DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction to Combinatorial Homotopy Theory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introduction to Combinatorial Homotopy Theory 1958-3 Summer School and Conference Mathematics, Algorithms and Proofs 11 - 29 August 2008 Introduction to Combinatorial Homotopy Theory Francis Sergeraert Université de Grenoble, Institut Fourier, St Martin Hères, France Introduction to Combinatorial Homotopy Theory Francis Sergeraert Ictp Map Summer School 1 Introduction. Homotopy theory is a subdomain of topology where, instead of considering the category of topological spaces and continuous maps, you prefer to consider as morphisms only the continuous maps up to homotopy, a notion precisely defined in these notes in Section 4. Roughly speaking, you decide not to distinguish two maps which can be continuously deformed into each other; such a weakening of the notion of map is quickly identified as necessary when you intend to apply to Topology the methods of Algebraic Topology. Otherwise the main classification problems of topology are, except in low dimensions, out of scope. If you want to \algebraize" the topological world, you will meet another diffi- culty. The traditional topological spaces, defined for example through collections of open subsets, cannot be directly processed by a computer; a computer can handle only discrete objects and in a sense topology is the opposite subject. A combina- torial intermediary notion between Topology and Algebra is required. Poincar´e started Algebraic Topology about a century ago by using the polyhedra as interme- diary objects, but since the fifties, the simplicial notions have been recognized as more appropriate. In this framework of combinatorial topology, the sensible topo- logical spaces can be combinatorially defined, and also installed and processed on a computer. This is valid even for very complicated or abstract spaces such as classifying spaces, functional spaces; the various important functors of algebraic topology can also be implemented as functional objects. In a sense there is a conflict between both previous observations. The homotopy relation is concerned by continuous deformations of maps, while combinatorial models for topological spaces and maps do not seem to allow enough maps to model homotopies. But we will see this apparent obstacle is easily overcome, and the so-called Combinatorial Homotopy Theory is now one of the standard ground theories for Algebraic Topology. In particular, if you claim you are mainly interested by constructive results in Algebraic Topology, it is quickly obvious combinatorial topology is required. Constructive Algebraic Topology is a difficult but fascinating subject, and three main solutions are now available: 1 1. Rolf Sch¨on'ssolution [21], quite elegant, unfortunately never (?) considered since his remarkable memoir, in particular from a concrete programming point of view. 2. The solution studied for years by this author and several collaborators, see the lecture notes of the previous Map Summer School at Genova [20]. The key point is that locally effective models for combinatorial spaces are sufficient to use standard simple Algebraic Topology and make it constructive. 3. The operadic solution where the algebraic world is enriched enough to make it equivalent to the topological world; more precisely the algebraic structure of chain complexes is sufficiently enriched, thanks to appropriate operads, to code in this way the topological spaces up to homotopy. But whatever solution you decide to study, anyway you will have to use ingredi- ents coming from combinatorial homotopy. For the solutions 1 and 2 above, it will even be necessary to implement on your computer the corresponding necessary simplicial objects and operators; for the solution 3, the objects of the resulting category, the E1-operadic chain complexes, do not seem to use combinatorial ho- motopy, but the theoretical justifications requires by some means or other this theory. This Ictp-Map Summer School proposes an introduction to the solution 3 and the present lecture is intended to prepare the audience to the most elementary facts of combinatorial homotopy. Section 2 describes the most elementary simplicial techniques, around the no- tion of simplicial complex. It is already possible in this simple framework to speak of combinatorial homotopy, for example it is possible to construct simplicial mod- els for functional spaces, in particular for loop