1

I'm reading the Rotman's An introduction to Algebraic Topology, p. 250~251, Theorem 9.19 (Lefschetz) and trying to understand some statement.

Theorem 9.19 (Lefschetz) Let $X$ be a compact polyhedron and let $f:X\to X$ be continuous. If $\lambda(f) \neq 0$ , the $f$ has a fixed point.

Here $\lambda(f)$ is the Lefschetz Number (defined below)

Proof of Theorem 9.19 is as follows :

enter image description here

Here I arrange some definitions and theorems :

Def.1. : If $K$ is a simplicial complex, then $\operatorname{mesh}K := \operatorname{sup}_{s\in K}\{\operatorname{diam}(s)\}$

Def.2. : For a simplicial complex $K$, $\operatorname{Sd}K$ is the barycentric subdivision.

Def.3.(Lefschetz Number) Let $G_0, G_1, \cdots G_m$ be a sequence of f.g. abelian groups and let $h=(h_0, \cdots h_m)$, where $h_i :G_i \to G_i$ is a homomorphism for every i. The Lefschetz number of $h$, denoted by $\lambda(h)$, is $$ \lambda(h) := \Sigma_{i=0}^{m} (-1)^m \operatorname{tr}(h_i)$$.

Example 9.6. Let $K$ be an $m$-dimensional (finite) simplicial complex, and let $f:K \to K$ be a simplicial map. Let $f_{\#}:=(f_{0\#},\cdots , f_{m\#})$, where $f_{i\#} : C_{i}(K) \to C_{i}(K)$ is the $i$th term of the chain map $f_{\#}$. Then

$$ \lambda(f_{\#}) = \Sigma_{i=0}^{m}(-1)^{i}\operatorname{tr}(f_{i\#})$$

Lemma 9.17 means : If $K$ is a finite simplicial complex and $\varphi : \operatorname{Sd}K \to K$ is a simplicial approximation to the identity $|\operatorname{Sd}K| \to |K|$, then $$\varphi_{*} = (\operatorname{Sd}_{*})^{-1} : \tilde{H}_{*}(\operatorname{Sd}K) \cong \tilde{H}_{*}(K)$$

Lemma 9.18 means : Let $C$ be a chain complex of the form $0 \to C_m \to \cdots \to C_0 \to 0$ in which each $C_i$ is f.g., and let $f:C\to C$ be a chain map. Then $$\lambda(f) = \lambda(f_{*})$$ , where $f_{i*} : H_i(C) \to H_i(C)$.

Exercise 7.10 is, "Prove that a simplicial map $\varphi : K \to L$ is a simplicial approximation to $f:|K| \to |L| $ if and only if, whenever $x\in |K|$ and $f(x) \in s^{\circ}$ (where s is a simplex of $L$), then $|\varphi|(x) \in s$".

If needed, I will upload more associtated definitions and theorems.

I can't understand the underlined statement.

Can anyone helps?

