DOCSLIB.ORG

Lecture Notes on Morse and Conley Theory – MANUSCRIPT in PROGRESS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lecture Notes on Morse and Conley Theory – MANUSCRIPT in PROGRESS Lecture Notes on Morse and Conley Theory { MANUSCRIPT IN PROGRESS { Joa Weber UNICAMP January 31, 2018 ii Contents 1 Introduction1 2 Preliminaries9 2.1 Topology...............................9 2.2 Algebra................................ 11 2.3 Analysis................................ 17 2.4 Manifolds and transversality..................... 18 2.5 Group actions............................. 19 2.6 Local and global dynamics...................... 21 I Morse theory 25 3 Classical Morse theory 27 3.1 Morse functions............................ 27 3.2 Regular intervals........................... 31 3.2.1 Application: Critical point theory............. 33 3.2.2 Application: Topology.................... 34 3.3 Attaching cells............................ 36 3.4 Morse inequalities.......................... 39 3.5 Generalizations............................ 51 3.5.1 Morse-Bott theory...................... 51 3.5.2 Equivariant Morse-Bott theory............... 55 3.5.3 Lusternik-Schnirelmann theory............... 61 4 Classical Morse theory revisited 75 4.1 Backward λ-Lemma and homotopy type.............. 75 5 Morse homology of manifold triads 99 5.1 Introduction { closed manifolds................... 99 5.2 The Morse-Witten complex..................... 104 5.2.1 Triad Morse functions.................... 104 5.2.2 Transversality and triad Morse-Smale pairs........ 105 5.2.3 Dynamical compactness................... 106 iii iv CONTENTS 5.2.4 Gluing............................. 109 5.2.5 Orientation transport and partner pairs.......... 112 5.3 Morse homology of triad Morse-Smale pairs............ 115 5.4 Continuation { changing the pair.................. 116 5.4.1 Monotone and admissible homotopies........... 117 5.4.2 Homotopies.......................... 120 5.4.3 Homotopies of homotopies.................. 125 5.5 Isomorphism to singular homology................. 127 5.6 Morse homology of manifold triads................. 131 5.7 Variations and generalizations.................... 132 5.8 Applications.............................. 132 6 Local Morse homology 133 6.1 Local Morse functions and gradient flows............. 133 6.2 Morse-Smale flows and isolating homotopies............ 134 6.3 Morse complex for isolated invariant sets.............. 135 6.4 Morse homology of an isolating Morse-Smale triple........ 138 6.4.1 Continuation { changing the triple............. 138 6.5 Isomorphism to relative singular homology............. 138 6.6 Continuation of isolated invariant sets............... 138 7 Mod two Morse homology theory 139 7.1 Morse (co)homology of a manifold................. 139 7.1.1 Homology........................... 141 7.1.2 Cohomology.......................... 149 7.1.3 Poincar´eduality....................... 154 7.1.4 Relative (co)homology.................... 156 7.1.5 Lefschetz duality....................... 159 7.2 Functoriality............................. 160 7.2.1 Induced chain maps..................... 160 7.2.2 Homotopy........................... 160 7.2.3 Composition......................... 160 7.3 Products in Morse (co)homology.................. 161 7.3.1 Thom isomorphism and Euler class............. 161 7.3.2 Umkehr map......................... 161 7.4 Morse field theory.......................... 161 II Conley theory 163 8 Introduction 167 8.1 Basic notions............................. 167 8.2 Overview............................... 170 CONTENTS v 9 Classical Conley theory 171 9.1 Conley pairs.............................. 171 9.1.1 Gradient flows........................ 171 10 Conley homology 177 10.1 Lyapunov functions and isolating blocks.............. 177 10.2 Gradient flows............................ 186 10.3 Morse homology of an isolating Morse-Smale triple........ 187 10.3.1 Continuation { changing the triple............. 187 10.4 Isomorphism to relative singular homology............. 187 10.5 Conley homology of an isolated invariant set............ 187 11 Classical Conley theory revisited 189 11.1 Continuation............................. 189 11.1.1 Applications......................... 190 11.2 Morse decompositions and connection matrices.......... 190 11.2.1 Morse-Conley inequalities.................. 190 III Appendices 191 A Hyperbolic gradient dynamics 193 A.1 Vector fields and limit sets...................... 194 A.2 Analytic setup near hyperbolic singularities............ 