# S.O.S. Mathematics CyberBoard

Your Resource for mathematics help on the web!
 It is currently Mon, 20 May 2013 09:30:57 UTC

 All times are UTC [ DST ]

 Page 1 of 1 [ 7 posts ]
 Print view Previous topic | Next topic
Author Message
 Post subject: Group cohomologyPosted: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 02:44:57 UTC
 Moderator

Joined: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:25:14 UTC
Posts: 12097
Location: Austin, TX
I'm interested in group cohomology calculations, specific ones in particular, so I can manage a better understanding of the theory.

The basic setup is one is given a group, , and -modules (i.e. modules over ), . And the starting point is calculating , (this is before I look at -equivariance), and I"m trying to figure it out for say a free -module (from there I should be able to get all the finitely generated abelian groups by breaking the homs across direct sums), however the only thing I know for sure from the start is that , which looks like as an abelian group if I'm not mistaken. And if my group is free, I'm pretty sure the group ring is just itself (as a free, abelian group) right? And if so, do I just calculate hom via the isomorphism type, or is there merit in explicitly understanding the generators? From there, how can one proceed to figure out the G-equivariant homomorphisms?

_________________
(\ /)
(O.o)
(> <)
This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination

Top

 Post subject: Re: Group cohomologyPosted: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 05:13:49 UTC
 Moderator

Joined: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:49:32 UTC
Posts: 6005
Location: 127.0.0.1, ::1 (avatar courtesy of UDN)
I'm interested in group cohomology calculations, specific ones in particular, so I can manage a better understanding of the theory.

The basic setup is one is given a group, , and -modules (i.e. modules over ), . And the starting point is calculating , (this is before I look at -equivariance), and I"m trying to figure it out for say a free -module (from there I should be able to get all the finitely generated abelian groups by breaking the homs across direct sums), however the only thing I know for sure from the start is that , which looks like as an abelian group if I'm not mistaken. And if my group is free, I'm pretty sure the group ring is just itself (as a free, abelian group) right? And if so, do I just calculate hom via the isomorphism type, or is there merit in explicitly understanding the generators? From there, how can one proceed to figure out the G-equivariant homomorphisms?

For any group , the (integral) group ring as an abelian group is the direct sum of copies of your ring, not itself.

To check equivariance, you only need to check the action of generators of . If is cyclic, that is easy enough (and very concrete). I'm not sure what you mean by isomorphism type here.

_________________

Top

 Post subject: Re: Group cohomologyPosted: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:43:50 UTC
 Moderator

Joined: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:25:14 UTC
Posts: 12097
Location: Austin, TX
outermeasure wrote:
I'm interested in group cohomology calculations, specific ones in particular, so I can manage a better understanding of the theory.

The basic setup is one is given a group, , and -modules (i.e. modules over ), . And the starting point is calculating , (this is before I look at -equivariance), and I"m trying to figure it out for say a free -module (from there I should be able to get all the finitely generated abelian groups by breaking the homs across direct sums), however the only thing I know for sure from the start is that , which looks like as an abelian group if I'm not mistaken. And if my group is free, I'm pretty sure the group ring is just itself (as a free, abelian group) right? And if so, do I just calculate hom via the isomorphism type, or is there merit in explicitly understanding the generators? From there, how can one proceed to figure out the G-equivariant homomorphisms?

For any group , the (integral) group ring as an abelian group is the direct sum of copies of your ring, not itself.

To check equivariance, you only need to check the action of generators of . If is cyclic, that is easy enough (and very concrete). I'm not sure what you mean by isomorphism type here.

I mean if say I don't have a free module, it might help to know an explicit description of the modules or as quotients of some polynomial algebra and knowing a description of exacly what maps generate the abelian group hom-set. Or do I not need to be so specific in general? (i.e. if I know that say and is whatever then from abstract theory I just have that the abelian group homomorpisms look like n copies of , but I'm wondering if--given a presentation of each module as, say, polynomial algebras knowing which are the generators--would that be helpful in understanding the cohomology, or generally do people only care about the isomorphism type in these kinds of calculations?) My backgroung with (co)homology is from topology where sometimes maps (like the Bott map) are useful to know explicitly is a reason I ask. In particular I know that the general theory can easily give me the isomorphism type of , but I'm wondering if I need to know a better description than just that to get at the -equivariant parts, i.e. in order to check the action (I know that checking on generators is enough).

_________________
(\ /)
(O.o)
(> <)
This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination

Top

 Post subject: Re: Group cohomologyPosted: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 02:08:11 UTC
 Moderator

Joined: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:49:32 UTC
Posts: 6005
Location: 127.0.0.1, ::1 (avatar courtesy of UDN)
outermeasure wrote:
I'm interested in group cohomology calculations, specific ones in particular, so I can manage a better understanding of the theory.

The basic setup is one is given a group, , and -modules (i.e. modules over ), . And the starting point is calculating , (this is before I look at -equivariance), and I"m trying to figure it out for say a free -module (from there I should be able to get all the finitely generated abelian groups by breaking the homs across direct sums), however the only thing I know for sure from the start is that , which looks like as an abelian group if I'm not mistaken. And if my group is free, I'm pretty sure the group ring is just itself (as a free, abelian group) right? And if so, do I just calculate hom via the isomorphism type, or is there merit in explicitly understanding the generators? From there, how can one proceed to figure out the G-equivariant homomorphisms?