spaces. An important progress at the end of the forties was the invention (discovery?), mainly by Samuel Eilenberg, of the notion of simplicial set, to which the rest of these notes is devoted. An amusing paradox of this terminology must be signaled: the notion of simplicial set is much more complex than the notion of simplical. complex! These simplicial sets were initially called CSS-sets, an acronym for \complete-semi-simplicial"; but it was identified a little later the general notion of simplicial object in an arbi- trary category makes sense and a CSS-set is nothing but a simplicial object in the category of sets, which explains the modern and natural terminology of simplicial set. This notion of simplicial set is one of the most fascinating elementary notions in mathematics. In a sense it contains the whole richness of topology. Yet an essential drawback must immediately be pointed out: modelling a topological object as a simplicial set leads to coherent but arbitrary choices of orders (resp. orientations) for the vertices (resp. simplices). It happens these choices hide very sophisticated actions of the symmetric groups Sn; in a sense, elementary Algebraic Topology forgets this action and operadic Algebraic Topology on the contrary takes account of this action, in a totally algebraic framework, and in this way, the initial goal of Algebraic Topology, representing homotopy types as algebraic objects, is finally reached. 2 Once the notion of simplicial set is available, most ingredients of algebraic topology, classifying spaces, loop spaces, functional spaces, homology or cohomol- ogy groups, any sort of operators between these groups can be more or less easily described in the framework of simplicial sets. The initial essential step in this direction was the discovery by Daniel Kan [12] of a purely combinatorial definition of homotopy groups. The end of these notes shows a few typical examples of sim- plicial descriptions, mainly to prepare the readers to the lecture about Operadic Algebraic Topology. Contents 1 Introduction. 1 2 Simplicial complexes. 5 2.1 Definitions. .5 2.2 Simple examples. .6 2.3 Simplicial maps and homotopy. .7 2.4 Simplicial complexes vs simplicial sets................. 10 3 Simplical sets. 11 3.1 The category ∆.............................. 12 3.2 Simplicial sets: first definitions. 14 3.3 The structure of simplex sets. 15 4 First examples. 17 4.1 Discrete simplicial sets. 17 4.2 The simplicial complexes. 18 4.3 The spheres. 19 5 Realization. 19 5.1 Definition and first results. 19 5.2 Simplicial model for classifying spaces. 22 5.2.1 The general case of a discrete group. 22 5.2.2 BZ2 is a real projective space. 23 6 Simplicial homology. 24 6.1 Basic definitions. 24 6.2 Homotopy and homology for simplicial complexes. 27 3 7 Homology groups: a quick survey. 29 7.1 Homotopy Types. 30 7.2 Exact sequences. 32 7.3 About the coefficient group. 33 7.4 Elementary computations. 35 7.5 Find simpler spaces! . 36 7.5.1 Amalgamated sums. 36 7.5.2 Products. 36 7.5.3 Twisted products ) Serre spectral sequence. 37 7.5.4 Classifying spaces and loop spaces. 40 7.5.5 Eilenberg-Moore spectral sequences. 42 7.6 Alexander-Whitney coproduct and operads. 42 8 Products of simplicial sets. 44 8.1 The case of simplicial groups. 47 9 Other examples of simplicial sets. 47 9.1 The Eilenberg-MacLane spaces. 47 9.2 Simplicial loop spaces. 48 9.3 The singular simplicial set. 49 10 Kan extension condition. 49 11 Homotopy groups. 52 11.1 The topological case. 52 11.1.1 The Poincar´egroup. 52 11.1.2 Higher homotopy groups. 54 11.2 Computability obstacles. 56 11.3 A recipe for \computing" the Poincar´egroup of a finite simplicial complex. 57 11.4 Analogous methods in higher dimensions? . 61 12 Simplicial fibrations. 64 12.1 The simplest example. 65 12.2 Fibrations between K(π; n)'s. 66 12.3 Simplicial loop spaces. 66 13 Homotopy groups: a quick survey. 67 4 13.1 Sphere homotopy groups. 67 13.2 Hilton's duality continued. 68 13.2.1 Serre exact sequence. 68 13.2.2 Homotopy groups of S1..................... 69 13.2.3 The Hopf fibration revisited. 70 13.2.4 Hurewicz and Adams. 71 2 Simplicial complexes. 