1

In Singular homology,

Given a $singular\; n-simplex$, $\varphi$, we define the $singular\; (n-1)-simplex$, $\partial_i{\varphi}$,

$$\partial_i{\varphi}(x_0,x_1,\dots,x_{n-1})=\varphi(x_0,x_1,\dots,x_{i-1},0,x_i,\dots,x_{n-1}), i=0,1,\dots n$$

and later on define the boundary operator:

$$\partial:=\partial_0-\partial_1+\cdots+(-1)^n\partial_n$$ Notice that $\partial:S_n(X)\to S_{n-1}(X)$, so, my question is how to compute or calculate or give the sense to "$\partial\varphi_0$" where $\varphi_0$ is a $singular\;0-simplex$, and then give the sense also to a $singular\; 0-chain$ (Lineal combination of $0-chains$). Because, when they compute the $0-th\; group \;of \;homology$ they say that $\partial \varphi_0=0$ for $\varphi_0$ a $singular\; 0-simplex$.

I'm take this from "Czes Kosniowski - A First Course in Algebraic Topology (1980, Cambridge University Press)"

George
  • 620
  • 1
    I think you are not realising when you have a zero simplex. i.e $\phi(x_0)$, out boundary operator will now be the deletion of that zero simplex. This is just a continuation of the idea, each boundary map we are deleting vertices. – ben huni Jan 12 '22 at 15:40
  • 1
    Yes, that is the "sense" of it, but in the definition, how do I "compute" that? – George Jan 12 '22 at 15:43
  • 2
    it will be zero. It is the zero map – ben huni Jan 12 '22 at 15:45
  • 1
    So it is the "zero map", by "definition"? – George Jan 12 '22 at 16:33

1 Answers1

8

Your question comes very close to Definition of zeroth homology. You should read my answer concerning the concept of a chain complex, especially the singular chain complex $S_*(X)$.

You can take it as a convention to define $S_k(X) = 0$ for $k < 0$, and this show that $\partial : S_0(X) \to S_{-1}(X) = 0$ is automatically the trivial homomorphism.

The above convention can be justified by the argument that there are no singular simplices of negative dimension, thus the free abelian groups $S_k(X)$ with $k < 0$ have the empty set as basis, i.e. are $0$.

However, you can also find an argument against the convention $S_{-1}(X) = 0$. In fact, singular $k$-simplices are continuous maps $\Delta^k \to X$ living on the standard (geometric) $k$-simplex. The simplex $\Delta^k$ has $k+1$ vertices and we can argue that $\Delta^{-1}$ is a "simplex with $0$ vertices" which is nothing else than the empty set. Therefore there exists exactly one singular $(-1)$-simplex (which is the unique function $\emptyset \to X$), thus $S_{-1}(X)$ is the free abelian group with the one generator $\emptyset \to X$. Thus $S_{-1}(X) \approx \mathbb Z$. With this interpretation we see that the boundary $\partial \varphi$ of any $0$-simplex $\varphi$ is nothing else than $\emptyset \to X$. Writing $S_{-1}(X) = \mathbb Z$ we therefore get $$\partial : S_0(X) \to \mathbb Z, \partial (\sum_i n_i\varphi_i) = \sum n_i .$$ This map is denoted as the augmentation map. The resulting chain complex is the reduced singular chain complex. Its homology groups are known as the reduced singular homology groups.

Paul Frost
  • 87,968