14.18 Splitting simplicial objects
A subobject N of an object X of the category \mathcal{C} is an object N of \mathcal{C} together with a monomorphism N \to X. Of course we say (by abuse of notation) that the subobjects N, N' are equal if there exists an isomorphism N \to N' compatible with the morphisms to X. The collection of subobjects forms a partially ordered set. (Because of our conventions on categories; not true for category of spaces up to homotopy for example.)
Definition 14.18.1. Let \mathcal{C} be a category which admits finite nonempty coproducts. We say a simplicial object U of \mathcal{C} is split if there exist subobjects N(U_ m) of U_ m, m \geq 0 with the property that
14.18.1.1
\begin{equation} \label{simplicial-equation-splitting} \coprod \nolimits _{\varphi : [n] \to [m]\text{ surjective}} N(U_ m) \longrightarrow U_ n \end{equation}
is an isomorphism for all n \geq 0. If U is an r-truncated simplicial object of \mathcal{C} then we say U is split if there exist subobjects N(U_ m) of U_ m, r \geq m \geq 0 with the property that (14.18.1.1) is an isomorphism for r \geq n \geq 0.
If this is the case, then N(U_0) = U_0. Next, we have U_1 = U_0 \amalg N(U_1). Second we have
U_2 = U_0 \amalg N(U_1) \amalg N(U_1) \amalg N(U_2).
It turns out that in many categories \mathcal{C} every simplicial object is split.
Lemma 14.18.2. Let U be a simplicial set. Then U has a unique splitting with N(U_ m) equal to the set of nondegenerate m-simplices.
Proof.
From the definition it follows immediately, that if there is a splitting then N(U_ m) has to be the set of nondegenerate simplices. Let x \in U_ n. Suppose that there are surjections \varphi : [n] \to [k] and \psi : [n] \to [l] and nondegenerate simplices y \in U_ k, z \in U_ l such that x = U(\varphi )(y) and x = U(\psi )(z). Choose a right inverse \xi : [l] \to [n] of \psi , i.e., \psi \circ \xi = \text{id}_{[l]}. Then z = U(\xi )(x). Hence z = U(\xi )(x) = U(\varphi \circ \xi )(y). Since z is nondegenerate we conclude that \varphi \circ \xi : [l] \to [k] is surjective, and hence l \geq k. Similarly k \geq l. Hence we see that \varphi \circ \xi : [l] \to [k] has to be the identity map for any choice of right inverse \xi of \psi . This easily implies that \psi = \varphi .
\square
Of course it can happen that a map of simplicial sets maps a nondegenerate n-simplex to a degenerate n-simplex. Thus the splitting of Lemma 14.18.2 is not functorial. Here is a case where it is functorial.
Lemma 14.18.3. Let f : U \to V be a morphism of simplicial sets. Suppose that (a) the image of every nondegenerate simplex of U is a nondegenerate simplex of V and (b) the restriction of f to a map from the set of nondegenerate simplices of U to the set of nondegenerate simplices of V is injective. Then f_ n is injective for all n. Same holds with “injective” replaced by “surjective” or “bijective”.
Proof.
Under hypothesis (a) we see that the map f preserves the disjoint union decompositions of the splitting of Lemma 14.18.2, in other words that we get commutative diagrams
\xymatrix{ \coprod \nolimits _{\varphi : [n] \to [m]\text{ surjective}} N(U_ m) \ar[r] \ar[d] & U_ n \ar[d] \\ \coprod \nolimits _{\varphi : [n] \to [m]\text{ surjective}} N(V_ m) \ar[r] & V_ n. }
And then (b) clearly shows that the left vertical arrow is injective (resp. surjective, resp. bijective).
\square
Lemma 14.18.4. Let U be a simplicial set. Let n \geq 0 be an integer. The rule
U'_ m = \bigcup \nolimits _{\varphi : [m] \to [i], \ i\leq n} \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(U(\varphi ))
defines a sub simplicial set U' \subset U with U'_ i = U_ i for i \leq n. Moreover, all m-simplices of U' are degenerate for all m > n.
Proof.
If x \in U_ m and x = U(\varphi )(y) for some y \in U_ i, i \leq n and some \varphi : [m] \to [i] then any image U(\psi )(x) for any \psi : [m'] \to [m] is equal to U(\varphi \circ \psi )(y) and \varphi \circ \psi : [m'] \to [i]. Hence U' is a simplicial set. By construction all simplices in dimension n + 1 and higher are degenerate.
\square
Lemma 14.18.5. Let U be a simplicial abelian group. Then U has a splitting obtained by taking N(U_0) = U_0 and for m \geq 1 taking
N(U_ m) = \bigcap \nolimits _{i = 0}^{m - 1} \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(d^ m_ i).
Moreover, this splitting is functorial on the category of simplicial abelian groups.
