Homology of Disjoint Union: Formalizing the Result.

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Bacle
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Union
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on formalizing the proof that the homology of the disjoint union of spaces is equivalent to the disjoint (group) sum of the homologies of the individual spaces. The key insight is that if a cycle bounds in a space Xi, it will also bound in the disjoint sum, but only within Xi. The conversation highlights the need for advanced concepts such as transfinite induction and inverse limits due to the potential for uncountably many spaces, referencing Hatcher's Proposition 2.6 as a foundational resource for the proof.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of homology theory
  • Familiarity with disjoint unions of topological spaces
  • Knowledge of transfinite induction
  • Experience with inverse limits in topology
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Hatcher's "Algebraic Topology" focusing on Proposition 2.6
  • Explore the concept of transfinite induction in mathematical proofs
  • Research inverse limits and their applications in topology
  • Examine examples of homology in disjoint unions of spaces
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, topologists, and students of algebraic topology seeking to deepen their understanding of homological algebra and the properties of disjoint unions in topological spaces.

Bacle
Messages
656
Reaction score
1
Hi, All:

I am trying to understand the formal machinery leading to a proof that the homology of the disjoint union of spaces is the disjoint (group) sum of the homologies of the respective spaces; the idea seems clear: if a cycle bounds in a given space Xi, then it will bound in the disjoint sum ( but it will bound only in Xi itself), and, conversely, a trivial, bounding cycle will also be trivial in the disjoint union. Still, I have been told--very non-specifically--that a formal proof needs a lot of machinery.

I guess part of the problem is that we may have more than countably-many possible spaces, so standard induction may not work; we may have to somehow use transfinite induction ( so it starts getting ugly here ), and maybe inverse limits (uglier), etc.

Anyone know what a more formal proof would entail?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are are no complications... See Hatcher Proposition 2.6 for instance.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K