- #1
GatorPower
- 26
- 0
Hi!
I am currently studying homology theory and am using Vicks book "Homology Theory, An introduction to algebraic topology". When I was reading I found a definition that troubles me, I simply cannot get my head around it.
Vick defines that: if PHI is a singular p-simplex we define di(PHI), a singular (p-1)-simplex in X by:
diPHI(t0, ..., t(p-1)) = PHI(t0,.., t(i-1), 0, ti,..., t(p-1))
As I see it, the PHI on the left has p arguments, and hence is a (p-1)-singular simplex while the one we end up with is a p-singular simplex since we add a zero. The "boundary operator" (i'th face operator) di is defined so we go down one dimension, but I cannot see how this works with the definition if we just fill in the rest of the arguments after we add a zero. Help please?
After some consideration I wonder if perhaps Vick should have t(i+1) on the right, but I have found other sources who uses t(i-1), 0, ti as well...
I am currently studying homology theory and am using Vicks book "Homology Theory, An introduction to algebraic topology". When I was reading I found a definition that troubles me, I simply cannot get my head around it.
Vick defines that: if PHI is a singular p-simplex we define di(PHI), a singular (p-1)-simplex in X by:
diPHI(t0, ..., t(p-1)) = PHI(t0,.., t(i-1), 0, ti,..., t(p-1))
As I see it, the PHI on the left has p arguments, and hence is a (p-1)-singular simplex while the one we end up with is a p-singular simplex since we add a zero. The "boundary operator" (i'th face operator) di is defined so we go down one dimension, but I cannot see how this works with the definition if we just fill in the rest of the arguments after we add a zero. Help please?
After some consideration I wonder if perhaps Vick should have t(i+1) on the right, but I have found other sources who uses t(i-1), 0, ti as well...
Last edited: