contents.tex 6.62 KB
Newer Older
Jan-Bernhard Kordaß's avatar
Jan-Bernhard Kordaß committed
1 2 3

\tableofcontents

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144
\chapter{Tosion Invariants}

Torsion invariants fall into a class of so-called ``secondary invariants'' of topological spaces in the sense that they are only defined if a certain class of ``primary invariants'' (e.g. Betti numbers) vanish.
Often they reveal more subtle geometric information.
The following will contain a discussion of Whitehead and Reidemeister torsion.
Informally, corresponding primary invariants are Lefschetz numbers (Whitehead torsion) and the Euler characteristic (Reidemeister torsion).

\section{Review of Euler characteristic and Lefschetz numbers.}

\subsection{CW Complexes}

\begin{dfn*}
  A (finite) \CmMark{CW-complex} is a hausdorff space with a decomposition $E$ into (finitely many) cells (space hemeomorphic to some $\R^n$) such that for every $e \in E$ there is a continuous map $\phi_e \colon D^n \to X$ with $\phi_e \colon \mathring D^n \xrightarrow{\cong} e$ and $\Im(\phi_e|_{S^{n-1}}) \subset \bigcup_{f \in E, \dim f \leq n-1} f$.
\end{dfn*}

\begin{expl*}
  \begin{enumerate}
  \item Simplicial complexes, e.g. triangles, pyramides, etc.
  \item But CW-complexes are more general, the following graph is CW for example:
    \begin{center}
      \begin{tikzpicture}
        \draw (0,0) to[bend left] (2,0);
        \draw (0,0) to[bend right] (2,0);
        \draw (2,0) to (3,0);
      \end{tikzpicture}
    \end{center}
    One can even attach a disc along its boundary to a single 1-cell.
  \end{enumerate}
\end{expl*}

\subsection{Euler characteristic}

\begin{dfn*}
  The Euler class $\chi(X)$ of a finite CW-complex $X$ is defined as $\chi(X) = \sum_{i \geq 0}(-1)^i \#(i\text{-cells of } X) \in \Z$.
\end{dfn*}

\begin{thm*}[Euler-Poincaré]
  \begin{align*}
    \chi(X) = \sum_{i \geq 0} (-1)^i b_i(X),
  \end{align*}
  where $b_i(X) = \rk_{\Z} H_i(X;\Z)$.
\end{thm*}

In particular, $\chi$ is a homotopy invariant.

\begin{proof}[``Proof'']
  $H_i(X;\Z) = H_i(C_{*}^{CW}(X))$, where $C_{*}^{CW}(X)$ is the cellular chain complex
  \begin{align*}
    \cdot \to C_{i+1}^{CW}(X)\xrightarrow{\partial} \underbrace{C_{i}^{CW}(X)}_{\cong \Z^{\# i\text{-cells}}} \xrightarrow{\partial} C_{i-1}^{CW}(X) \to \cdots
  \end{align*}
  Thus $\chi(C_{*}) := \sum_{i \geq 0} (-1)^i\rk_{\Z}(C_{i})$ and $\chi(C^{CW}(X)) = \chi(X)$.
  This boils down to
  \begin{align*}
    \chi(C_{*}) = \sum_{i \geq 0} \rk_{\Z}H_i(C_{*}) ( = \chi(H_{*}(C_{*}))].
  \end{align*}
  This is just additivity of the rank!
  Consider
  \begin{align*}
    C_1 \xrightarrow{\partial} C_0
  \end{align*}
  and note that we have the exact sequences $0 \to \Im \partial \to C_0 \to \underbrace{H_0}_{= C_0/\Im \partial} \to 0$ and $0 \to \underbrace{H_1}_{= \Ker \partial} \to C_1 \xrightarrow{\partial} \Im \partial \to 0$.

  Thus $\chi(C_{*)} = \rk_{\Z} C_0 - \rk_{\Z} C_1 = \rk_{\Z} \Im \partial + \rk_{\Z} H_0 - \rk_{\Z}H_1 - \rk_{\Z} \Im \partial = \rk H_0 - \rk H_1$, which completes the ``proof''.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Review of cellular homology}

Let $X$ be a CW-complex with cellular decomposition $E$.
Then we can consider the \CmMark{n-skeleton}
\begin{align*}
  X^n := \sum_{e \in E, \dim e \leq n} e,
\end{align*}
which yields a filtration $X^0 \subset X^1 \subset \cdots \subset X$ such there is a pushout diagram
\begin{equation*}
  \begin{tikzcd}
    \coprod S^{n-1} \ar{r} \ar[hook]{d} & X^{n-1} \ar[hook]{d} \\
    \coprod D^n \ar{r} & X^n
  \end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
One could take this as an alternative definition of a CW-complex by a filtration with the pushout property.
The cells can be recovered as connected components of $X^n\setminus X^{n-1}$.

