Difference between revisions of "Notes:CW-Complex"
(Saving work) |
(→Sphere example: Saving work) |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
# {{M|X\eq\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N} }X^n}} with the [[weak topology]]. | # {{M|X\eq\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N} }X^n}} with the [[weak topology]]. | ||
#* A set {{M|A\in\mathcal{P}(X)}} is [[open set|open]] {{iff}} {{M|\forall n\in\mathbb{N}[A\cap X^n\text{ is open in }X^n]}} | #* A set {{M|A\in\mathcal{P}(X)}} is [[open set|open]] {{iff}} {{M|\forall n\in\mathbb{N}[A\cap X^n\text{ is open in }X^n]}} | ||
+ | ==Algebraic Topology: An Intuitive Approach== | ||
+ | We build an "attaching space" called a (finite) cell complex inductively from the following recipe: | ||
+ | * Ingredients: | ||
+ | ** {{M|k_0}} [[closed n-cell|closed {{M|0}}-cells]], {{M|\bar{e}_1^0,\ldots,\bar{e}_{k_0}^0}} | ||
+ | ** {{M|k_1}} [[closed n-cell|closed {{M|1}}-cells]], {{M|\bar{e}_1^1,\ldots,\bar{e}_{k_1}^1}} | ||
+ | *: {{M|\vdots}} | ||
+ | ** {{M|k_n}} [[closed n-cell|closed {{M|n}}-cells]], {{M|\bar{e}_1^n,\ldots,\bar{e}_{k_n}^n}} | ||
+ | * Construction: | ||
+ | ** {{M|X^0:\eq\coprod_{i\eq 1}^{k_0}\bar{e}_i^0}} | ||
+ | ** Set {{M|X^{(1)}:\eq\coprod_{i\eq 1}^{k_1}\bar{e}_i^1}} | ||
+ | ** Define {{M|\partial X^{(1)}:\eq\coprod_{i\eq 1}^{k_1}\partial\bar{e}_i^1}} (where we consider each {{M|\bar{e}^1_i}} as a subspace of {{M|\mathbb{R} }} | ||
+ | *** We could consider {{M|X^{(1)} }} as a subset of {{M|\coprod_{i\eq 1}^{k_1}\mathbb{R} }} for boundary purposes. | ||
+ | ** We must now construct an attaching map: {{M|h_1:\partial X^{(1)}\rightarrow X^0}} to attach {{M|X^{(1)} }} to {{M|X^0}} | ||
+ | ** Define: {{MM|X^1:\eq X^0\cup_{h_1}X^{(1)} :\eq\frac{X^0\coprod X^{(1)} }{\langle x\sim h_1(x)\rangle} }} | ||
+ | ** Set {{M|X^{(2)}:\eq\coprod_{i\eq 1}^{k_2}\bar{e}_i^2}} | ||
+ | ** Specify an attaching map, {{M|h_2:\partial X^{(2)}\rightarrow X^1 }} | ||
+ | ** And so on until we obtain {{M|X^n}}, then let {{M|X:\eq X^n}} - this final product is an {{n|dimensional}} cell complex. | ||
+ | *** For each {{M|q\in\{0,\ldots,n\} }} we call {{M|X^q}} a {{M|q}}-skeleton of {{M|X}}. | ||
+ | *** For a cell complex {{M|X}} we get 3 maps: | ||
+ | ***# For each {{M|q}}-cell, {{M|e^q_j}} we have the canonical inclusion map: {{M|i_{q,j}:\bar{e}^q_j\rightarrow X^{(q)} }} | ||
+ | ***# The canonical quotient map: {{M|\pi:X^{(q)}\rightarrow X^q}} {{caveat|what on earth....}} - oh okay, might be canonical injection followed by projection of the quotient | ||
+ | ***# The inclusion map {{M|i:X^q\rightarrow X}} | ||
+ | *** The composition of these maps: {{M|\phi^q_j:\eq i\circ\pi\circ i_{q,j}:\bar{e}^q_j\rightarrow X}} | ||
+ | **** Called the characteristic map of the {{M|e^q_j}} cell. | ||
+ | ***** The restriction of the characteristic map to the boundary, {{M|\partial\bar{e}^q_j}} should agree with the restriction of the attaching map {{M|h_q:\partial X^{(q)}\rightarrow X^{q-1} }} to {{M|\partial\bar{e}^q_j}} | ||