Plantation
  • 2,417
  • 1
    It seems that $\mathrm{Sd}p^t$ is a chain map from $C_p(\mathrm{Sd}^{n})$ to $C_p(\mathrm{Sd}^{n+t})$. And since it's a barycentric subdivision, the first half of the underlined sentence holds. For the second half $g# (\rho_i) = |g|(\rho_i) \subset |\sigma|$, I think it follows from Exercise 7.10. (Rotman seems mixed the notation for $|\sigma|$ and $\sigma$) – onRiv Jun 05 '22 at 09:14
  • For the second half, how can we apply the Exercise 7.10? Perhaps..there exists a $i_0$ such that for each $x\in \rho_{i_0} \subseteq |\operatorname{Sd}^{n+t}K| = |K| =X$, $f(x) \in \sigma^{\circ}$ ; i.e., $f(\rho_{i_0}) \subseteq \sigma^{\circ}$? If so, then since $g$ is a simplicial approximation to $f$, by the Exercise 7.10, $|g|(\rho_{i_0}) \subset |\sigma|$. (Am I following well?) And how can we prove that? – Plantation Jun 05 '22 at 11:37
  • And for the first half, it seems that the statement depends on the definition of $Sd^{t}_p$. Uhm..Can you explain more in detail? – Plantation Jun 05 '22 at 11:46
  • I feel that I don't know something.. – Plantation Jun 05 '22 at 12:23
  • The first half seems realted to the "barycentric subdivision operator" $\mathrm{Sd}: C_p(K) \to C_p(\mathrm{Sd}K)$, and a theorem called "The algebraic subdivision theorem" whose proof uses acyclic model. Paul Frost hinted about this on the linked question. Rotman's book does not mention this theorem. Could you try to read Munkres's Elements of Algebraic Topology Section 17 too? Munkres also gives an inductive way to define the operator. – onRiv Jun 05 '22 at 13:24
  • Yes. Thank you. I'will refer to. And, how about the second half? I'm trying to investigate an example when $p=1$, $n=0, t=1$ and $K=[p_0 , p_1, p_2]$ and still stuck. – Plantation Jun 05 '22 at 13:40
  • 1
    By the formula given by Munkres's book, $\mathrm{Sd}(\sigma) = \sigma$ for 0-simplex and $\mathrm{Sd}(\sigma) = <b^{\sigma}, \partial \sigma>$(The notation is switched to Rotman's). Hence $\mathrm{Sd}(<p_0, p_1>) = <b^{[p_0, p_1]}, p_0 - p_1> = <b^{[p_0, p_1]}, p_0> - <b^{[p_0, p_1]}, p_1>$ I think. – onRiv Jun 05 '22 at 13:58
  • For the second half I am still trying to figure out what's its meaning. The notation seems a little sloppy – onRiv Jun 05 '22 at 14:00
  • The second half seems just a statement for $g$ being a simplicial map(It maps simplex in $\mathrm{Sd}^{n+t}~K$ to simplex in $\mathrm{Sd}^{n}~K$. That $g$ being a simplicial approximation is not used in the second half.) – onRiv Jun 05 '22 at 14:25
  • O.K. Consider the above our example. Let $b_2 := b^{[p_0, p_1]}$, as in the Rotman's Example 7.7. Let $ <\sigma > := <p_0,p_1>$. As you commened, $\operatorname{Sd}(<\sigma>) = <b_2,p_0> - <b_2,p_1>$, and $|<b_2,p_0>|, |<b_2,p_1>| \subseteq |\sigma| $. So, $g_{\sharp 1}(\operatorname{Sd}(<\sigma>)) = <g(b_2),g(p_0)>-<g(b_2),g(p_1)> = n_1<p_0, p_1> + n_2<p_1, p_2> + n_3<p_0, p_2>$ for some $n_i \in \mathbb{Z}$, where $n_1 \neq 0$ – Plantation Jun 06 '22 at 07:02
  • Since $g$ is a simplicial map, ${g(b_2), g(p_0) }$ and ${g(b_2),g(p_1)}$ spans a simplex of $K$. So, each are $<\sigma>:=<p_0,p_1>$ or $<p_1,p_2>$ or $<p_0,p_2>$. (true?) If each are not $<\sigma>$, then it contradicts to "$n_1 \neq 0$". So, say, ${g(b_2), g(p_0) }$, satisfies $<g(b_2),g(p_0)> = < \sigma>$ (true?). So, $|g|(<g(b_2),g(p_0)>) = [g(b_2),g(p_0)] = |<\sigma>|$. Here $|g|$ is defined as the proof of the Rotman's Theorem 7.2, and $[g(b_2),g(p_0))]$ is the convex set spanned by ${g(b_2),g(p_0)}$ And the first equaility is by the Rotman's Theorem 2.2. (true?) – Plantation Jun 06 '22 at 07:02
  • Is this argument correct? And (if so,) where we use the condition $|<b_2,p_0>|, |<b_2,p_1>| \subseteq |\sigma| $? ( for our simple case, such a condition is not needed?) – Plantation Jun 06 '22 at 07:03

1 Answers1

1

Maybe we can track the Rotman's proof with some concrete example. Let $X$ be the circle, as a realization of the simplicial complex mentioned in the question Definition of map to barycentric subdivision? and let $f: X \to X$ be the function that rotate it $\frac{4}{5}\pi$ counterclockwise. It's obvious that $\mathrm{tr}f_{0*}=\mathrm{tr}f_{1*}=1$. Let's try to use this to check the proof.

enter image description here

Take the metric $\|\cdot\|$ as the difference between angles. Since $f$ has no fixed points, so that the compactness of $X$ provides $\delta > 0$ with $\|x-f(x)\| \geq \delta$ for all $x \in X$. Here $\delta$ we can choose $\frac{4}{5}\pi$. Let $X=|K|$ for some finite simplicial complex $K$, here $K$ can be chosen as $\{[a, b], [b, c], [a, c], [a], [b], [c]\}$, and choose $n$ so that mesh $\mathrm{Sd}^n K < \frac{1}{2}\delta$. here $n$ is choosen as $1$, since $\frac{1}{3}\pi < \frac{2}{5}\pi$.

enter image description here

Choose $t$ so that there is a simplicial approximation $g: \mathrm{Sd}^{n+t} K \to \mathrm{Sd}^n K$ to $f$. Here $t$ can be chosen as $1$, since $g: \mathrm{Sd}^{2} K \to \mathrm{Sd}^1 K$ defined as shown in the figure. It's easy to check that $f(\mathrm{st} ~v) \subseteq \mathrm{st} ~ g(v)$ holds for all vertices in $\mathrm{Sd}^{2} K$.

g

If $h: \mathrm{Sd}^2 K \to \mathrm{Sd}^1 K$ is a simplicial approximation to the identity $|\mathrm{Sd}^2 K| \to |\mathrm{Sd}^1 K|$, then $|g| \cong f \cong f|h|$ and $|g|_* = f_* |h|_*$. (Here we don't need the explicit formula for $h$). And Lemma 9.17 givs $h_* = (\mathrm{Sd}_*)^{-1}$(We dont need to iterate, siince here t=1). Hence

$$ g_\# \mathrm{Sd}_\#: C_*(\mathrm{Sd}^1 K) \to C_*(\mathrm{Sd}^1 K) $$

is a chain map inducing $f_*$. Hence

$$\lambda(f) = \lambda(g_* \mathrm{Sd}_*) = \lambda(g_\# \mathrm{Sd}_\#) = tr(g_{0\#} \mathrm{Sd}_{0\#}) - tr(g_{1\#} \mathrm{Sd}_{1\#}) $$

Here for this concrete case we have that(the notation in the screenshot changed):

$$ g_{0\#} \mathrm{Sd}_{0\#}: C_0(\mathrm{Sd}^1 K) \to C_0(\mathrm{Sd}^1 K) \\ <p0> \mapsto <p1> \\ <p1> \mapsto <p2> \\ <p2> \mapsto <p0> \\ <q0> \mapsto <q1> \\ <q1> \mapsto <q2> \\ <p3> \mapsto <q0> $$

Show that matrix's diagnal elements are all zero. It's also easy to check for the case $p=1$ too:

$$ g_{1\#} \mathrm{Sd}_{1\#}: C_1(\mathrm{Sd}^1 K) \to C_1(\mathrm{Sd}^1 K) \\ <p0, q0> \mapsto g_{1, \#} (<p0, r0>) + g_{1, \#}(<r0, q0>) = <p1, q1> + <q1, q1> = <p1, q1> $$

So since all elements of both the two matrixs' diagnal are $0$, $tr(g_{0\#} \mathrm{Sd}_{0\#}) = tr(g_{1\#} \mathrm{Sd}_{1\#}) = 0$, hence $\lambda(f) = 0$.

Back to the original proof in the screenshot for the general case, the keypoint of the final paragraph is to show that the diagnal elements in the basis transformation matrix of $g_{p\#} \mathrm{Sd}_{p\#}$ are all zeros. Since the basis of $C_p(\mathrm{Sd}^n K)$ is all the ordered $p$-simplexes. Proof via contracondition, suppose for some $p$, some diagnal elements in the basis transformation matrix of

$$ g_{p\#} \mathrm{Sd}_{p\#}^t: C_p(\mathrm{Sd}^n K) \to C_p(\mathrm{Sd}^n K) $$ is not zero. Then equivalently it means that for some $p$-simplex $\sigma$, $(g_{p\#} \mathrm{Sd}_{p\#}^t)(\sigma) = \cdots + m \cdot \sigma + \cdots$ where integer $m \neq 0 $. Then it follows the underlined sentence: Since $\mathrm{Sd}_p^t$ is just the barycentric subdivision intutively(it can be defined rigorous), for example:

enter image description here

$$ \mathrm{Sd}_2^1(<p_0, p_1, p_2>) = <p_0, p_{01}, p_{012}> + <p_{012}, p_{01}, p_1> + \cdots $$

We can write(here the notation $\mathrm{Sd}_p^t \sigma$ used for two purpose, one is algebraic and the other is geometric)

$$ \mathrm{Sd}_p^t \sigma = \sum_{\rho \in \{p \text{ simplexes in } \mathrm{Sd}_p^t \sigma \}} a_\rho \rho $$ where all $a_\rho$s are non-zero integers and as the underlined sentence said, the $\rho$s are simplexes in $\sigma$. Then it comes the second half part: the proof has assumed that some diagnal elements in the basis transformation matrix of $g_{p\#} \mathrm{Sd}_{p\#}$ is not zero, or equivalently $(g_{p\#} \mathrm{Sd}_{p\#})(\sigma) = \cdots + m \cdot \sigma + \cdots$ where integer $m \neq 0 $. Since $$ \begin{aligned} (g_{p\#} \mathrm{Sd}_{p\#}^t)(\sigma) &= g_{p\#}(\mathrm{Sd}_{p\#}^t(\sigma)) \\ &= g_{p\#}\big(\sum_{\rho \in \{p \text{ simplexes in } \mathrm{Sd}_p^t \sigma \}} a_\rho \rho\big) \\ &= \sum_{\rho \in \{p \text{ simplexes in } \mathrm{Sd}_p^t \sigma \}} a_\rho g_{p\#}(\rho) \end{aligned} $$

