I am refreshing my understanding of homology theory (well, recreating from scratch really!) after a thirty year break and there's something that bugs me in how the texts I've seen write about relative homology.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The relative homology module ##H_q(X,A)## is defined as ##ker\ \partial_q^A/Im\ \partial_{q+1}^A## where ##\partial_q^A:S_q(X,A)\to S_{q-1}(X,A)\ ## is given by ##\partial_q^A(z+S_q(A))=\partial_q z+S_{q-1}(A)## and ##S_q(X,A)\equiv S_q(X)/S_q(A)##. Note that this is a double quotient (quotient of quotients).

One uses the isomorphism theorem to show that ##H_q(X,A)\cong Z_q(X,A)/B_q(X,A)## where ##Z_q(X,A),B_q(X,A)\subseteq S_q(X)## satisfy certain conditions. Let us call the RHS of this equivalence ##H_q^*(X,A)##. Note that the RHS is only asinglequotient.

However, when the texts go on to discuss exact sequences, all the proofs I have seen (such as proofs of the Excision Theorem and proofs that the Connecting Map gives an Exact Sequence) take the generic element of ##H_q(X,A)## to be its isomorphic image ##z+B_q(X,A)\in H_q^*(X,A)## rather than what it actually is, which is ##(z+S_q(A))+Im\ \partial_{q+1}^A\in H_q(X,A)##. This is presumably done because ##H_q^*(X,A)## is easier to work with, being only a single quotient.

I have yet to see this abuse of notation even acknowledged, let alone justified. Of course, one understands that algebraic properties are preserved by isomorphism. But the proofs tend to involve algebraic, topological, category-theoretic and set-theoretic arguments, and if the things being talked about are not the exact same items as are identified in the premises and conclusion of the theorem, one cannot have any confidence in the non-algebraic parts of the arguments. Hence one cannot trust the proof as a whole. I find this particularly troubling because many of the maps considered, such as the inclusion map, are trivial except for set-theoretic considerations. So set-theoretic considerations, not just algebraic considerations,really matterin this discipline.

I think a rigorous version of these proofs would do something like

Has anybody else noticed this?

- use premises that refer only to ##H_q^*(X,A)## and then, once an algebraic result is obtained, use the above isomorphism to obtain a corresponding result for ##H_q(X,A)##; or
- in any part of the proof that is not purely algebraic, take special care to avoid abuse of notation. This may require invoking the above isomorphism at the beginning and end of such sections, to allow one to return to the simpler mode of dealing only with ##H_q^*(X,A)##.

Is anybody else bothered by this?

Does anybody have any suggestions for how to deal with proofs that cavalierly abuse notation in this way, without even acknowledging that the abuse is occurring?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Abuse of notation in relative homology theory

Loading...

Similar Threads for Abuse notation relative |
---|

Insights Hilbert Spaces And Their Relatives - Part II - Comments |

I Directional Derivatives ... Notation ... D&K ... |

I Directional and Partial Derivatives ...Notation ... D&K .. |

Insights Hilbert Spaces and Their Relatives - Comments |

I Relation of completeness to the l.u.b. property? |

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**