==[[Klein bottle]] example== | ==[[Klein bottle]] example== | ||
<div style="overflow:hidden;float:right;margin:0px;margin-left:0.2em;"> | <div style="overflow:hidden;float:right;margin:0px;margin-left:0.2em;"> | ||
Line 23: | Line 48: | ||
| <center><span style="font-size:1.5em;"><m>\xymatrix{ v \bullet \ar@{<-}@<.65ex>[d]_a \ar@{<-}[rr]^b & & \bullet v \ar@{<-}@<-.65ex>[d]^a \ar[dll]_c \\ v \bullet \ar[rr]_b & & \bullet v}</m></span></center> | | <center><span style="font-size:1.5em;"><m>\xymatrix{ v \bullet \ar@{<-}@<.65ex>[d]_a \ar@{<-}[rr]^b & & \bullet v \ar@{<-}@<-.65ex>[d]^a \ar[dll]_c \\ v \bullet \ar[rr]_b & & \bullet v}</m></span></center> | ||
With [[Closed n-cell|{{M|2}}-cells]] {{M|A}} and {{M|B}}: | With [[Closed n-cell|{{M|2}}-cells]] {{M|A}} and {{M|B}}: | ||
− | * {{M|A}} oriented {{M|(-a)+(-c)+b}} and | + | * {{M|A}} "oriented/boundary" {{M|(-a)+(-c)+b}} and |
− | * {{M|B}} oriented {{M|c+b+a}} | + | * {{M|B}} "oriented/boundary" {{M|c+b+a}} |
|- | |- | ||
! A [[CW-complex]] for the [[Klein bottle]] | ! A [[CW-complex]] for the [[Klein bottle]] | ||
Line 58: | Line 83: | ||
<div style="clear:both;"></div> | <div style="clear:both;"></div> | ||
+ | ==[[Sphere]] example== | ||
+ | <div style="overflow:hidden;float:right;margin:0px;margin-left:0.2em;"> | ||
+ | {| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin:0px;max-width:25em;" | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | <center><span style="font-size:1.5em;"><m>\xymatrix{ w \bullet \ar[rr]^a \ar[d]_a & & \bullet v \ar[dll]_c \ar[d]^b \\ v\bullet \ar[rr]_b & & \bullet u}</m></span></center> | ||
+ | With 2 {{M|2}}-cells, {{M|A}} and {{M|B}}: | ||
+ | * The "boundary" of {{M|A}} is {{M|a +(-a) +(-a)}} | ||
+ | * The "boundary" of {{M|B}} is {{M|c + b + (-b)}} | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | ! A [[CW-Complex]] for the [[sphere]] | ||
+ | |} | ||
+ | </div> | ||
+ | * {{MM|X^0:\eq\coprod_{i\in \{u,v,w\} }i\eq\{(u,u),(v,v),(w,w)\} }} | ||
+ | * {{MM|X^{(1)}:\eq\coprod_{i\in\{a,b,c\} }i\eq\bigcup_{i\in\{a,b,c\} }\left\{(i,p)\ \vert\ p\in\overline{\mathbb{B}^1}\right\} }} | ||
+ | Now we need an attaching map, {{M|h_1:\partial X^{(1)}\rightarrow X^0}} that is continuous, where the {{link|boundary|topology}} is considered with {{MM|X^{(1)}\subseteq\coprod_{i\in\{a,b,c\} }\mathbb{R} }} | ||
+ | * {{M|\partial X^{(1)}\eq\{(a,-1),(a,1),(b,-1),(b,1),(c,-1),(c,1)\} }} | ||
+ | From the diagram we define: | ||
+ | * {{M|h_1:(a,-1)\mapsto (w,w)}} | ||
+ | * {{M|h_1:(a,1)\mapsto (v,v)}} | ||
+ | * {{M|h_1:(b,-1)\mapsto (v,v)}} | ||
+ | * {{M|h_1:(b,1)\mapsto (u,u)}} | ||
+ | * {{M|h_1:(c,-1)\mapsto (v,v)}} | ||
+ | * {{M|h_1:(c,1)\mapsto (v,v)}} | ||
+ | Considering {{M|\partial X^{(1)}\subseteq X^{(1)} }} as a [[subspace topology|subspace]] and {{M|X^0}} with the [[discrete topology]] things look continuous.... I mean the pre-image of {{M|\{(v,v)\} }} say has a few "components" but yeah there's an open set in {{M|X^{(1)} }} which intersected with {{M|\partial X^{(1)} }} is that set surely. Check this later but looking good. | ||
+ | <div style="overflow:hidden;float:right;margin:0px;margin-left:0.2em;"> | ||
+ | {| class="wikitable" border="1" style="margin:0px;max-width:25em;" | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | <center><span style="font-size:1.5em;"><m>\xymatrix{ u & v \ar[l]_b \ar@(dl,dr)[]_c & w \ar[l]_a }</m></span></center> | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | ! Something that looks like ([[homeomorphic]]) to {{M|X^1}} | ||
+ | |} | ||
+ | </div> | ||
+ | * Define {{MM|X^1:\eq X^0\cup_{h_1} X^{(1)}:\eq\frac{X^0\coprod X^{(1)} }{\langle x\sim h_1(x) \rangle} }} | ||
+ | ===Notes=== | ||
+ | I drew some pictures of the triangles, {{M|A}} and {{M|B}} joined up as needed and they do indeed attach to this {{M|1}}-skeleton, to form something homeomorphic to the sphere. So looking good so far! | ||
+ | <div style="clear:both;"></div> | ||
+ | |||
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
<references group="Note"/> | <references group="Note"/> |
Latest revision as of 01:00, 23 January 2017
Contents
[hide]Overview
I get CW-Complexes in terms of what they are but no so much in terms of a formal definition. This page details my research.
Munkres: Elements of Algebraic Topology
A CW-Complex is a topological space, (X,J), and a collection of (pairwise) disjoint open cells, {eα}α∈I, with X=⋃α∈Ieα, such that:
- (X,J) is a Hausdorff space
- For each open m-cell, eα, there exists a continuous map, fα:¯Bm→X such that:
- fα maps Bm[Note 1] homeomorphically onto eα and
- fα(∂(¯Bm)) "into"[Note 2] a finite union of open cells, each of dimension (strictly) less than m
- A set A∈P(X) is closed in (X,J) if and only if ∀α∈I[A∩¯eα is closed in ¯eα]
Hatcher: Algebraic Topology - Appendix
A CW-Complex is constructed as follows:
- Start with X0, the 0-cells of X
- Inductively, form the n-skeleton, Xn, from Xn−1 by attaching n-cells, enα via maps, φα:Sn−1→Xn−1.
- This means that Xn is the quotient space of Xn−1∐αDnα under the identifications:
- x∼φα(x) for x∈∂Dnα
- the cell enα is the homeomorphic image of Dnα−∂Dnα under the quotient map
- This means that Xn is the quotient space of Xn−1∐αDnα under the identifications:
- X=⋃n∈NXn with the weak topology.
- A set A∈P(X) is open if and only if ∀n∈N[A∩Xn is open in Xn]
Algebraic Topology: An Intuitive Approach
We build an "attaching space" called a (finite) cell complex inductively from the following recipe:
- Ingredients:
- k0 closed 0-cells, ˉe01,…,ˉe0k0
- k1 closed 1-cells, ˉe11,…,ˉe1k1
- ⋮
- kn closed n-cells, ˉen1,…,ˉenkn
- Construction:
- X0:=∐k0i=1ˉe0i
- Set X(1):=∐k1i=1ˉe1i
- Define ∂X(1):=∐k1i=1∂ˉe1i (where we consider each ˉe1i as a subspace of R
- We could consider X(1) as a subset of ∐k1i=1R for boundary purposes.
- We must now construct an attaching map: h1:∂X(1)→X0 to attach X(1) to X0
- Define: X1:=X0∪h1X(1):=X0∐X(1)⟨x∼h1(x)⟩
- Set X(2):=∐k2i=1ˉe2i
- Specify an attaching map, h2:∂X(2)→X1
- And so on until we obtain Xn, then let X:=Xn - this final product is an n-dimensional cell complex.
- For each q∈{0,…,n} we call Xq a q-skeleton of X.