Here recall that $g_{p\#}$ is a chain map from $C_p(\mathrm{Sd}^{n+t} K)$ to $C_p(\mathrm{Sd}^{n} K)$. Now then there has to be some $\rho_{i_0}$ such taht $g_{p\#}(\rho_{i_0}) = \sigma$(As Plantation said in the chat, it's weird that the screenshot said $g_{p\#}(\rho_{i_0}) \subset \sigma$, I think it should be $g_{p\#}(\rho_{i_0}) = \sigma$ too.) Otherwise there will be no such part $m \cdot \sigma$ in $(g_{p\#} \mathrm{Sd}_{p\#})(\sigma)$. Then the rest proof follows the same as the screenshot.

onRiv
  • 1,294
  • Yeh~such an unexpected detailed answer. I understand your answer as follows : 1) If "the diagnal elements in the basis transformation matrix of $g_{p \sharp}\operatorname{Sd}^{t}{p \sharp}$ are all zeros." is 'false', then it contradicts to the definition of $\delta$ in the proof of Rotman's book. 2) If "the diagnal elements in the basis transformation matrix of $g{p \sharp}\operatorname{Sd}^{t}_{p \sharp}$ are all zeros." , then it induces $\lambda(f) = 0$, which contradicts to $\lambda(f) \neq 0$. – Plantation Jun 07 '22 at 04:24
  • 1
    @Plantation Yeah, I think it's as you said. The Lefstchez fixed point theorem is equivalent to if $f$ has no fixed point, then $\lambda(f) = 0$. Altough now I think the "subset" notation in the underlined sentence is weird too. It should be the equal notation maybe. – onRiv Jun 07 '22 at 04:37
  • Yes. I will think about the issue somewhat continuosly. Thank you for helpful comment. – Plantation Jun 07 '22 at 04:42
  • Uhm I leave further progress for explaining the appereance of the subset notation. First, note that we may work over the 'abstract' simplical complex. So the notation $|\rho_i| , |\sigma|$ maybe means as the proof of the Rotman's book, Theorem 7.8 (; i.e., there, he defines $|s|$ for a $q$-simplex $s$ in $L$ ($L$ is an abstract simplicial complex)). And the notation $|g|$ may be means more correctly $|u(g)|$, where $u : \mathcal{K}^a \to \mathcal{K}$ is a functor from abstract simplicial complexes to euclidean simplicial complexes defined as in the proof of theorem 7.8. – Plantation Jun 07 '22 at 09:19
  • Second, note that $g_{p, \sharp}(<\rho_{i_0}>) = <\sigma>$ for some $i_0$. (I also agree this point). Let $\rho_{i_0} = {p_0 , \cdots ,p_p}$ and $\sigma = {p'_0 , \cdots , p'_p}$ (We are working over abstract simplicial complexes). Then we get $<g(p_0), \cdots , g(p_p)> = <\sigma> = < p'_0 , \cdots , p'_p>$. – Plantation Jun 07 '22 at 09:20
  • Then by the definition of $C_p(\operatorname{Sd}^nK)$ (Rotman's book, p.143), ${g(p_0), \cdots ,g(p_p)}$ is included in ${p'_0, \cdots , p'_p}$ upto permutation on $\sigma$. (Here, since the repetitions of ${g(p_0), \cdots g(p_p)}$ is allowed, we have an only inclusion). (True?) So, their convex hulls satisfy $|{g(p_0), \cdots , g(p_p)}| \subseteq |\sigma|$. I'm refered to next question I uploaded : https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4466627/question-about-chain-complex-of-oriented-simplical-complex/4466741#4466741. – Plantation Jun 07 '22 at 09:20
  • Third, so, if we can show that $|u(g)|(|\rho_{i_0}|) = |{g(p_0), \cdots , g(p_p)}|$ (this statement seems depends on the definition of $u$ and $| ~~ |$ ), then we get $|u(g)|(|\rho_{i_0}|) \subseteq |\sigma|$. And that statement is true? – Plantation Jun 07 '22 at 09:21
  • This argument is correct? Did I make a mistake? ~ – Plantation Jun 07 '22 at 09:21
  • It seems there is a possibility of existence of mistake. Anyway I upload comment as a trial. – Plantation Jun 07 '22 at 09:43
  • 1
    @Plantation if two vertices is the same, then the ordered simplex seems equaling zero. I think maybe Rotman made a typo in the subset notation – onRiv Jun 07 '22 at 11:37
  • Yes, O.K. Thanks~ – Plantation Jun 07 '22 at 11:56