Notes:CW-Complex
Contents
[hide]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 \partial\bar{e}^q_j
- Called the characteristic map of the eqj cell.
Klein bottle example
I will almost certainly loose my paper notes.
- X^0:\eq\{(v,v)\}
- X^{(1)}:\eq\coprod_{i\in\{a,b,c\} }\overline{\mathbb{B}^1}\eq\bigcup_{j\in\{a,b,c\} }\big\{(j,p)\ \vert\ p\in \overline{\mathbb{B}^1}\big\} \eq\{\underbrace{(a,-1),\ldots,(a,1)}_{a},\underbrace{(b,-1),\ldots,(b,1)}_{b},\underbrace{(c,-1),\ldots,(c,1)}_c\}
At this point X^0 "looks like" a point and X^{(1)} "looks like" 3 separate straight lines.
Now we need an attaching map:
- h_1:\partial X^{(1)}\rightarrow X^0
The boundary is with X^{(1)} considered as a subset of \coprod_{i\in\{a,b,c\} }\mathbb{R} , so in this case:
- \partial X^{(1)}\eq\{(a,-1),(a,1),(b,-1),(b,1),(c,-1),(c,1)\}
Of course h_1 maps every point in the boundary to (v,v) - the only vertex there is.
Note that h_1 is continuous, as h_1^{-1}(\emptyset)\eq\emptyset and h_1^{-1}(\{(v,v)\})\eq\partial X^{(1)} (we consider the codomain with the subspace topology, X^0 really can only have the trivial topology as a topology.
Now we can form an adjunction space:
- X^1:\eq\frac{X^0\coprod X^{(1)} }{\langle x\sim h_1(x)\rangle}\eq X^0 \cup_{h_1} X^{(1)}
- It is easy to see that X^0\coprod 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 \overline{\mathbb{B}^2} as a "disk" or a "square", as these are homeomorphic.
- X^{(2)}:\eq A\coprod B which is the set that contains (i,(x,y)) given i\eq A or i\eq B and (x,y)\in\overline{\mathbb{B}^2} .
The attaching map:
- h_2:\partial X^{(2)}\rightarrow X^1 - where we consider \partial X^{(2)} as a subset of \mathbb{R}^2\coprod\mathbb{R}^2, meaning:
- \partial X^{(2)}\eq\left\{(i,(x,y))\ \vert\ i\in\{A,B\}\wedge (x,y)\in\mathbb{S}^1\right\} - \mathbb{S}^1 is a circle centred at the origin of radius 1.
Sphere example
- X^0:\eq\coprod_{i\in \{u,v,w\} }i\eq\{(u,u),(v,v),(w,w)\}
- X^{(1)}:\eq\coprod_{i\in\{a,b,c\} }i\eq\bigcup_{i\in\{a,b,c\} }\left\{(i,p)\ \vert\ p\in\overline{\mathbb{B}^1}\right\}
Now we need an attaching map, h_1:\partial X^{(1)}\rightarrow X^0 that is continuous, where the boundary is considered with X^{(1)}\subseteq\coprod_{i\in\{a,b,c\} }\mathbb{R}
- \partial X^{(1)}\eq\{(a,-1),(a,1),(b,-1),(b,1),(c,-1),(c,1)\}
From the diagram we define:
- h_1:(a,-1)\mapsto (w,w)
- h_1:(a,1)\mapsto (v,v)
- h_1:(b,-1)\mapsto (v,v)
- h_1:(b,1)\mapsto (u,u)
- h_1:(c,-1)\mapsto (v,v)
- h_1:(c,1)\mapsto (v,v)
Considering \partial X^{(1)}\subseteq X^{(1)} as a subspace and X^0 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 \partial X^{(1)} is that set surely. Check this later but looking good.
- Define X^1:\eq X^0\cup_{h_1} X^{(1)}:\eq\frac{X^0\coprod X^{(1)} }{\langle x\sim h_1(x) \rangle}
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
- Jump up ↑ \mathbb{B}^m\eq\text{Int}\left(\overline{\mathbb{B}^m}\right)
- Jump up ↑ 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