For any group , the (integral) group ring as an abelian group is the direct sum of copies of your ring, not itself.

To check equivariance, you only need to check the action of generators of . If is cyclic, that is easy enough (and very concrete). I'm not sure what you mean by isomorphism type here.

I mean if say I don't have a free module, it might help to know an explicit description of the modules or as quotients of some polynomial algebra and knowing a description of exacly what maps generate the abelian group hom-set. Or do I not need to be so specific in general? (i.e. if I know that say and is whatever then from abstract theory I just have that the abelian group homomorpisms look like n copies of , but I'm wondering if--given a presentation of each module as, say, polynomial algebras knowing which are the generators--would that be helpful in understanding the cohomology, or generally do people only care about the isomorphism type in these kinds of calculations?) My backgroung with (co)homology is from topology where sometimes maps (like the Bott map) are useful to know explicitly is a reason I ask. In particular I know that the general theory can easily give me the isomorphism type of , but I'm wondering if I need to know a better description than just that to get at the -equivariant parts, i.e. in order to check the action (I know that checking on generators is enough).

OK, I see what you are trying to do.

Yes, you need to know more to get the -equivariant part --- consider with the usual -action (), versus with the trivial -action. These two give the same (namely, ), but usually different --- but . The important -action which was thrown out in calculating is definitely needed.

Of course, if you are calculating cohomology by taking free resolution of (such as the bar resolution, which nobody use in practice to compute cohomology) then you just need and (together with the induced maps).

_________________

Top

 Post subject: Re: Group cohomologyPosted: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 07:47:27 UTC
 Moderator

Joined: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:25:14 UTC
Posts: 12097
Location: Austin, TX
outermeasure wrote:
OK, I see what you are trying to do.

Yes, you need to know more to get the -equivariant part --- consider with the usual -action (), versus with the trivial -action. These two give the same (namely, ), but usually different --- but . The important -action which was thrown out in calculating is definitely needed.

Of course, if you are calculating cohomology by taking free resolution of (such as the bar resolution, which nobody use in practice to compute cohomology) then you just need and (together with the induced maps).

Oh, so you're saying -equivariant abelian group homomorphisms are just homomorphisms in ? If so I think that makes a lot of sense, and definitely will make my life easier in terms of computations. How does one actually end up doing computations in this subject? I'm not in a class for it, so I don't have to be pedantic and take resolutions if it's not really necessary.

Thanks a lot for the clarification so far, it's been quite useful!

_________________
(\ /)
(O.o)
(> <)
This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination

Top

 Post subject: Re: Group cohomologyPosted: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 09:40:17 UTC
 Moderator

Joined: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:49:32 UTC
Posts: 6005
Location: 127.0.0.1, ::1 (avatar courtesy of UDN)
outermeasure wrote:
OK, I see what you are trying to do.

Yes, you need to know more to get the -equivariant part --- consider with the usual -action (), versus with the trivial -action. These two give the same (namely, ), but usually different --- but . The important -action which was thrown out in calculating is definitely needed.

Of course, if you are calculating cohomology by taking free resolution of (such as the bar resolution, which nobody use in practice to compute cohomology) then you just need and (together with the induced maps).

Oh, so you're saying -equivariant abelian group homomorphisms are just homomorphisms in ? If so I think that makes a lot of sense, and definitely will make my life easier in terms of computations. How does one actually end up doing computations in this subject? I'm not in a class for it, so I don't have to be pedantic and take resolutions if it's not really necessary.

Thanks a lot for the clarification so far, it's been quite useful!

Yes, -equivariant here just means you are working in .

Usually one avoids doing any computation . The point of the bar resolution (and variants) is to demonstrate you have enough in/pro-jectives so that you can sleep at night, and I think they are the ones used by GAP and Magma to calculate H^1 and H^2. Of course, there are some tools like the LES and various spectral sequences which, if you are lucky enough, will be usable, but even for finite group and mod-p coefficient the task is quite daunting (the mod-p cohomology ring can be reconstructed by gluing that of the element p-subgroups and possible nilradical, but if you want to know about the nilradical you need to work a lot harder).

_________________

Top

 Post subject: Re: Group cohomologyPosted: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 18:08:50 UTC
 Moderator

Joined: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:25:14 UTC
Posts: 12097
Location: Austin, TX
I see, so the real reality is I DO need to do the resolution for the first couple (like for free modules and the basic torsion modules), then once I know it for some projectives/injectives I can setup the same s.e.s.s as usual and do things like the snake lemma or a spectral sequence. So it's just like in topology really, just with more algebra involved for the baseline.

_________________
(\ /)
(O.o)
(> <)
This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination

Top

 Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending
 Page 1 of 1 [ 7 posts ]

 All times are UTC [ DST ]

#### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

 You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
 Jump to:  Select a forum ------------------ High School and College Mathematics    Algebra    Geometry and Trigonometry    Calculus    Matrix Algebra    Differential Equations    Probability and Statistics    Proposed Problems Applications    Physics, Chemistry, Engineering, etc.    Computer Science    Math for Business and Economics Advanced Mathematics    Foundations    Algebra and Number Theory    Analysis and Topology    Applied Mathematics    Other Topics in Advanced Mathematics Other Topics    Administrator Announcements    Comments and Suggestions for S.O.S. Math    Posting Math Formulas with LaTeX    Miscellaneous