Quick description
This will eventually become a list of many different techniques for computing homology and cohomology, including passing between different flavours (simplicial, singular, Cech, de Rham, sheaf), the advantages and disadvantages of each, the use of various long exact sequences and spectral sequences, universal coefficient theorems, and so on.
Prerequisites
A knowledge of various points of view on algebraic topology, and in particular on homology and cohomology, as well as some algebra (especially computing with exact sequences, and related methods of homological algebra). The precise requirements vary from example to example.
See also
How to compute the cohomology of a sheaf
Example 1
If
is path-wise connected,
then
and
are both
isomorphic to
. More generally, if
denotes the set
of path components of
, then
(a direct sum
of
many copies of
), and
(a direct
product of
many copies of
). (More generally, if you are computing (co)homology with coefficients in an abelian group
,
then replace
by
.)
The isomorphisms are quite concrete: if
is a particular path component
of
, then the "basis vector"
which is
in the
th
component and
in all other components is generated by the class of any
point lying in
, while
if
, then
is represented by the
-cochain
which takes the value
on all the points in the path component
.
Example 2
As a general remark, it is useful when trying to compute (co)homology to have a geometric picture of the (co)chains that represent the various (co)homology classes that you are working with. The explicit descriptions of the isomorphisms in Example 1 are the most elementary examples of this. The discussion of the boundary map in Example 6 below, and the related computation in Example 7, give slightly more substantial examples.
Example 3
If
has dimension
(or is the union of pieces
of dimension at most
), then
and
vanish if
.
Example 4
Homology and cohomology are homotopy invariants, i.e. if
is a homotopy equivalence, then the maps induced
by
on all homology and cohomology groups are isomorphisms.
For example,
retracts onto the
-sphere
,
and so has the same (co)homology as
. (For a computation of
the homology of
, see Example 7 below.)
Example 5
As a special case of the preceding example, a contractible space has vanishing homology and
cohomology in all degrees above
, and
in degree
(as an instance of
Example 1), or more generally,
in degree
, if we compute (co)homology
with coefficients in the abelian group
.
One way to show that a space is contractible is to embed it homeomorphically as a convex subspace of a Euclidean space.
Example 6
If the space
you are studying can be broken up in a reasonable way
into a union of two pieces, say
then the
Mayer-Vietoris sequence can be used.
This long exact sequence has the form◊
(Here I am working with homology, for definiteness, and to make the subsequent discussion somewhat more concrete. The Mayer-Vietoris sequence for cohomology works similarly, with all arrows reversed.) As with any long exact sequence arising in topology that one wants to work with, it is important to understand the maps.
The map
is just
the direct sum of the maps
and
induced by the inclusions
and
.
The map
is the difference
of the two maps
and
induced by the inclusions
and
.
The boundary map
is the most
interesting map, since it carries the geometric information describing
exactly how
has been glued together from
and
.
Imagine that
and
meet along an "interface"
.
If a class
is represented by an
-chain
(say a simplicial
or singular chain), then we can cut
into two along the interface
, to write it as
where
lies entirely in
,
and
entirely in
. Now
was a cycle, i.e.
since it represents a homology class. But neither
nor
will
typically be a cycle, i.e. typically, their boundary is non-zero.
(Imagine taking something without boundary, e.g. a closed loop, and slicing
it in half. The two pieces you obtain will each have boundary.)
Since
we find that
. (This reflects
that geometrically
and
share a common boundary, along which
we can reglue them to obtain the cycle
.) The boundary map
is then defined via
(Note that
makes sense, since
, so
is a cycle. On the other hand, although
is a boundary in
, it typically won't be a boundary in
, and so typically
is non-zero in
.)
Example 7
We can apply the Mayer-Vietoris sequence to compute
the homology of an
-sphere. If we slice an
-sphere down the middle,
it gets decomposed into two
-disks glued along their common boundary,
which is an
-sphere.
Our computation will thus be inductive, beginning with
. Since
is just the subset
, i.e. a pair of points,
we have from Example 1 that
while Example 3 shows that
for
.
Let us now consider the case
. If we cut the circle
into two,
it becomes the union of two intervals (or if you prefer,
-disks),
say
and
,
glued along their common boundary
(which is a pair of points, i.e.◊
).
Intervals are contractible (being convex; see Example 5),
and so have vanishing homology above degree
, and homology equal to
in degree
.
The Mayer-Vietoris sequence thus becomes
(All homology vanishes in degrees
, as we see either by contemplating
the higher degree parts of the Mayer-Vietoris sequence, or by appealing to
Example 3.)
Thus everything hinges on understanding the third map. If this were
an isomorphism, we would conclude that
vanishes for all
.
Of course, this is impossible, because Example 1 tells
us that
. We conclude that the third arrow must have an
image of rank
, and hence, by the rank-nullity theorem, it must also
have a rank
kernel. Consequently,
.
We could also directly compute the structure of the third arrow.
Namely, if
and
are the two points on the boundary of
,
its source is spanned by
and
(the homology classes of these
two points). On the other hand, each of
and
is path connected,
and so all points in
or
represent the same homology class.
Thus
and
map to the same element in
, and also map
to the same element in
.
Thus the image does inded have rank
.
And the kernel has an explicit description: it is spanned by
.
This also has a geometric meaning: if we consider the description of
the boundary map in the Mayer-Vietoris sequence given in
Example 6, we see that
must be generated
by the class
of some
-cycle
such that, when we cut
into two
and thus decompose it as
we have
(or at
least, the two should be homologous). But there is one obvious such
-cycle, namely, the circle itself! Thus
is generated by
.
Proceeding with the induction, one finds that
vanishes unless
or
. Of course,
is generated by the class of any point,
while
is generated by
.
Example 8
If
is any connected, compact, orientable
-dimensional manifold, then
is isomorphic to
, and is generated
by
, the class of
itself. (To be precise, we have to fix an orientation
of
in order for this class to be well-defined; reversing the orientation
changes its sign.)
General discussion
![]() |
Tricki
Comments
Inline comments
The following comments were made inline in the article. You can click on 'view commented text' to see precisely where they were made.
(minor) correction?
Tue, 08/12/2009 - 10:44 — Anonymous (not verified)If I recall correctly, the Mayer-Vietoris sequence tells you something about a space decomposed as two sets _whose interiors cover the space_. So I think U and V must intersect in two intervals (which are homotopically trivial, so the rest of the proof runs the same).
Inline comments
The following comments were made inline in the article. You can click on 'view commented text' to see precisely where they were made.
Helpful tip
Tue, 08/12/2009 - 10:48 — Anonymous (not verified)Maybe it'd be nice to mention that if your space is being decomposed into U and V and these have non-empty intersection, then the end terms (H_0 and such) can be taken as reduced homology instead of just normal homology, simplifying some calculations.
Post new comment
(Note: commenting is not possible on this snapshot.)