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:
- f_\alpha maps \mathbb{B}^m[Note 1] homeomorphically onto e_\alpha and
- f_\alpha\left(\partial\left(\overline{\mathbb{B}^m}\right)\right) "into"[Note 2] a finite union of open cells, each of dimension (strictly) less than m
- A set A\in\mathcal{P}(X) is closed in (X,\mathcal{ J }) if and only if \forall\alpha\in I[A\cap\overline{e_\alpha}\text{ is closed in }\overline{e_\alpha}]
Hatcher: Algebraic Topology - Appendix
A CW-Complex is constructed as follows:
- Start with X^0, the 0-cells of X
- Inductively, form the n-skeleton, X^n, from X^{n-1} by attaching n-cells, e^n_\alpha via maps, \varphi_\alpha:\mathbb{S}^{n-1}\rightarrow X^{n-1} .
- This means that X^n is the quotient space of X^{n-1}\coprod_\alpha D_\alpha^n under the identifications:
- x\sim \varphi_\alpha(x) for x\in \partial D^n_\alpha
- the cell e^n_\alpha is the homeomorphic image of D^n_\alpha - \partial D^n_\alpha under the quotient map
- This means that X^n is the quotient space of X^{n-1}\coprod_\alpha D_\alpha^n under the identifications:
- X\eq\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N} }X^n with the weak topology.
- A set A\in\mathcal{P}(X) is open if and only if \forall n\in\mathbb{N}[A\cap X^n\text{ is open in }X^n]
Algebraic Topology: An Intuitive Approach
We build an "attaching space" called a (finite) cell complex inductively from the following recipe:
- Ingredients:
- k_0 closed 0-cells, \bar{e}_1^0,\ldots,\bar{e}_{k_0}^0
- k_1 closed 1-cells, \bar{e}_1^1,\ldots,\bar{e}_{k_1}^1
- \vdots
- k_n closed n-cells, \bar{e}_1^n,\ldots,\bar{e}_{k_n}^n
- Construction:
- X^0:\eq\coprod_{i\eq 1}^{k_0}\bar{e}_i^0
- Set X^{(1)}:\eq\coprod_{i\eq 1}^{k_1}\bar{e}_i^1
- Define \partial X^{(1)}:\eq\coprod_{i\eq 1}^{k_1}\partial\bar{e}_i^1 (where we consider each \bar{e}^1_i as a subspace of \mathbb{R}
- We could consider X^{(1)} as a subset of \coprod_{i\eq 1}^{k_1}\mathbb{R} for boundary purposes.
- We must now construct an attaching map: h_1:\partial X^{(1)}\rightarrow X^0 to attach X^{(1)} to X^0
- 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}
- Set X^{(2)}:\eq\coprod_{i\eq 1}^{k_2}\bar{e}_i^2
- Specify an attaching map, h_2:\partial X^{(2)}\rightarrow X^1
- And so on until we obtain X^n, then let X:\eq X^n - this final product is an n-dimensional cell complex.
- For each q\in\{0,\ldots,n\} we call X^q a q-skeleton of X.
- For a cell complex X we get 3 maps:
- For each q-cell, e^q_j we have the canonical inclusion map: i_{q,j}:\bar{e}^q_j\rightarrow X^{(q)}
- The canonical quotient map: \pi:X^{(q)}\rightarrow X^q Caveat:what on earth.... - oh okay, might be canonical injection followed by projection of the quotient
- The inclusion map i:X^q\rightarrow X
- The composition of these maps: \phi^q_j:\eq i\circ\pi\circ i_{q,j}:\bar{e}^q_j\rightarrow X
- Called the characteristic map of the e^q_j cell.
- The restriction of the characteristic map to the boundary, \partial\bar{e}^q_j should agree with the restriction of the attaching map h_q:\partial X^{(q)}\rightarrow X^{q-1} to \partial\bar{e}^q_j
- Called the characteristic map of the e^q_j 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