- For a cell complex X we get 3 maps:
- For each q-cell, eqj we have the canonical inclusion map: iq,j:ˉeqj→X(q)
- The canonical quotient map: π:X(q)→Xq Caveat:what on earth.... - oh okay, might be canonical injection followed by projection of the quotient
- The inclusion map i:Xq→X
- The composition of these maps: ϕqj:=i∘π∘iq,j:ˉeqj→X
- Called the characteristic map of the eqj cell.
- The restriction of the characteristic map to the boundary, ∂ˉeqj should agree with the restriction of the attaching map hq:∂X(q)→Xq−1 to ∂ˉeqj
- Called the characteristic map of the eqj cell.
Klein bottle example
I will almost certainly loose my paper notes.
- X0:={(v,v)}
- X(1):=∐i∈{a,b,c}¯B1=⋃j∈{a,b,c}{(j,p) | p∈¯B1}={(a,−1),…,(a,1)⏟a,(b,−1),…,(b,1)⏟b,(c,−1),…,(c,1)⏟c}
At this point X0 "looks like" a point and X(1) "looks like" 3 separate straight lines.
Now we need an attaching map:
- h1:∂X(1)→X0
The boundary is with X(1) considered as a subset of ∐i∈{a,b,c}R, so in this case:
- ∂X(1)={(a,−1),(a,1),(b,−1),(b,1),(c,−1),(c,1)}
Of course h1 maps every point in the boundary to (v,v) - the only vertex there is.
Note that h1 is continuous, as h−11(∅)=∅ and h−11({(v,v)})=∂X(1) (we consider the codomain with the subspace topology, X0 really can only have the trivial topology as a topology.
Now we can form an adjunction space:
- X1:=X0∐X(1)⟨x∼h1(x)⟩=X0∪h1X(1)
- It is easy to see that X0∐X(1) "looks like" 3 lines of length 2 that are disconnected and a point, also disconnected.
- We then identify the end points of those 3 lines with the point v
- Caveat:I think there are a few ways to do this ultimately the space "looks like" a point with 3 loops coming off it. Like a clover shape. But how do we preserve orientation? Does it matter? What do the different directions of each loop (and as the image of which of the 3 lines) correspond to?
2-cells
This is slightly trickier. Note: it doesn't matter if we consider a ¯B2 as a "disk" or a "square", as these are homeomorphic.
- X(2):=A∐Bwhich is the set that contains (i,(x,y)) given i=A or i=B and (x,y)∈¯B2.
The attaching map:
- h2:∂X(2)→X1 - where we consider ∂X(2) as a subset of R2∐R2, meaning:
- ∂X(2)={(i,(x,y)) | i∈{A,B}∧(x,y)∈S1} - S1 is a circle centred at the origin of radius 1.
Sphere example
- X0:=∐i∈{u,v,w}i={(u,u),(v,v),(w,w)}
- X(1):=∐i∈{a,b,c}i=⋃i∈{a,b,c}{(i,p) | p∈¯B1}
Now we need an attaching map, h1:∂X(1)→X0 that is continuous, where the boundary is considered with X(1)⊆∐i∈{a,b,c}R
- ∂X(1)={(a,−1),(a,1),(b,−1),(b,1),(c,−1),(c,1)}
From the diagram we define:
- h1:(a,−1)↦(w,w)
- h1:(a,1)↦(v,v)
- h1:(b,−1)↦(v,v)
- h1:(b,1)↦(u,u)
- h1:(c,−1)↦(v,v)
- h1:(c,1)↦(v,v)
Considering ∂X(1)⊆X(1) as a subspace and X0 with the discrete topology things look continuous.... I mean the pre-image of {(v,v)} say has a few "components" but yeah there's an open set in X(1) which intersected with ∂X(1) is that set surely. Check this later but looking good.
- Define X1:=X0∪h1X(1):=X0∐X(1)⟨x∼h1(x)⟩
Notes
I drew some pictures of the triangles, A and B joined up as needed and they do indeed attach to this 1-skeleton, to form something homeomorphic to the sphere. So looking good so far!
Notes
- Jump up ↑ Bm=Int(¯Bm)
- Jump up ↑ Into means nothing special, all functions map the domain into the co-domain, it is a common first-year mistake to look at the association of "onto" with "surjection" and associate into with "injection" - I mention this here to record Munkres' exact phrasing