lecture 5
From Scholarpedia
| This article has not been peer-reviewed or accepted for publication yet; It may be unfinished, contain inaccuracies, or unapproved changes. | ||||||||||||||||||||
Author: Dr. Jan A. Sanders, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Author: Dr. Sara Lombardo, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Contents |
The long exact cohomology sequence
Suppose
and
are
-modules,
where the representation is denoted by
in both cases.
Given
(this means that
for all
),
one extends
to a linear map
from
to
by
for
.
lemma
proof
lemma
maps the complex
into the complex
, that is,
.
proof
The statement for
reduces to
For
one has
Assume the statement to hold for
. Then
and the lemma follows by induction on
.
It follows that
leaves cocycles and coboundaries invariant and induces a map
.
One writes
for this family of maps.
Let
be another
-module, and suppose
. Then
and
.
Suppose now that we have an exact sequence
- (1)
where
is the injective map and
the surjective.
There is an induced exact sequence
- (2)
with (injective)
and (not necessarily surjective)
.
Notice that the elements in
are just the
-invariant elements
in the
-module, and equivalence classes are to be identified with their representing elements, since there is nothing to divide out since
.
Indeed, if
, then
, which implies
. Thus
is injective.
Suppose
, that is, there is an
such that
. Then
. Thus
. On the other hand,
if
, then
, implying
. We check
and it follows from the injectivety of
that
, or
.
It follows that
.
Thus the sequence is exact at
.
remark
The map
is not necessarily surjective. For example, suppose that
is onedimensional,
with basiselement
acting on
by
Take
. Then
maps to
in
, but
is nonzero.
One measures the lack of surjectivity of
by constructing a connecting homomorphism that embeds the left exact sequence (2) into a long exact sequence of cohomology spaces as follows.
lemma
For
there is a map
such that the sequence
- (3)
is exact.
proof
First one observes that (1) gives rise to the exact sequence of
-modules
- (4)
since the maps in (4) only act on the values of the cochains. Thus since
commutes with
we have
for
that
or
- (5)
Given
, we define
as follows:
Choose
. By the exactness of (4) there is a cochain
such that
. Then
satisfies
Hence by (4) there exists an
such that
Furthermore,
since
Define
The first thing we have to check is that this definition depends on the cohomology class
only
and not on the particular choice of
or
Indeed, any other choice, say
must satisfy
for some
by (5).
Hence
so, by (4) there exists a unique
with
Thus the cocycle
such that
satisfies
Since
is injective by the exactness of (4), one has
that is,
as claimed.
It follows that
is a well-defined linear map.
Next we turn to the proof of the exactness of the cohomological sequence.
It follows directly from the definition of
that
For indeed, take
with
.
One defines
by constructing
by
but this is zero. Since
is injective, this means that
or, in other words,
that
Furthermore,
The opposite inclusions follows from the following arguments.
Let
. Then
for some
.
Hence
,
so
is a cocycle. But by (4) we have
. Hence
.
Finally, let
. This means that
for some
.
Set
. Then
.
Thus
is a cocycle, and by definition,
.
It follows that
exact sequence maps
Let
and
be
-modules, and
such that
.
Let
and
.
Then
induces maps
and
by restriction and passing to the quotient, respectively.
lemma
proof
Let
and
denote the quotient maps.
Given
, take
such that
.
Then
, and hence
.
However,
so
. One can conclude that
,
as claimed.
