing convention of CWM for face maps δ?? and degeneracy maps σ?? in Δ). Composing with the “evaluate at a” functor Ea:AA→A, we get an augmented simplical object Ya:Δop→A with Ya(n)=Ln(a).
As usual, this defines a chain complex
(Ya(0)=a)←(Ya(1)=La)←(Ya(2)=L2a)←⋯in A (where the boundary morphisms are the appropriate sums of face maps with alternating sums).
Now, at the bottom of p. 181 (second edition), it is written the this complex is a resolution. Why is this true in this general setting?
[For the special case of the bar resolution appearing in any homology book (that is, when A=Π-Mod for some group Π, L=ℤ(Π)⊗−, a=ℤ, etc.), an explicit contracting homotopy is specified (by elements). The problem is that I don’t understand how to deal with the general case.]
This nCafé post by Todd might help you.
Thank you very much, Finn. I will surely look into this (although from a first glance it seems a little above my current knowledge). Is there some simple straightforward explanation (something like: “just take … as the contracting homotopy”)?
I don’t really know complexes, but for simplicial objects the idea is that if you have a monad T on a category C, then the bar construction turns each T-algebra into a simplicial T-algebra, using the comonad FTUT on CT arising from T. If you apply UT to this simplicial algebra you get a simplicial object of C, and it turns out that the unit of T supplies a contracting homotopy for this. (Compare the example at split coequalizer.)
Mac Lane says that the complex L*a is a resolution, even though the associated simplicial object of A won’t be contractible in general. Maybe it’s exact for some other reason, but you’ll have to ask someone who knows more homological algebra than I do (i.e. pretty much anyone).
Finn, thanks! I will try to work out the details of your explanation - this now looks as a manageable task.
pretty much anyone
…certainly not me :)
1 to 5 of 5