Notes:CW-Complex

From Maths
Jump to: navigation, search

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}αI, with X=αIeα, such that:

  1. (X,J) is a Hausdorff space
  2. For each open m-cell, eα, there exists a continuous map, fα:¯BmX such that:
    1. fα maps Bm[Note 1] homeomorphically onto eα and
    2. fα((¯Bm)) "into"[Note 2] a finite union of open cells, each of dimension (strictly) less than m
  3. A set AP(X) is closed in (X,J) if and only if αI[A¯eα is closed in ¯eα]

Hatcher: Algebraic Topology - Appendix

A CW-Complex is constructed as follows:

  1. Start with X0, the 0-cells of X
  2. Inductively, form the n-skeleton, Xn, from Xn1 by attaching n-cells, enα via maps, φα:Sn1Xn1.
    • This means that Xn is the quotient space of Xn1αDnα under the identifications:
      • xφα(x) for xDnα
    the cell enα is the homeomorphic image of DnαDnα under the quotient map
  3. X=nNXn with the weak topology.
    • A set AP(X) is open if and only if nN[AXn 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:
  • Construction:
    • X0:=k0i=1ˉe0i
    • Set X(1):=k1i=1ˉe1i
    • Define X(1):=k1i=1ˉe1i (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:=X0h1X(1):=X0X(1)xh1(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:
        1. For each q-cell, eqj we have the canonical inclusion map: iq,j:ˉeqjX(q)
        2. The canonical quotient map: π:X(q)Xq Caveat:what on earth.... - oh okay, might be canonical injection followed by projection of the quotient
        3. The inclusion map i:XqX
      • The composition of these maps: ϕqj:=iπiq,j:ˉeqjX
        • 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)Xq1 to ˉeqj

Klein bottle example

With 2-cells A and B:

  • A "oriented/boundary" (a)+(c)+b and
  • B "oriented/boundary" c+b+a
A CW-complex for the Klein bottle

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 h11()= and h11({(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:=X0X(1)xh1(x)=X0h1X(1)
    • It is easy to see that X0X(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):=AB
    which 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 R2R2, 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

With 2 2-cells, A and B:

  • The "boundary" of A is a+(a)+(a)
  • The "boundary" of B is c+b+(b)
A CW-Complex for the sphere
  • 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.

Something that looks like (homeomorphic) to X1
  • Define X1:=X0h1X(1):=X0X(1)xh1(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

  1. Bm=Int(¯Bm)
  2. 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

References