198 A.3 Invariant manifolds.......................... 206 A.3.1 Unstable manifold theorem................. 208 A.3.2 Stable manifold theorem................... 211 A.3.3 Convenient coordinates................... 214 A.4 The inclination or λ-Lemma..................... 217 A.4.1 Forward λ-Lemma...................... 219 A.4.2 Backward λ-Lemma..................... 219 A.5 Invariant foliations and induced flows................ 236 A.5.1 Invariant unstable foliations and induced flow....... 236 A.5.2 Invariant stable foliations and induced flow........ 236 A.6 Grobman-Hartman Theorem.................... 242 A.6.1 Perturbing hyperbolic linear vector fields......... 244 A.6.2 Perturbing hyperbolic linear isomorphisms......... 250 A.6.3 Grobman-Hartman via λ-Lemma.............. 251 A.6.4 Appendix on general hyperbolicity............. 254 B (Co)homology theory 259 B.0.5 Outline of contents...................... 261 B.0.6 List of symbols, conventions, notation........... 262 B.1 (Co)homology of chain complexes.................. 264 B.1.1 (Co)chain complexes..................... 265 B.1.2 Kronecker pairing...................... 269 vi CONTENTS B.1.3 Exact sequences....................... 271 B.1.4 Relative (co)homology.................... 275 B.1.5 Mayer-Vietoris sequences.................. 277 B.1.6 Poincar´epolynomial and Euler characteristic....... 280 B.1.7 Universal and local coefficients............... 281 B.2 Mod two (co)homology groups................... 282 B.2.1 Simplicial (co)homology................... 282 B.2.2 Singular (co)homology.................... 294 B.2.3 Cellular (co)homology.................... 303 B.2.4 Cechˇ versus Steenrod (co)homology............ 303 B.3 Mod two (co)homology products.................. 304 B.3.1 Cup product......................... 304 B.3.2 Cap product......................... 311 B.3.3 Tensor product of modules and algebras.......... 316 B.3.4 Cross product and K¨unnethTheorem........... 319 B.3.5 Leray-Hirsch Theorem.................... 326 B.3.6 Thom isomorphism and Euler class............. 336 B.3.7 Poincar´eduality....................... 346 B.3.8 Submanifolds and Poincar´eduality............. 348 C Transversality theory 359 Bibliography 361 Index 373 List of Symbols 383 Chapter 1 Introduction To put it in a nutshell, Morse and Conley theory connect the areas of analysis and topology through the theory of dynamical systems. Morse theory lives in the well known realm of hyperbolic dynamics and can be viewed as a special case of Conley theory. Analysis Dynamical Systems Topology ∞ Conley theory 0 rkH (Σ) R Morse theory ∗ S n χ(Σ) P Hyperbolic dynamics lims →∞ Figure 1.1: Morse and Conley theory connect analysis and topology Morse theory The early days 1920s-40s { Topology of sublevel sets Consider a smooth manifold M. In the 20s of the last century it was the insight of Marston Morse [Mor34] that the topology of M is related to non-degenerate critical points of smooth functions f : M ! R. By definition a critical point p of f satisfies the identity dfp = 0, that is it is an extremum of f. By Crit we denote the set of critical points of f. A critical point p is called non- degenerate if, given a local coordinate system φ = (x1; : : : ; xn): M ⊃ U ! Rn around p, the (symmetric) Hessian matrix @2f Hpf := i j (p) (1.0.1) @x @x i;j=1;:::;n 1 2 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION M aj M aj 1 Dind(pj ) − ∪χ a R M 4 ∼ p4 f M a 3 ∼ p3 a2 ∼ p2 a 1 ∼ a0 p1 ∅ k Figure 1.2: Height function f and attaching of disks D where k = ind(pj) of f at p is non-singular, that is invertible or, equivalently, zero is not an eigenvalue of Hpf. Hence critical points are isolated by the inverse function theorem 2.3.1. The number ind(x) of negative eigenvalues of Hpf, counted with multiplicities, is called the Morse index of a non-degenerate critical point. The key idea to relate topology and analysis is to study the family of sublevel sets, also called half-spaces, which are the closed subsets of M defined by a M := ff ≤ ag := fq 2 M j f(q) ≤ ag ; a 2 R: (1.0.2) A regular value of f is a constant b such that its pre-image f −1(b) = ff = bg contains no critical point. All other constants are called critical values. Note that according to this definition any constant whose pre-image is empty, that is which lies outside the range of f, is a regular value. The geometric significance of regular values lies in the fact that by the regular value theorem 2.4.1 