Proof.
By induction on n we will show that the choice of N(U_ m) in the lemma guarantees that (14.18.1.1) is an isomorphism for m \leq n. This is clear for n = 0. In the rest of this proof we are going to drop the superscripts from the maps d_ i and s_ i in order to improve readability. We will also repeatedly use the relations from Remark 14.3.3.
First we make a general remark. For 0 \leq i \leq m and z \in U_ m we have d_ i(s_ i(z)) = z. Hence we can write any x \in U_{m + 1} uniquely as x = x' + x'' with d_ i(x') = 0 and x'' \in \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(s_ i) by taking x' = (x - s_ i(d_ i(x))) and x'' = s_ i(d_ i(x)). Moreover, the element z \in U_ m such that x'' = s_ i(z) is unique because s_ i is injective.
Here is a procedure for decomposing any x \in U_{n + 1}. First, write x = x_0 + s_0(z_0) with d_0(x_0) = 0. Next, write x_0 = x_1 + s_1(z_1) with d_1(x_1) = 0. Continue like this to get
\begin{eqnarray*} x & = & x_0 + s_0(z_0), \\ x_0 & = & x_1 + s_1(z_1), \\ x_1 & = & x_2 + s_2(z_2), \\ \ldots & \ldots & \ldots \\ x_{n - 1} & = & x_ n + s_ n(z_ n) \end{eqnarray*}
where d_ i(x_ i) = 0 for all i = n, \ldots , 0. By our general remark above all of the x_ i and z_ i are determined uniquely by x. We claim that x_ i \in \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(d_0) \cap \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(d_1) \cap \ldots \cap \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(d_ i) and z_ i \in \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(d_0) \cap \ldots \cap \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(d_{i - 1}) for i = n, \ldots , 0. Here and in the following an empty intersection of kernels indicates the whole space; i.e., the notation z_0 \in \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(d_0) \cap \ldots \cap \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(d_{i - 1}) when i = 0 means z_0 \in U_ n with no restriction.
We prove this by ascending induction on i. It is clear for i = 0 by construction of x_0 and z_0. Let us prove it for 0 < i \leq n assuming the result for i - 1. First of all we have d_ i(x_ i) = 0 by construction. So pick a j with 0 \leq j < i. We have d_ j(x_{i - 1}) = 0 by induction. Hence
0 = d_ j(x_{i - 1}) = d_ j(x_ i) + d_ j(s_ i(z_ i)) = d_ j(x_ i) + s_{i - 1}(d_ j(z_ i)).
The last equality by the relations of Remark 14.3.3. These relations also imply that d_{i - 1}(d_ j(x_ i)) = d_ j(d_ i(x_ i)) = 0 because d_ i(x_ i)= 0 by construction. Then the uniqueness in the general remark above shows the equality 0 = x' + x'' = d_ j(x_ i) + s_{i - 1}(d_ j(z_ i)) can only hold if both terms are zero. We conclude that d_ j(x_ i) = 0 and by injectivity of s_{i - 1} we also conclude that d_ j(z_ i) = 0. This proves the claim.
The claim implies we can uniquely write
x = s_0(z_0) + s_1(z_1) + \ldots + s_ n(z_ n) + x_ n
with x_ n \in N(U_{n + 1}) and z_ i \in \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(d_0) \cap \ldots \cap \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(d_{i - 1}). We can reformulate this as saying that we have found a direct sum decomposition
U_{n + 1} = N(U_{n + 1}) \oplus \bigoplus \nolimits _{i = 0}^{i = n} s_ i\Big(\mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(d_0) \cap \ldots \cap \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(d_{i - 1})\Big)
with the property that
\mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(d_0) \cap \ldots \cap \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(d_ j) = N(U_{n + 1}) \oplus \bigoplus \nolimits _{i = j + 1}^{i = n} s_ i\Big(\mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(d_ n) \cap \ldots \cap \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(d_{i - 1})\Big)
for j = 0, \ldots , n. The result follows from this statement as follows. Each of the z_ i in the expression for x can be written uniquely as
z_ i = s_ i(z'_{i, i}) + \ldots + s_{n - 1}(z'_{i, n - 1}) + z_{i, 0}
with z_{i, 0} \in N(U_ n) and z'_{i, j} \in \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(d_0) \cap \ldots \cap \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(d_{j - 1}). The first few steps in the decomposition of z_ i are zero because z_ i already is in the kernel of d_0, \ldots , d_ i. This in turn uniquely gives
x = x_ n + s_0(z_{0, 0}) + s_1(z_{1, 0}) + \ldots + s_ n(z_{n, 0}) + \sum \nolimits _{0 \leq i \leq j \leq n - 1} s_ i(s_ j(z'_{i, j})).
