2

Let $C^{\bullet,\bullet}$ be a double complex with differentials $d,e$ both of degree $+1$.. I use the convention that the squares commute. I am mainly thinking of $C^{i,j}=A^i\otimes B^j$ or $C^{i,j}=hom(A^{-i},B^j)$ for cochain complexes $(A^\bullet,d), (B^\bullet,e)$.

Then we can define the sum total complex $$ Tot^\oplus(C)^n=\bigoplus_{i+j=n} C^{i,j} $$ and the product total complex $$ Tot^\Pi(C)^n=\prod_{i+j=n} C^{i,j} $$ It is my understanding that the differentials in both cases would be induced by $d+(-1)^ie$ for a summand / factor $C^{i,n-i}$ of $Tot^?(C)^n$.

(EDIT: I switched up $d$ and $e$ in the convention for the internal hom. What I want is as in the nlab) However this does not agree with the usual convention for the internal hom of chain complexes, which would have us take $e-(-1)^nd$. And if one writes down the condition of the adjunction $Hom(A^\bullet\otimes B^\bullet, C^\bullet)\cong Hom(A^\bullet, hom(B^\bullet,C^\bullet))$ the additional sign appears as clear as day.

Now my questions are:

  1. Are the two ways to define differentials on $hom(A^\bullet, B^\bullet)$ isomorphic?
  2. Given an adjunction of $2$ (or $n$) with left adjoint $F:\mathcal{A}\times\mathcal{B}\to \mathcal{C}$, with right adjoints $G^{1,2}$, how do we define an induced adjunction $$ Ch(F):Ch(\mathcal{A})\times Ch(\mathcal{B})\to Ch(\mathcal{C}) $$
  3. Where can I find such discussions in the literature?

I think the answer to 1 is no, since I tried several canidates but could not find an isomorphism, which is of course not a proof. For 2 I think, one can just generalize the formula $d-(-1)^ne$, but this seems just inelegant to me, and there should be a clearer more formal / category-theoretical way, e.g. through a middle adjoint $$ Tot^\oplus \dashv \;? \dashv Tot^\Pi $$

1 Answers1

2

There's an isomorphism between the two versions of the total complex induced by $\text{id}:C^{i,j}\to C^{i,j}$ when

  • $i\equiv 0\pmod{4}$, or
  • $i\equiv 1\pmod{4}$ and $j$ is odd, or
  • $i\equiv 3\pmod{4}$ and $j$ is even

and by $-\text{id}:C^{i,j}\to C^{i,j}$ otherwise.

[In the original version of the question, the two proposed differentials were $d+(-1)^ie$ and $d-(-1)^ne$ (rather than $d+(-1)^ie$ and $e-(-1)^nd$. For that case, an isomorphism between the two versions of the total complex is induced by $\text{id}:C^{i,j}\to C^{i,j}$ for $j\equiv 0,3\pmod{4}$ and $-\text{id}:C^{i,j}\to C^{i,j}$ for $j\equiv 1,2\pmod{4}$.]

In fact, for any two reasonable sign conventions (by which I mean that some arrows in the double complex are assigned minus signs in such a way that every $1\times 1$ square has an odd number of minus signs on its edges), there will be an isomorphism given by $\pm\text{id}$ on each $C^{i,j}$. To decide whether to use $+\text{id}$ or $-\text{id}$, use $+\text{id}$ on $C^{0,0}$, count how many minus signs are assigned to the arrows on a path in the double complex from $(0,0)$ to $(i,j)$. The parity of the difference between the two numbers obtained from the two sign conventions will be independent of the path. Use $+\text{id}$ if this parity is even, and $-\text{id}$ if it's odd.

  • Let's write $[(X,d),(Y,E)]$ for internal hom with differential $f\mapsto ef - (-1)^n fd$ and $hom((X,d),(Y,E))$ for the internal hom with differential $f\mapsto ef +(-1)^i fd$. In the total complex consider an element $f$ in degree zero, concentrated in $f:X^0\to Y^0$. Then $\partial_{[]}f=(ef,-fd)\in [X^0,Y^1]\times [X^{-1},Y^0]$. Also $f$ maps to $f\in hom(X^0,Y^0)$ which then maps to $(ef,fd)$. However if we use $-id$ for $[X^0,Y^1]\to\hom(X^0,Y^1)$ we get $(-ef,-fd)$. It seems there is still some sign error. – Rene Recktenwald Mar 15 '19 at 10:21
  • @Roundthecorner I think you've swapped $d$ and $e$ between your question and your comment. In the question you have all the signs on the terms involving $e$, but in your comment they're on the terms involving $d$. – Jeremy Rickard Mar 15 '19 at 10:58
  • Ah yes I switched $d$ and $e$, but I just used the wrong letter, I don't think that changed anything of the math, or should the signs be on diferent terms, i.e. in one definition on the term involving $d$ and for the other on the term involving $e$? Can we be more explicit? Do I understand you correctly that you would put the following differentials: $[(X,d),(Y,e)]$ has differentials for $f:X^{-i}\rightarrow Y^j$ $f\mapsto ef - (-1)^n fd$ $hom((X,d),(Y,e))$ has differentials $f:X^{-1}\rightarrow Y^j$ $f\mapsto df +(-1)^i ef$ You claim that those two complexes are isomorphic? – Rene Recktenwald Mar 15 '19 at 12:31
  • 1
    @Roundthecorner The particular isomorphism I give in my answer won't work now that you've changed one of the differentials. But yes, I claim that they're still isomorphic, and when I get a moment I'll adjust the isomorphism in my answer. More generally, any reasonable sign rule (so that around every square in the double complex you put an odd number of minus signs) will give an isomorphic total complex. – Jeremy Rickard Mar 15 '19 at 13:02
  • @Roundthecorner I've adjusted my answer for the new sign convention, and sketched how to do it for a general sign convention. – Jeremy Rickard Mar 15 '19 at 13:58