their pre- images under f are hypersurfaces in M, that is codimension-1 submanifolds. Consequently, if a is a regular value, then M a is a codimension-0 submanifold of M whose boundary is the hypersurface f −1(a). Main results of the epoch are the following; cf. the beautyful survey [Bot88]. For compact M the first theorem tells that the submanifolds M a vary smoothly as long as a does not cross a critical value. The second theorem asserts that the topological change which occurs when a crosses a simple critical level c, that is f −1(c) contains precisely one critical point p and p is non-degenerate, amounts to attaching a disk whose dimension k is the Morse index of p; see Figure 1.2. Theorem 1.0.1 (Regular interval theorem). Assume f : M ! R is of class C2 and the pre-image f −1[a; b] is compact1 and contains
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Approximating Stable and Unstable Manifolds in Experiments
    PHYSICAL REVIEW E 67, 037201 ͑2003͒ Approximating stable and unstable manifolds in experiments Ioana Triandaf,1 Erik M. Bollt,2 and Ira B. Schwartz1 1Code 6792, Plasma Physics Division, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC 20375 2Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Clarkson University, P.O. Box 5815, Potsdam, New York 13699 ͑Received 5 August 2002; revised manuscript received 23 December 2002; published 12 March 2003͒ We introduce a procedure to reveal invariant stable and unstable manifolds, given only experimental data. We assume a model is not available and show how coordinate delay embedding coupled with invariant phase space regions can be used to construct stable and unstable manifolds of an embedded saddle. We show that the method is able to capture the fine structure of the manifold, is independent of dimension, and is efficient relative to previous techniques. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.67.037201 PACS number͑s͒: 05.45.Ac, 42.60.Mi Many nonlinear phenomena can be explained by under- We consider a basin saddle of Eq. ͑1͒ which lies on the standing the behavior of the unstable dynamical objects basin boundary between a chaotic attractor and a period-four present in the dynamics. Dynamical mechanisms underlying periodic attractor. The chosen parameters are in a region in chaos may be described by examining the stable and unstable which the chaotic attractor disappears and only a periodic invariant manifolds corresponding to unstable objects, such attractor persists along with chaotic transients due to inter- as saddles ͓1͔. Applications of the manifold topology have secting stable and unstable manifolds of the basin saddle.
    [Show full text]
  • Commentary on the Kervaire–Milnor Correspondence 1958–1961
    BULLETIN (New Series) OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 52, Number 4, October 2015, Pages 603–609 http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/bull/1508 Article electronically published on July 1, 2015 COMMENTARY ON THE KERVAIRE–MILNOR CORRESPONDENCE 1958–1961 ANDREW RANICKI AND CLAUDE WEBER Abstract. The extant letters exchanged between Kervaire and Milnor during their collaboration from 1958–1961 concerned their work on the classification of exotic spheres, culminating in their 1963 Annals of Mathematics paper. Michel Kervaire died in 2007; for an account of his life, see the obituary by Shalom Eliahou, Pierre de la Harpe, Jean-Claude Hausmann, and Claude We- ber in the September 2008 issue of the Notices of the American Mathematical Society. The letters were made public at the 2009 Kervaire Memorial Confer- ence in Geneva. Their publication in this issue of the Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society is preceded by our commentary on these letters, provid- ing some historical background. Letter 1. From Milnor, 22 August 1958 Kervaire and Milnor both attended the International Congress of Mathemati- cians held in Edinburgh, 14–21 August 1958. Milnor gave an invited half-hour talk on Bernoulli numbers, homotopy groups, and a theorem of Rohlin,andKer- vaire gave a talk in the short communications section on Non-parallelizability of the n-sphere for n>7 (see [2]). In this letter written immediately after the Congress, Milnor invites Kervaire to join him in writing up the lecture he gave at the Con- gress. The joint paper appeared in the Proceedings of the ICM as [10]. Milnor’s name is listed first (contrary to the tradition in mathematics) since it was he who was invited to deliver a talk.