2.1 Definitions. Definition 1 | A simplicial complex is a pair (V; S) satisfying the properties: • V , the set of vertices, and S, the set of simplices, are. sets, possibly infinite. • Every simplex σ 2 S is a non-empty finite set of vertices: σ = fv0; : : : ; vng; such a simplex is called an n-simplex, the integer n ≥ 0 is the dimension of the simplex σ. This simplex spans the vertices v0; : : : ; vn. • For every vertex v 2 V , the 0-simplex fvg is an element of S. • For every simplex σ = fv0; : : : ; vng 2 S, every m-sub-simplex fvi0 ; : : : ; vim g is also an element of S. For example, let us consider the simplicial complex (V; S) with: • V = f0 ::: 5g, the integers from 0 to 5. • S = f0; 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 01; 02; 12; 23; 34; 35; 45; 345g where 35 for example is a shorthand for f3; 5g. Such a simplicial complex is an \abstract" version of the geometrical object: 0 • • 4 2 3 • • 1 • • 5 The triangle 012 is hollow, because f0; 1; 2g is not a simplex; on the contrary, f3; 4; 5g is a simplex and the triangle 345 is filled. In the simplicial complex game, you have a box with an arbitrary number of available vertices (0-simplices), edges (1-simplices), triangles, (2-simplices), tetrahedons (3-simplices) and more generally 5 of n-simplices.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Combinatorial Topology
    Chapter 6 Basics of Combinatorial Topology 6.1 Simplicial and Polyhedral Complexes In order to study and manipulate complex shapes it is convenient to discretize these shapes and to view them as the union of simple building blocks glued together in a “clean fashion”. The building blocks should be simple geometric objects, for example, points, lines segments, triangles, tehrahedra and more generally simplices, or even convex polytopes. We will begin by using simplices as building blocks. The material presented in this chapter consists of the most basic notions of combinatorial topology, going back roughly to the 1900-1930 period and it is covered in nearly every algebraic topology book (certainly the “classics”). A classic text (slightly old fashion especially for the notation and terminology) is Alexandrov [1], Volume 1 and another more “modern” source is Munkres [30]. An excellent treatment from the point of view of computational geometry can be found is Boissonnat and Yvinec [8], especially Chapters 7 and 10. Another fascinating book covering a lot of the basics but devoted mostly to three-dimensional topology and geometry is Thurston [41]. Recall that a simplex is just the convex hull of a finite number of affinely independent points. We also need to define faces, the boundary, and the interior of a simplex. Definition 6.1 Let be any normed affine space, say = Em with its usual Euclidean norm. Given any n+1E affinely independentpoints a ,...,aE in , the n-simplex (or simplex) 0 n E σ defined by a0,...,an is the convex hull of the points a0,...,an,thatis,thesetofallconvex combinations λ a + + λ a ,whereλ + + λ =1andλ 0foralli,0 i n.
    [Show full text]
  • WEIGHT FILTRATIONS in ALGEBRAIC K-THEORY Daniel R
    November 13, 1992 WEIGHT FILTRATIONS IN ALGEBRAIC K-THEORY Daniel R. Grayson University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Abstract. We survey briefly some of the K-theoretic background related to the theory of mixed motives and motivic cohomology. 1. Introduction. The recent search for a motivic cohomology theory for varieties, described elsewhere in this volume, has been largely guided by certain aspects of the higher algebraic K-theory developed by Quillen in 1972. It is the purpose of this article to explain the sense in which the previous statement is true, and to explain how it is thought that the motivic cohomology groups with rational coefficients arise from K-theory through the intervention of the Adams operations. We give a basic description of algebraic K-theory and explain how Quillen’s idea [42] that the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence of topology may have an algebraic analogue guides the search for motivic cohomology. There are other useful survey articles about algebraic K-theory: [50], [46], [23], [56], and [40]. I thank W. Dwyer, E. Friedlander, S. Lichtenbaum, R. McCarthy, S. Mitchell, C. Soul´e and R. Thomason for frequent and useful consultations. 2. Constructing topological spaces. In this section we explain the considerations from combinatorial topology which give rise to the higher algebraic K-groups. The first principle is simple enough to state, but hard to implement: when given an interesting group (such as the Grothendieck group of a ring) arising from some algebraic situation, try to realize it as a low-dimensional homotopy group (especially π0 or π1) of a space X constructed in some combinatorial way from the same algebraic inputs, and study the homotopy type of the resulting space.