Continuing in this fashion we see that we in the end obtain a decomposition of x as a sum of terms of the form
s_{i_1} s_{i_2} \ldots s_{i_ k} (z)
with 0 \leq i_1 \leq i_2 \leq \ldots \leq i_ k \leq n - k + 1 and z \in N(U_{n + 1 - k}). This is exactly the required decomposition, because any surjective map [n + 1] \to [n + 1 - k] can be uniquely expressed in the form
\sigma ^{n - k}_{i_ k} \ldots \sigma ^{n - 1}_{i_2} \sigma ^ n_{i_1}
with 0 \leq i_1 \leq i_2 \leq \ldots \leq i_ k \leq n - k + 1.
\square
Lemma 14.18.6. Let \mathcal{A} be an abelian category. Let U be a simplicial object in \mathcal{A}. Then U has a splitting obtained by taking N(U_0) = U_0 and for m \geq 1 taking
N(U_ m) = \bigcap \nolimits _{i = 0}^{m - 1} \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(d^ m_ i).
Moreover, this splitting is functorial on the category of simplicial objects of \mathcal{A}.
Proof.
For any object A of \mathcal{A} we obtain a simplicial abelian group \mathop{\mathrm{Mor}}\nolimits _\mathcal {A}(A, U). Each of these are canonically split by Lemma 14.18.5. Moreover,
N(\mathop{\mathrm{Mor}}\nolimits _\mathcal {A}(A, U_ m)) = \bigcap \nolimits _{i = 0}^{m - 1} \mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}(d^ m_ i) = \mathop{\mathrm{Mor}}\nolimits _\mathcal {A}(A, N(U_ m)).
Hence we see that the morphism (14.18.1.1) becomes an isomorphism after applying the functor \mathop{\mathrm{Mor}}\nolimits _\mathcal {A}(A, -) for any object of \mathcal{A}. Hence it is an isomorphism by the Yoneda lemma.
\square
Lemma 14.18.7.slogan Let \mathcal{A} be an abelian category. Let f : U \to V be a morphism of simplicial objects of \mathcal{A}. If the induced morphisms N(f)_ i : N(U)_ i \to N(V)_ i are injective for all i, then f_ i is injective for all i. Same holds with “injective” replaced with “surjective”, or “isomorphism”.
Proof.
This is clear from Lemma 14.18.6 and the definition of a splitting.
\square
Lemma 14.18.8. Let \mathcal{A} be an abelian category. Let U be a simplicial object in \mathcal{A}. Let N(U_ m) as in Lemma 14.18.6 above. Then d^ m_ m(N(U_ m)) \subset N(U_{m - 1}).
Proof.
For j = 0, \ldots , m - 2 we have d^{m - 1}_ j d^ m_ m = d^{m - 1}_{m - 1} d^ m_ j by the relations in Remark 14.3.3. The result follows.
\square
Lemma 14.18.9. Let \mathcal{A} be an abelian category. Let U be a simplicial object of \mathcal{A}. Let n \geq 0 be an integer. The rule
U'_ m = \sum \nolimits _{\varphi : [m] \to [i], \ i\leq n} \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(U(\varphi ))
defines a sub simplicial object U' \subset U with U'_ i = U_ i for i \leq n. Moreover, N(U'_ m) = 0 for all m > n.
Proof.
Pick m, i \leq n and some \varphi : [m] \to [i]. The image under U(\psi ) of \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(U(\varphi )) for any \psi : [m'] \to [m] is equal to the image of U(\varphi \circ \psi ) and \varphi \circ \psi : [m'] \to [i]. Hence U' is a simplicial object. Pick m > n. We have to show N(U'_ m) = 0. By definition of N(U_ m) and N(U'_ m) we have N(U'_ m) = U'_ m \cap N(U_ m) (intersection of subobjects). Since U is split by Lemma 14.18.6, it suffices to show that U'_ m is contained in the sum
\sum \nolimits _{\varphi : [m] \to [m']\text{ surjective}, \ m' < m} \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(U(\varphi )|_{N(U_{m'})}).
By the splitting each U_{m'} is the sum of images of N(U_{m''}) via U(\psi ) for surjective maps \psi : [m'] \to [m'']. Hence the displayed sum above is the same as
\sum \nolimits _{\varphi : [m] \to [m']\text{ surjective}, \ m' < m} \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(U(\varphi )).
Clearly U'_ m is contained in this by the simple fact that any \varphi : [m] \to [i], i \leq n occurring in the definition of U'_ m may be factored as [m] \to [m'] \to [i] with [m] \to [m'] surjective and m' < m as in the last displayed sum above.
\square
Comments (6)
Comment #1851 by xai on
Comment #1890 by Johan on
Comment #2643 by Sebastian Ørsted on
Comment #2663 by Johan on
Comment #7070 by Gleb on
Comment #7249 by Johan on