    [Show full text]
  • Samuel Eilenberg Assistant Professorships
    Faculty of Mathematics, Informatics and Mechanics Dean, Professor Paweł Strzelecki Samuel Eilenberg Assistant Professorships Four academic positions in the group of researchers and lecturers are vailable at the Faculty of Mathematics, Informatics and Mechanics Pursuant to the Law on Higher Education and Science, the Univeristy of Warsaw invites the applications for four positions of Samuel Eilenberg Assistant Professorships. Samuel Eilenberg (1913-1998) obtained his PhD degree in Mathematics at the University of Warsaw in 1936 under the supervision of Kazimierz Kuratowski and Karol Borsuk. He spent most of his career in the USA as a professor at Columbia Univeristy. He exerted a critical influence on contemporary mathematics and theoretical computer science; he was a co- founder of modern topology, category theory, homological algebra, and automata theory. His scientific development epitomizes openness to new ideas and readiness to face demanding intellectual challenges. Terms of employment: starting date October 1, 2020; full time job, competitive salary, fixed term employment contract for 2 or 4 years (to be decided with successful applicants). The candidates will concentrate on intensive research and will have reduced teaching duties (120 teaching hours per academic year). Requirements. Successful candidates for Samuel Eilenberg Professorships should have: 1. a PhD degree in mathematics, computer science or related fields obtained in the past 5 years; 2. significant papers in mathematics or computer science, published in refereed, globally recognized journals or confer- ences; 3. teaching experience and willingness to undertake organizational activities related to teaching; 4. significant international experience (internships or post-doctoral fellowships, projects etc.). Candidates obtain extra points for: • research fellowships outside Poland within the last two years; • high pace of scientific development that is confirmed by high quality papers; a clear concept of maintaining this development is required.
    [Show full text]
  • Infinite-Dimensional Manifolds Are Open Subsets of Hilbert Space
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector INFINITE-DIMENSIONAL MANIFOLDS ARE OPEN SUBSETS OF HILBERT SPACE DAVID W. HENDERSON+ (Receketl z I Jflmrr,v 1969) IN THIS paper We prove, using Hilbert space microbundles, the THEOREM. If M is n separable metric manifold modeled on the separable injnite- dimensional Hilbert space, H, then M can be embedded as an open subset of H. Each infinite-dimensional separable Frechet space (and therefore each infinite- dimensional separable Banach space) is homeomorphic to H. (See [I].) We shall use “F-manifold ” to denote “ metric manifold modeled on a separable infinite-dimensional Frenchet space “. Thus we have COROLLARY 1. Each separable F-matzifold ccl/zbe embedded as an open subset of H. Recent results of Eells and Elworthy [6] and Kuiper and Burghelea [lo] and Moulis [14] combine to show (see [5]) that every homotopy equivalence between C”-Hilbert manifolds is homotopic to a C” diffeomorphism. Since open subsets of H have an induced C” structure, we have COROLLARY 2. Each F-manifokd has u unique C” Hilbert manifold structure. an d COROLLARY 3. Ecery homotopy eyuicalence betbreen F-manifolds is homotopic to a homeomorphism. Results about open subsets of H in [7] apply to give us COROLLARY 4. For each F-manifold Xl there is a coutltable locally-finite simplicial complex K, such that 1cI is homeomorphic to \l<j x H. an d COROLLARY 5. Each F-manifold is homeomorphic to an opett set U c H, such that H - U is homeomorphic to H and bd(U) is homeomorphic to U and to cl(U).
    [Show full text]
  • Millennium Prize for the Poincaré
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE • March 18, 2010 Press contact: James Carlson: [email protected]; 617-852-7490 See also the Clay Mathematics Institute website: • The Poincaré conjecture and Dr. Perelmanʼs work: http://www.claymath.org/poincare • The Millennium Prizes: http://www.claymath.org/millennium/ • Full text: http://www.claymath.org/poincare/millenniumprize.pdf First Clay Mathematics Institute Millennium Prize Announced Today Prize for Resolution of the Poincaré Conjecture a Awarded to Dr. Grigoriy Perelman The Clay Mathematics Institute (CMI) announces today that Dr. Grigoriy Perelman of St. Petersburg, Russia, is the recipient of the Millennium Prize for resolution of the Poincaré conjecture. The citation for the award reads: The Clay Mathematics Institute hereby awards the Millennium Prize for resolution of the Poincaré conjecture to Grigoriy Perelman. The Poincaré conjecture is one of the seven Millennium Prize Problems established by CMI in 2000. The Prizes were conceived to record some of the most difficult problems with which mathematicians were grappling at the turn of the second millennium; to elevate in the consciousness of the general public the fact that in mathematics, the frontier is still open and abounds in important unsolved problems; to emphasize the importance of working towards a solution of the deepest, most difficult problems; and to recognize achievement in mathematics of historical magnitude. The award of the Millennium Prize to Dr. Perelman was made in accord with their governing rules: recommendation first by a Special Advisory Committee (Simon Donaldson, David Gabai, Mikhail Gromov, Terence Tao, and Andrew Wiles), then by the CMI Scientific Advisory Board (James Carlson, Simon Donaldson, Gregory Margulis, Richard Melrose, Yum-Tong Siu, and Andrew Wiles), with final decision by the Board of Directors (Landon T.
    [Show full text]
  • Hartman-Grobman and Stable Manifold Theorem
    THE HARTMAN-GROBMAN AND STABLE MANIFOLD THEOREM SLOBODAN N. SIMIC´ This is a summary of some basic results in dynamical systems we discussed in class. Recall that there are two kinds of dynamical systems: discrete and continuous. A discrete dynamical system is map f : M → M of some space M.A continuous dynamical system (or flow) is a collection of maps φt : M → M, with t ∈ R, satisfying φ0(x) = x and φs+t(x) = φs(φt(x)), for all x ∈ M and s, t ∈ R. We call M the phase space. It is usually either a subset of a Euclidean space, a metric space or a smooth manifold (think of surfaces in 3-space). Similarly, f or φt are usually nice maps, e.g., continuous or differentiable. We will focus on smooth (i.e., differentiable any number of times) discrete dynamical systems. Let f : M → M be one such system. Definition 1. The positive or forward orbit of p ∈ M is the set 2 O+(p) = {p, f(p), f (p),...}. If f is invertible, we define the (full) orbit of p by k O(p) = {f (p): k ∈ Z}. We can interpret a point p ∈ M as the state of some physical system at time t = 0 and f k(p) as its state at time t = k. The phase space M is the set of all possible states of the system. The goal of the theory of dynamical systems is to understand the long-term behavior of “most” orbits. That is, what happens to f k(p), as k → ∞, for most initial conditions p ∈ M? The first step towards this goal is to understand orbits which have the simplest possible behavior, namely fixed and periodic ones.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Morse Theory
    Summary of Morse Theory One central theme in geometric topology is the classification of selected classes of smooth manifolds up to diffeomorphism . Complete information on this problem is known for compact 1 – dimensional and 2 – dimensional smooth manifolds , and an extremely good understanding of the 3 – dimensional case now exists after more than a century of work . A closely related theme is to describe certain families of smooth manifolds in terms of relatively simple decompositions into smaller pieces . The following quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_theory states things very briefly but clearly : In differential topology , the techniques of Morse theory give a very direct way of analyzing the topology of a manifold by studying differentiable functions on that manifold . According to the basic insights of Marston Morse , a differentiable function on a manifold will , in a typical case, reflect the topology quite directly . Morse theory allows one to find CW [cell complex] structures and handle decompositions on manifolds and to obtain substantial information about their homology . Morse ’s approach to studying the structure of manifolds was a crucial idea behind the following breakthrough result which S. Smale obtained about 50 years ago : If n a compact smooth manifold M (without boundary) is homotopy equivalent to the n n n sphere S , where n ≥ 5, then M is homeomorphic to S . — Earlier results of J. Milnor constructed a smooth 7 – manifold which is homeomorphic but not n n diffeomorphic to S , so one cannot strengthen the conclusion to say that M is n diffeomorphic to S . We shall use Morse ’s approach to retrieve some low – dimensional classification and decomposition results which were obtained before his theory was developed .
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 Hyperbolicity
    Chapter 3 Hyperbolicity 3.1 The stable manifold theorem In this section we shall mix two typical ideas of hyperbolic dynamical systems: the use of a linear approxi- mation to understand the behavior of nonlinear systems, and the examination of the behavior of the system along a reference orbit. The latter idea is embodied in the notion of stable set. Denition 3.1.1: Let (X, f) be a dynamical system on a metric space X. The stable set of a point x ∈ X is s ∈ k k Wf (x)= y X lim d f (y),f (x) =0 . k→∞ ∈ s In other words, y Wf (x) if and only if the orbit of y is asymptotic to the orbit of x. If no confusion will arise, we drop the index f and write just W s(x) for the stable set of x. Clearly, two stable sets either coincide or are disjoint; therefore X is the disjoint union of its stable sets. Furthermore, f W s(x) W s f(x) for any x ∈ X. The twin notion of unstable set for homeomorphisms is dened in a similar way: Denition 3.1.2: Let f: X → X be a homeomorphism of a metric space X. Then the unstable set of a ∈ point x X is u ∈ k k Wf (x)= y X lim d f (y),f (x) =0 . k→∞ u s In other words, Wf (x)=Wf1(x). Again, unstable sets of homeomorphisms give a partition of the space. On the other hand, stable sets and unstable sets (even of the same point) might intersect, giving rise to interesting dynamical phenomena.
    [Show full text]
  • Cohomology Theory of Lie Groups and Lie Algebras
    COHOMOLOGY THEORY OF LIE GROUPS AND LIE ALGEBRAS BY CLAUDE CHEVALLEY AND SAMUEL EILENBERG Introduction The present paper lays no claim to deep originality. Its main purpose is to give a systematic treatment of the methods by which topological questions concerning compact Lie groups may be reduced to algebraic questions con- cerning Lie algebras^). This reduction proceeds in three steps: (1) replacing questions on homology groups by questions on differential forms. This is accomplished by de Rham's theorems(2) (which, incidentally, seem to have been conjectured by Cartan for this very purpose); (2) replacing the con- sideration of arbitrary differential forms by that of invariant differential forms: this is accomplished by using invariant integration on the group manifold; (3) replacing the consideration of invariant differential forms by that of alternating multilinear forms on the Lie algebra of the group. We study here the question not only of the topological nature of the whole group, but also of the manifolds on which the group operates. Chapter I is concerned essentially with step 2 of the list above (step 1 depending here, as in the case of the whole group, on de Rham's theorems). Besides consider- ing invariant forms, we also introduce "equivariant" forms, defined in terms of a suitable linear representation of the group; Theorem 2.2 states that, when this representation does not contain the trivial representation, equi- variant forms are of no use for topology; however, it states this negative result in the form of a positive property of equivariant forms which is of interest by itself, since it is the key to Levi's theorem (cf.