    [Show full text]
  • Combinatorial Topology and Applications to Quantum Field Theory
    Combinatorial Topology and Applications to Quantum Field Theory by Ryan George Thorngren A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Vivek Shende, Chair Professor Ian Agol Professor Constantin Teleman Professor Joel Moore Fall 2018 Abstract Combinatorial Topology and Applications to Quantum Field Theory by Ryan George Thorngren Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics University of California, Berkeley Professor Vivek Shende, Chair Topology has become increasingly important in the study of many-body quantum mechanics, in both high energy and condensed matter applications. While the importance of smooth topology has long been appreciated in this context, especially with the rise of index theory, torsion phenomena and dis- crete group symmetries are relatively new directions. In this thesis, I collect some mathematical results and conjectures that I have encountered in the exploration of these new topics. I also give an introduction to some quantum field theory topics I hope will be accessible to topologists. 1 To my loving parents, kind friends, and patient teachers. i Contents I Discrete Topology Toolbox1 1 Basics4 1.1 Discrete Spaces..........................4 1.1.1 Cellular Maps and Cellular Approximation.......6 1.1.2 Triangulations and Barycentric Subdivision......6 1.1.3 PL-Manifolds and Combinatorial Duality........8 1.1.4 Discrete Morse Flows...................9 1.2 Chains, Cycles, Cochains, Cocycles............... 13 1.2.1 Chains, Cycles, and Homology.............. 13 1.2.2 Pushforward of Chains.................. 15 1.2.3 Cochains, Cocycles, and Cohomology.........
    [Show full text]
  • Homology Groups of Homeomorphic Topological Spaces
    An Introduction to Homology Prerna Nadathur August 16, 2007 Abstract This paper explores the basic ideas of simplicial structures that lead to simplicial homology theory, and introduces singular homology in order to demonstrate the equivalence of homology groups of homeomorphic topological spaces. It concludes with a proof of the equivalence of simplicial and singular homology groups. Contents 1 Simplices and Simplicial Complexes 1 2 Homology Groups 2 3 Singular Homology 8 4 Chain Complexes, Exact Sequences, and Relative Homology Groups 9 ∆ 5 The Equivalence of H n and Hn 13 1 Simplices and Simplicial Complexes Definition 1.1. The n-simplex, ∆n, is the simplest geometric figure determined by a collection of n n + 1 points in Euclidean space R . Geometrically, it can be thought of as the complete graph on (n + 1) vertices, which is solid in n dimensions. Figure 1: Some simplices Extrapolating from Figure 1, we see that the 3-simplex is a tetrahedron. Note: The n-simplex is topologically equivalent to Dn, the n-ball. Definition 1.2. An n-face of a simplex is a subset of the set of vertices of the simplex with order n + 1. The faces of an n-simplex with dimension less than n are called its proper faces. 1 Two simplices are said to be properly situated if their intersection is either empty or a face of both simplices (i.e., a simplex itself). By \gluing" (identifying) simplices along entire faces, we get what are known as simplicial complexes. More formally: Definition 1.3. A simplicial complex K is a finite set of simplices satisfying the following condi- tions: 1 For all simplices A 2 K with α a face of A, we have α 2 K.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Topology of Discrete Strategies∗
    The final version of this paper was published in The International Journal of Robotics Research, 29(7), June 2010, pp. 855–896, by SAGE Publications Ltd, http://online.sagepub.com. c Michael Erdmann On the Topology of Discrete Strategies∗ Michael Erdmann School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University [email protected] December 2009 Abstract This paper explores a topological perspective of planning in the presence of uncertainty, focusing on tasks specified by goal states in discrete spaces. The paper introduces strategy complexes. A strategy complex is the collection of all plans for attaining all goals in a given space. Plans are like jigsaw pieces. Understanding how the pieces fit together in a strategy complex reveals structure. That structure characterizes the inherent capabilities of an uncertain system. By adjusting the jigsaw pieces in a design loop, one can build systems with desired competencies. The paper draws on representations from combinatorial topology, Markov chains, and polyhedral cones. Triangulating between these three perspectives produces a topological language for describing concisely the capabilities of uncertain systems, analogous to concepts of reachability and controllability in other disciplines. The major nouns in this language are topological spaces. Three key theorems (numbered 1, 11, 20 in the paper) illustrate the sentences in this language: (a) Goal Attainability: There exists a strategy for attaining a particular goal from anywhere in a system if and only if the strategy complex of a slightly modified system is homotopic to a sphere. (b) Full Controllability: A system can move between any two states despite control uncertainty precisely when its strategy complex is homotopic to a sphere of dimension two less than the number of states.
