Loading web-font TeX/Math/Italic

The Stacks project

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


Comments (3)

Comment #8822 by Connor Bass on

There's a typo at the end of the sentence which begins as "Here is a procedure for decomposing...". It should be "with ", instead of "".

Comment #8823 by Connor Bass on

Another typo, which appears twice: it should be "" for one decomposition of (which appears towards the middle of the proof) instead of "" and it should be "" instead of "" for another (which appears towards the end of the proof).

There are also:

  • 6 comment(s) on Section 14.18: Splitting simplicial objects

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked.

In your comment you can use Markdown and LaTeX style mathematics (enclose it like $\pi$). A preview option is available if you wish to see how it works out (just click on the eye in the toolbar).

Unfortunately JavaScript is disabled in your browser, so the comment preview function will not work.

All contributions are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.