12
$\begingroup$

(This is a re-post of 1)

In the paper "On the realizability of singular cohomology groups" by Kan and Whitehead, it is shown that there is no space $X$ and integer $n\geq 1$ such that $H^{n−1}(X)=0$ and $H^n(X)=\mathbb{Q}$ (cohomology with integral coefficients).

At the very end of the article there is a remark where it is stated that, at the time of writing (around 1960, I suppose), it was not known whether $\mathbb{Q}$ could be a (integral) singular cohomology group at all.

My question is: is this still not known?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It follows easily from the universal coefficient theorem that this is equivalent to the existence of a group $A$ such that $\operatorname{Ext}(A,\mathbb{Z})\cong\mathbb{Q}$ (as $\mathbb{Q}$ is indecomposable, and $\operatorname{Hom}(A,\mathbb{Z})\cong\mathbb{Q}$ is impossible). $\endgroup$ Sep 23, 2015 at 17:47

2 Answers 2

15
$\begingroup$

This may depend on your axioms, see

S. Shelah "The consistency of Ext(G,Z)=Q", Israel J. Math. 39 (1981), no. 1-2, 74–82.

There it is shown that it is consistent with the generalised continuum hypothesis that there exists a group $G$ having $Ext(G, \mathbb{Z})=\mathbb{Q}$. Then a Moore space $M(G,n-1)$ has the required property.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ That paper also states without proof that it follows from $V=L$ (and hence is consistent with GCH) that there is no such $G$. $\endgroup$ Sep 23, 2015 at 17:54
2
$\begingroup$

EDIT: If I also did more than 1 second worth of checking homological algebra books, I wouldn't immediately find a desired UCT for homology that involves Ext (instead of Tor). So there's a potential gap here, as Oscar points out in the comment:

This is known (and given be a 1 second google search). The assumption on $H^{n-1}(X)$ can be removed, and it has a cute proof:

Use the UCT for cohomology to see that $H^n$ has an Ext term from $H_{n-1}$, and use UCT for homology to see that $H_{n-1}$ has an Ext term from $H^n$, and then note that $Ext(\prod_\mathbb{Z}\mathbb{Q},\mathbb{Z})$ is uncountable (while $\mathbb{Q}$ is countable).

One Remark on the Realizability of Singular Cohomology Groups

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What is the UCT for homology you (or the author of that paper) are using here? $\endgroup$ Sep 23, 2015 at 16:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Universal Coefficient Theorem? $\endgroup$
    – Qfwfq
    Sep 23, 2015 at 17:00
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ My question wasn't really a question, it was a polite way of saying: the "UCT for homology" which the author of that paper uses is wrong. Apply it to a countably infinite wedge of 2-spheres. $\endgroup$ Sep 23, 2015 at 17:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.