    [Show full text]
  • Motivic Homotopy Theory
    Voevodsky’s Nordfjordeid Lectures: Motivic Homotopy Theory Vladimir Voevodsky1, Oliver R¨ondigs2, and Paul Arne Østvær3 1 School of Mathematics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, USA [email protected] 2 Fakult¨at f¨ur Mathematik, Universit¨atBielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany [email protected] 3 Department of Mathematics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway [email protected] 148 V. Voevodsky et al. 1 Introduction Motivic homotopy theory is a new and in vogue blend of algebra and topology. Its primary object is to study algebraic varieties from a homotopy theoretic viewpoint. Many of the basic ideas and techniques in this subject originate in algebraic topology. This text is a report from Voevodsky’s summer school lectures on motivic homotopy in Nordfjordeid. Its first part consists of a leisurely introduction to motivic stable homotopy theory, cohomology theories for algebraic varieties, and some examples of current research problems. As background material, we recommend the lectures of Dundas [Dun] and Levine [Lev] in this volume. An introductory reference to motivic homotopy theory is Voevodsky’s ICM address [Voe98]. The appendix includes more in depth background material required in the main body of the text. Our discussion of model structures for motivic spectra follows Jardine’s paper [Jar00]. In the first part, we introduce the motivic stable homotopy category. The examples of motivic cohomology, algebraic K-theory, and algebraic cobordism illustrate the general theory of motivic spectra. In March 2000, Voevodsky [Voe02b] posted a list of open problems concerning motivic homotopy theory. There has been so much work done in the interim that our update of the status of these conjectures may be useful to practitioners of motivic homotopy theory.
    [Show full text]
  • K-Theory, Bott Periodicity, and Elliptic Operators
    K-THEORY, BOTT PERIODICITY, AND ELLIPTIC OPERATORS CAMERON KRULEWSKI Abstract. We give the background for and a proof of the Bott periodicity theorem. Our paper develops a foundation of topological K-theory and offers a summary of Michael Atiyah's 1967 proof of the complex case and the real equivariant case of Bott periodicity, found in the paper \Bott Periodicity and the Index of Elliptic Operators" [1]. Motivation is given for steps Atiyah's proof, but many details are skipped in favor of offering an understandable overview. Contents Introduction 1 1. Background 2 1.1. Useful Terms 2 1.2. K-Theory 3 1.3. Important Objects and Conventions 11 2. Overview of Atiyah's 1967 Proof with Elliptic Operators 14 2.1. The Template 14 2.2. The \Formal Trick" 15 2.3. Elliptic Operators on Vector Bundles 17 2.4. The Complex Case 23 2.5. The Spinor Case 24 2.6. Conclusion 31 Acknowledgments 31 References 32 Introduction Homotopy groups are very useful for classifying topological spaces, but are no- toriously difficult to calculate. Bott's 1959 result [9] massively simplified the calcu- lation for several classical groups by revealing a periodic structure, which in turn stimulated the development of K-theory and other fields. Written succinctly, Bott's result is that the unitary group is 2-periodic, while the orthogonal and symplectic groups are 8-periodic. That is, πk(U) = πk+2(U) πk(O) = πk+8(O) πk(Sp) = πk+8(Sp): Date: 7 January, 2018. 1 2 CAMERON KRULEWSKI Since its original discovery, Bott periodicity has inspired a slew of diverse proof approaches [18], as well as several different formulations of the theorem that extend its result.
