0
$\begingroup$

while I am reading a proof in "Elements of homology theory" - V.V Prasolov, I felt there is something missing in the proof. precisely when he says " therefore a=0 ".

the proof that I am talking about is the following: " If K is a connected simplicial complex, then H_0(K,G)=G "

  • 1
    Can you post the proof?2012-09-11
  • 1
    Offhand without seeing the proof, you could prove this theorem with three steps: 1) Every connected simplicial complex is path connected. 2) Since it is path connected, the difference of any two points (as singular 0-chains) is a boundary. 3) Since every generator of $C_0(X,G) = X^G$ are equivalent up to boundary, $H_0(X,G)$ must just be $G$. Obviously you'd need to fill in details, but I think broken up like this you could prove it yourself. Maybe 1 would be troublesome, since you have to consider the infinite complex case.2012-09-11
  • 0
    for a finite case, it's easy, by the way, the author had given an example before he stated this theorem.2012-09-11
  • 0
    @JohnStalfos, Did you mean that final step made by the author is superfluous? I don't think so John.2012-09-11
  • 0
    you have to prove that there exists at least a nonboundary 0-chain, this is the aim of the final step, otherwise all 0-chains are boundaries. whence H_0(K,G) must be trivial, Is not?2012-09-11
  • 0
    Not all 0-chains are boundaries. Things like $x-y$ will be boundaries, for points $x,y$(in the former, we're actually looking at the zero chains not the points themselves)2012-09-11
  • 0
    @JohnStalfos, Have you seen Prasolov's proof?.2012-09-11
  • 0
    No, I haven't. If you wanted informed discussion about the exact proof you're looking at I can't provide it unless you either write up the skeleton of it, or scan the page.2012-09-11
  • 0
    Just a simple click on this link: http://books.google.ca/books?id=bhNxPQExK_MC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false ;page number 42012-09-11

1 Answers 1