- #1
- 4,796
- 32
In the proof of Proposition 3A.5 in Hatcher p.265 (http://www.math.cornell.edu/~hatcher/AT/ATch3.4.pdf), at the bottow of the page, he writes,
"Since the squares commute, there is induced a map Tor(A,B) -->Tor(B,A), [...]"
How does this follow? The map Tor(A,B)-->A\otimes F_1 is the connecting homomorphism coming from the long exact sequence (see (6) and its proof) and Tor(B,A)-->F_1\otimes A is inclusion.
It one starts with an element x of Tor(A,B), then pushes it to A\otimes F_1 to an element x' and then to F_1\otimes A to an element x'', there is no guarantee as far as I can see that there will be a y in Tor(B,A) with y=x''...
Thanks for any help.
"Since the squares commute, there is induced a map Tor(A,B) -->Tor(B,A), [...]"
How does this follow? The map Tor(A,B)-->A\otimes F_1 is the connecting homomorphism coming from the long exact sequence (see (6) and its proof) and Tor(B,A)-->F_1\otimes A is inclusion.
It one starts with an element x of Tor(A,B), then pushes it to A\otimes F_1 to an element x' and then to F_1\otimes A to an element x'', there is no guarantee as far as I can see that there will be a y in Tor(B,A) with y=x''...
Thanks for any help.