    [Show full text]
  • Applications of Combinatorial Topology to Computer Science
    Report from Dagstuhl Seminar 12121 Applications of Combinatorial Topology to Computer Science Edited by Lisbeth Fajstrup1, Dmitry Feichtner-Kozlov2, and Maurice Herlihy3 1 Aalborg University, DK, [email protected] 2 Universität Bremen, DE, [email protected] 3 Brown University – Providence, US, [email protected] Abstract This report documents the program of Dagstuhl Seminar 12121 “Applications of Combinatorial Topology to Computer Science”. The seminar brought together researchers working on appli- cations of combinatorial topology to various fields of computer science. The goal was to foster communication across these fields by providing researchers in each field the opportunity to ex- plain their research programs to the others. The fields covered included distributed computing, persistent homology, semantics of concurrency, and sensor networks. Seminar 18.–23. March, 2012 – www.dagstuhl.de/12121 1998 ACM Subject Classification F.2 Analysis of Algorithms and Problem Complexity, F.3 Logics and Meaning of Programs, C.2.4 Distributed Systems, I.2.9 Robotics Keywords and phrases Combinatorial topology, Distributed computing, Persistent homology, Program semantics, Sensor networks Digital Object Identifier 10.4230/DagRep.2.3.50 Edited in cooperation with Henry Adams and Srivatsan Ravi 1 Executive Summary Lisbeth Fajstrup Dmitry Feichtner-Kozlov Maurice Herlihy License Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Unported license © Lisbeth Fajstrup, Dmitry Feichtner-Kozlov, and Maurice Herlihy In recent years, concepts and techniques adapted from combinatorial and algebraic topology have led to a variety of promising new results in several areas of Computer Science, including distributed computing, sensor networks, semantics of concurrency, robotics, and vision. The recent Dagstuhl seminar Applications of Combinatorial Topology to Computer Science (12121), brought together researchers in these fields, both to share ideas and experiences, and to establish the basis for a common research community.
    [Show full text]
  • Homotopy Theory in Continuous and Combinatorial World
    Homotopy theory in continuous world Homotopy theory in combinatorial world Homotopy theory in continuous and combinatorial world Jie Wu National University of Singapore 28 June, 2016 Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua, China Homotopy theory in continuous world Homotopy theory in combinatorial world Outline Homotopy theory in continuous world Homotopy theory in combinatorial world Homotopy theory in continuous world Homotopy theory in combinatorial world Homotopy and Homotopy Groups Let f ; g : X ! Y be continuous map. A homotopy between f and g means a continuous map H : X × [0; 1] ! Y such that H(x; 0) = f (x) and H(x; 1) = g(x). n Homotopy Groups. πn(X) = [S ; X]. Note. π0(X) is the set of path-connected components of X. π1(X) is the fundamental group of X. πn(X) is abelian for n ≥ 2. Homotopy theory in continuous world Homotopy theory in combinatorial world Importance of Homotopy Groups–Core problem in homotopy theory Building blocks for cell-complexes: m n+1 2-cell complex: S [f D for some map f : Sn = @Dn+1 ! Sm. n+1 n n+1 In general Y = X [f D for some map f : S = @D ! X. Homotopy groups are far-unknown in general. Computation of homotopy groups is usually much harder than that of homology groups. Homotopy theory in continuous world Homotopy theory in combinatorial world Applications of Homotopy Theory In addition to traditional applications such as geometry, mathematical physics, From Wiki: The homotopy analysis method (HAM) is a semi-analytical technique to solve nonlinear ordinary/partial differential equations. The homotopy analysis method employs the concept of the homotopy from topology to generate a convergent series solution for nonlinear systems.
