Notes:CW-Complex
Contents
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
- ↑ Bm=Int(¯Bm)
- ↑ 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