    [Show full text]
  • Morse-Conley-Floer Homology
    Morse-Conley-Floer Homology Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Dynamics and Topology . 1 1.2 Classical Morse theory, the half-space approach . 4 1.3 Morse homology . 7 1.4 Conley theory . 11 1.5 Local Morse homology . 16 1.6 Morse-Conley-Floer homology . 18 1.7 Functoriality for flow maps in Morse-Conley-Floer homology . 21 1.8 A spectral sequence in Morse-Conley-Floer homology . 23 1.9 Morse-Conley-Floer homology in infinite dimensional systems . 25 1.10 The Weinstein conjecture and symplectic geometry . 29 1.11 Closed characteristics on non-compact hypersurfaces . 32 I Morse-Conley-Floer Homology 39 2 Morse-Conley-Floer homology 41 2.1 Introduction . 41 2.2 Isolating blocks and Lyapunov functions . 45 2.3 Gradient flows, Morse functions and Morse-Smale flows . 49 2.4 Morse homology . 55 2.5 Morse-Conley-Floer homology . 65 2.6 Morse decompositions and connection matrices . 68 2.7 Relative homology of blocks . 74 3 Functoriality 79 3.1 Introduction . 79 3.2 Chain maps in Morse homology on closed manifolds . 86 i CONTENTS 3.3 Homotopy induced chain homotopies . 97 3.4 Composition induced chain homotopies . 100 3.5 Isolation properties of maps . 103 3.6 Local Morse homology . 109 3.7 Morse-Conley-Floer homology . 114 3.8 Transverse maps are generic . 116 4 Duality 119 4.1 Introduction . 119 4.2 The dual complex . 120 4.3 Morse cohomology and Poincare´ duality . 120 4.4 Local Morse homology . 122 4.5 Duality in Morse-Conley-Floer homology . 122 4.6 Maps in cohomology .
    [Show full text]
  • AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Business Office: P.O. Box 6248, Providence, Rhode Island 02940 William J
    AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Business Office: P.O. Box 6248, Providence, Rhode Island 02940 William J. LeVeque, Executive Director Lincoln K. Durst, Deputy Director OFFICERS President: R. H. Bing, Dept. of Mathematics, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712 President-elect: Peter D. Lax, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University, 251 Mercer St., New York, NY 10012 Vice-Presidents: William Browder, Dept. of Mathematics, Box 708, Fine Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540; Julia B. Robinson, 243 Lake Dr., Berkeley, CA 94708; George W. Whitehead, Dept. of Mathematics, Room 2-284, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139 Secretary: Everett Pitcher, Dept. of Mathematics, Lehigh University, Bethelehem, PA 18015 Associate Secretaries: Raymond G. Ayoub, Dept. of Mathematics, 203 McAllister Building, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802; Paul T. Bateman, Dept. of Mathematics, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801; Frank T. Birtel, College of Arts and Sciences, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70118; Kenneth A. Ross, Dept. of Mathema­ tics, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403 Treasurer: Franklin P. Peterson, Dept. of Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139 Associate Treasurer: Steve Armentrout, Dept. of Mathematics, 230 McAllister Building, Penn­ sylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802 Board of Trustees: Steve Armentrout (ex officio); R. H. Bing (ex officio); Joseph J. Kohn, Dept. of Mathematics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540; Calvin C. Moore, Dept. of Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720; Cathleen S. Morawetz, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University, 251 Mercer St., New York, NY 10012; Richard S. Palais, Dept. of Mathematics, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02154; Franklin P.
    [Show full text]
  • Algebraic Topology - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia Page 1 of 5
    Algebraic topology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 1 of 5 Algebraic topology From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Algebraic topology is a branch of mathematics which uses tools from abstract algebra to study topological spaces. The basic goal is to find algebraic invariants that classify topological spaces up to homeomorphism, though usually most classify up to homotopy equivalence. Although algebraic topology primarily uses algebra to study topological problems, using topology to solve algebraic problems is sometimes also possible. Algebraic topology, for example, allows for a convenient proof that any subgroup of a free group is again a free group. Contents 1 The method of algebraic invariants 2 Setting in category theory 3 Results on homology 4 Applications of algebraic topology 5 Notable algebraic topologists 6 Important theorems in algebraic topology 7 See also 8 Notes 9 References 10 Further reading The method of algebraic invariants An older name for the subject was combinatorial topology , implying an emphasis on how a space X was constructed from simpler ones (the modern standard tool for such construction is the CW-complex ). The basic method now applied in algebraic topology is to investigate spaces via algebraic invariants by mapping them, for example, to groups which have a great deal of manageable structure in a way that respects the relation of homeomorphism (or more general homotopy) of spaces. This allows one to recast statements about topological spaces into statements about groups, which are often easier to prove. Two major ways in which this can be done are through fundamental groups, or more generally homotopy theory, and through homology and cohomology groups.
    [Show full text]