    [Show full text]
  • General Combinatorial Topology
    GENERAL COMBINATORIAL TOPOLOGY BY PAUL ALEXANDROFF To Serge Bernstein on his sixtieth birthday After the fundamental conceptions of the so-called combinatorial topology were transferred by the author of the present paper(') as well as by Vietoris, Lefshetz, Cech and others to arbitrary compact metric spaces and, having obtained in the general duality law of Alexander-Pontrjagin, the homologi- cal theory of dimensionality and a number of other essentially new investiga- tions a concrete geometrical development, became a mighty and generally recognized weapon in the investigation of different topological questions, it became not only possible to speak of a new branch of topology—the homologi- cal theory of spaces—but it also seemed that the directions of further develop- ment of this new branch were more or less determined. This latter opinion, however, was not confirmed: in 1934 Kolmogoroff(l) and nearly simultane- ously with him AIexander(2) gave to the development of the homological topology an essentially new direction by the discovery of the so-called upper boundary operator (which we call here the V-operator) dual to the old bound- ary operator (we call it here the A-operator) and permitting one to construct two systems of homological invariants dual to each other in the sense of the Pontrjagin theory of characters not only for polyhedrons and complexes but also for arbitrary locally bicompact spaces. The central fact of the theory is a proposition which was originally formu- lated by Kolmogoroff and which we therefore call in the present paper the duality law of Kolmogoroff. This proposition asserts that for any closed set A lying in a locally bicompact space R, the r- and (r + l)-dimensional Betti groups of which are null groups, there exists an isomorphism between the r-dimensional Betti group of A and the (r + 1)-dimensional Betti group of R— A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Combinatorial Topology of Groups
    Brent Everitt The Combinatorial Topology of Groups October 26, 2018 arXiv:0902.3912v1 [math.GR] 23 Feb 2009 Contents 1 Combinatorial Complexes ............................................. 1 1.1 1-Complexes(ie:Graphs).............................. ............ 1 1.1.1 Thecategoryofgraphs ........................... .......... 1 1.1.2 Quotientsandsubgraphs ......................... ........... 3 1.1.3 Balls, spheres,pathsandhomotopies.............. ............ 4 1.1.4 ForestsandTrees ............................... ........... 6 1.2 The categoryof 2-complexes....................................... 8 1.2.1 2-complexes ......................................... ..... 8 1.2.2 Examples...................................... ........... 9 1.2.3 Mapsof 2-complexes....................................... 10 1.2.4 Homotopiesandhomeomorphisms ................... ........ 13 1.3 Quotientsof 2-complexes......................................... 14 1.3.1 Quotientsingeneral............................ ............ 15 1.3.2 Quotientsbyagroupaction....................... ........... 15 1.3.3 Quotientsbyasubcomplex........................ .......... 16 1.3.4 Pushouts ...................................... ........... 17 1.4 PullbacksandHigmancomposition ................... .............. 20 1.4.1 Pullbacks..................................... ............ 21 1.4.2 Higmancomposition ............................. .......... 24 1.5 NotesonChapter1 ................................. .............. 25 2 Topological Invariants ...............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Topology of Nerves and Formal Concepts
    Topology of nerves and formal concepts Anton Ayzenberg Abstract. The general goal of this paper is to gather and review several methods from homotopy and combinatorial topology and formal concepts analysis (FCA) and analyze their connections. FCA appears naturally in the problem of combinatorial simplification of simplicial complexes and allows to see a certain duality on a class of simplicial complexes. This duality generalizes Poincare duality on cell subdivisions of manifolds. On the other hand, with the notion of a topological formal context, we review the classical proofs of two basic theorems of homotopy topology: Alexandrov Nerve theorem and Quillen{ McCord theorem, which are both important in the applications. A brief overview of the applications of the Nerve theorem in brain studies is given. The focus is made on the task of the external stimuli space reconstruction from the activity of place cells. We propose to use the combination of FCA and topology in the analysis of neural codes. The lattice of formal concepts of a neural code is homotopy equivalent to the nerve complex, but, moreover, it allows to analyse certain implication relations between collections of neural cells. 1. Introduction 1.1. Brief overview. The general goal of this paper is to gather and review several basic methods from homotopy topology and formal concepts analysis (FCA). It appears that methods which are recently developing in topological data analysis (TDA) can be treated in terms of the theory of formal concepts: this allows to apply a well-developed algorithmic machinery of FCA in the area of computational topology. It may also be the case that the topological insight can open new directions in FCA.
    [Show full text]