Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-categories 2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry beauty bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science connection constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeSep 1st 2012

    I added to Tim’s stub on cellular homology. Still a bit rough around the edges perhaps. An example (say real projective space) would also be nice.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 22nd 2012
    • (edited Oct 22nd 2012)

    I have touched cellular homology a little: added hyperlinks, subsections, numbered environments. Pointed to it from homology and relative homology, etc. Added a brief pointer to the coresponding spectral sequence. Wanted to do more, but maybe not right now.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 24th 2012
    • (edited Oct 24th 2012)

    I have further edited at cellular homology a little:

    • for definitess and in order to establish the notation needed later, I have recalled the full definition of a CW-complex right at the beginning;

    • I have tried to consistently label cellular structure by “CW”-superscripts, hence “H CW(X)H^{CW}_\bullet(X)” for cellular homology and “ n CW\partial^{CW}_n” for the cellular boundary map, as opposed to the plain singular boundary map denoted “ n\partial_n”.

    Where a proposition says that ( CW) 2=0(\partial^{CW})^2 = 0 I have now added as proof the remark that on representing singular chains this is just () 2(\partial)^2.

    Where a proposition asserts that the cellular nn-chains are free on the nn-cells, I have added a pointer to relative homology where there is by now a proof of this fact.

    Next I will spell out the proof of H CW(X)H (X)H^{CW}_\bullet(X) \simeq H_\bullet(X), via the spectral sequence of the filtered singular chain complex.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeOct 24th 2012

    Just a quick remark that the isomorphism between cellular homology and singular homology can be proved directly in a hands-on way, without having to invoke the machinery of spectral sequences.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 24th 2012

    Yes, I know, the entry is already pointing to the elementary proof in Hatcher’s book, for instance.

    But I want to use it the other way round: to motivate/explain spectral sequences.

    I think the best way to think of spectral sequences is as a computation in relative/cellular homology where we consider not just boundaries/cycles relative to the next filtering layer, but also to the higher ones. An exposition along these lines is what I am trying to write up here.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeOct 24th 2012

    That’s a good idea! (I guess you’re still teaching your course?)

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 24th 2012
    • (edited Oct 24th 2012)

    Yup. I am preparing the next session.

    I have 90 minutes and can’t assume background on CW-complexes. So I won’t get too far. But my plan is to introduce cellular homology at least in plausible outline. Then highlight the remark that cellular homologies are relative cycles modulo one step in the filtering. Then say: “let’s more generally consider relative cycles modulo rr steps in the filtering”. Then say that this is called the “spectral sequence of a filtered complex”. Then highlight the single important but evident fact, that (r+1)(r+1)-relative cycles are the homology of rr-relative cycles. Claim that this is hugely useful in computations as soon as one knows that the r>qr \gt q-relative boundaries all vanish and finally illustrate with with cellular \simeq singular.

    I won’t have time to really discuss any other application, but since it’s just an introductory course and since I am being told that discussing spectral sequences at all in this course is a bit of an unusal idea anyway, I think that’s fine. And also, there is not more to spectral sequences really. That’s all it is, higher order relative homology theory. So I tend to think of this as a good plan. But all comments are welcome.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 30th 2012
    • (edited Oct 30th 2012)

    at cellular homology – Relation to spectral sequence of the filtered singular complex the spectral-sequence proof of H (X)H CW(X)H_\bullet(X) \simeq H^{CW}_\bullet(X) had ended with the words

    Finally observe that G pH p(X)H p(X)G_p H_p(X) \simeq H_p(X).

    This is true, but maybe deserves a tad of discussion. To supply that, I have now expanded at CW complex – Relation to singular homology the statement and proof of the last proposition there, and pointed to it from that proof of cellular homology in order to show how that proposition indeed implies the above quote.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)