We have
\begin{align*}
  C_i^{CW}(X) = H_i(X^i, X^{i+1}) \xleftarrow{\cong} H_i(\coprod D^i, \coprod S^{i-1}) \cong \bigoplus H_i(D^i, S^{i-1}) \cong \bigoplus \Z^{\# i\text{-cells}},
\end{align*}
where the first isomorphism $\leftarrow$ is given by excision.
The boundary maps $C_i^{CW}(X) \xrightarrow{\partial} C_{i-1}^{CW}(X) $ come from
\begin{align*}
  H_i(X^i,X^{i-1}) \to H_{i-1}(X^{i-1}) \to H_{i-1}(X^{i-1},X^{i-2}).
\end{align*}
Under this isomorphism, the matrix entry belonging to $(e,f)$ where $e$ is an $n$-cell, $f$ an $(n-1)$-cell is the \CmMark{degree} of the map.
\begin{align*}
  S^{i-1} \xrightarrow{\phi_e|_{S^{n-1}}} X^{i-1} \xrightarrow{\operatorname{proj}} X^{i-1}/(X^{i-1}\setminus f) \xleftarrow{\phi_f, \cong} D^{i-1}/S^{i-2} \cong S^{i-1}.
\end{align*}

\begin{expl*}
  Consider the torus as an identification square.
  We convince ourselves that the cellular chain complex is given as $\Z \to \Z \oplus \Z \to \Z$, where $1 \mapsto (0, 0)$, since it is described by a map $S^1 \to S^1$ traversing the 2-cell according to orientation has degree $0$.
\end{expl*}


\subsection{Lefschetz number}

Recall that a map $f \colon X \to P$ between CW-complexes is \CmMark{cellular}, if $f(X^i) \subset Y^i$ for all $i$.

\begin{thm*}[Cellular approximation]
  Any map between CW-complexes is homotopic to a cellular map.
\end{thm*}

\begin{dfn*}
  The \CmMark{Lefschetz number} of a self-map $f \colon X \to X$ of a finite CW-complex is defnined as
  \begin{align*}
    \Lambda(f) = \sum_{i \geq 0} (-1)^i\tr C_i^{CW}(f) \in \Z.
  \end{align*}
\end{dfn*}

\begin{rem*}
  $\Lambda(\id_X) = \chi(X)$.
\end{rem*}

The following theorem yields a description of Lefschetz numbers by homology.
\begin{thm*}
  $\Lambda(f) = \sum_{i \geq 0}(-1)^i \tr H_i(f)$.
\end{thm*}
Thus, this number only depends on the homotopy class of $f$.

\begin{proof}
  Similar to the proof of Euler-Poincaré using the additivity of the trace, i.e. in the situation
  \begin{equation}
    \begin{tikzcd}[row sep=small]
      0 \ar{r} & A \ar{r} \ar{d}{a} & B \ar{r} \ar{d}{b} & C \ar{r} \ar{d}{c} & 0\\ 
      0 \ar{r} & A \ar{r} & B \ar{r} & C \ar{r} & 0
    \end{tikzcd}
  \end{equation}
  we have $\tr(b) = \tr(a) + \tr(c)$.
\end{proof}

\begin{thm*}
  If $f$ has no fixed point, then $\Lambda(f) = 0$.
\end{thm*}
Jan-Bernhard Kordaß's avatar
Jan-Bernhard Kordaß committed
145

146 147 148
\begin{rem*}
  The converse is not true (think of counterexamples, e.g. $S^1 \wedge S^1$), although there is one in the case of simply-connected closed manifolds.
\end{rem*}
Jan-Bernhard Kordaß's avatar
Jan-Bernhard Kordaß committed
149

150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157
\begin{proof}
  Let $X$ be metrizable and let $d$ be a metric.
  If $X$ is compact, there exists an $\varepsilon > 0$ with $d(f(x), x) > 3\varepsilon$.
  One can ``refine'' the CW-structure to a new one such that every cell has diameter $< \varepsilon$.
  By cellular approximation we can see that there exists a cellular map $g \colon X \to X$ with $g \simeq f$ and $d(g(x),f(x)) < \varepsilon$.
  Thus $g(\overline e) \cap \overline e = \emptyset$ for every cell $e$.
  Hence, the diagonal matrix entries of each $C_i^{CW}(g)$ are zero and thus $\Lambda(g) = \Lambda(f) = 0$.
\end{proof}
Jan-Bernhard Kordaß's avatar
Jan-Bernhard Kordaß committed
158 159 160 161 162

%%% Local Variables: 
%%% mode: latex
%%% TeX-master: "skript-rtg-lectures-ws1617"
%%% End: