Simplicial Homology: Understanding & Adjoint Boundary Operator

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter wofsy
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the intricacies of simplicial homology, particularly the boundary operator and the adjoint boundary operator. It clarifies that simplices with the same vertices but different orientations are not identified as the same due to their distinct orientations affecting calculations. The conversation emphasizes the necessity of degenerate simplices for accurate boundary relations and outlines that the chain complex operates as a free abelian group, where different simplices are not identified unless they differ by a boundary. The identification at the homology level is explicitly defined, stating that two cells are homologous if they differ by a boundary.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of simplicial complexes and simplicial chains.
  • Familiarity with the boundary operator in algebraic topology.
  • Knowledge of homology and cohomology concepts.
  • Basic grasp of free abelian groups and their properties.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of degenerate simplices in simplicial homology.
  • Learn about the adjoint boundary operator and its role in cohomology.
  • Explore examples of simplices with different orientations and their implications on homology.
  • Investigate the relationship between homotopy and homology in algebraic topology.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, algebraic topologists, and students studying simplicial homology and its applications in topology.

wofsy
Messages
724
Reaction score
0
I need help understanding how simplicial homology works.

I understand how the boundary operator works on an ordered simplex. But how are simplices with the same vertices but different order identified? One can not say that they are the same if the the order determines the same orientation and negative if the orientations are opposite which is what I first thought. But then one seems to need degenerate simplices to get the right boundary relations. But i thought degenerate simplices were unnecessary.

Second, how does one define the adjoint boundary operator to get cohomology? This operator acts upon simplicial chains not on simplicial cochains.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure that I see a case when you will get two sets of vertices appearing in an inconsistent order: you pick an orientation for each at the start and they should remain consistent, right? How about posting an example where this has happened in your calculations.
 
They aren't identified! For starters, the chain complex is a free abelian group, so different simplices (cells, etc.) in different positions (or with different orientations) are not identified. We don't even identify simplices (cells,etc.) that differ by a reparametrization. The original orientation is fixed on the standard n-simplex in Euclidean space, and the boundary operator is calculated using this specific orienation. Changing the orientation changes everything.

With that said, one could say that the cells that differ by an orientation are homologous if there exists a homeomorphism between their images (i.e. if there's an orientation-preserving automorphism of the standard n-simplex that gives you the prescribed orientation), or if they're homotopic, etc. But a distinction needs to be made between identification at the chain level (which we don't have), and identification at the homology level. The identification at the homology level is very explicit - two cells are homologous iff they differ by a boundary.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K