45
$\begingroup$

It has so happened that I have come this far knowing nothing on the subject of algebraic topology (as in homology theories of topological spaces and their applications). I've decided to finally read up on that during the summer.

Seemingly, however, the authors of most books for beginners are hesitant to make use of nontrivial homological algebra and category theory, which, if I'm not mistaken, could be used to speed up and at the same time clarify the presentation. I, on the other hand, would dare say to be somewhat familiar with these disciplines. (I'm, to different degrees, acquainted with derived functors, spectral sequences, derived categories as well as sheaf cohomology and Lie algebra/group cohomology.)

Thus, what I'm looking for is an introduction to algebraic topology the author of which readily employs the above concepts when appropriate.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
9
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ My view is that it's better at the start to work as concretely as possible so you can see clearly (geometrically) how the algebraic objects really do describe interesting topological properties. At the beginning, the abstract machinery might obscure more than enlighten, even if you're comfortable with the machinery. $\endgroup$
    – Deane Yang
    Commented Jul 8, 2013 at 13:34
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Spanier's? Switzer's? Is Hatcher's too basic for you? $\endgroup$
    – Fernando Muro
    Commented Jul 8, 2013 at 13:56
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I'll write you such a textbook here: ``there's an acyclic resolution of the constant sheaf that some people like; the i-th term in this complex is the sheaf which associates to an open set U the space of functions on the set of maps of an i simplex into U.'' $\endgroup$
    – Vivek Shende
    Commented Jul 8, 2013 at 13:59
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ @vivekshende who on earth are you talking to? $\endgroup$
    – Vidit Nanda
    Commented Jul 8, 2013 at 14:11
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It's not clear to me how a textbook would benefit from bringing in these perspectives. If you have background in sheaves and derived categories, that would perhaps help you digest any of the standard textbooks a little quicker. But I'm not seeing how exposition of basic algebraic topology would be improved using these tools. $\endgroup$
    – Ryan Budney
    Commented Jul 12, 2013 at 1:39

8 Answers 8

Reset to default
29
$\begingroup$

It is somewhat jarring to hear of people who "know nothing about the homology theories of topological spaces and their applications" but are "familiar with homological algebra, category theory, spectral sequences (!!)" and the like. Certainly, this is a historically backwards position to be in, since a lot of these highly abstract theories with which you are familiar were almost entirely motivated by the concrete theory which you now wish to master.

Based on what you have said about your background, you will find Peter May's book "A Concise Course in Algebraic Topology" an appropriate read. Peter does not shy away from using categorical or homological machinery when dealing with this material, but also encourages his reader to become adept at the sort of calculations which yield insight into the nature of the subject. Amazingly, you can get the book freely off his website.

Also, to really hammer in the fact that you are engaging with a living, breathing, highly applicable subject, check out Kaczynski, Mischaikow and Mrozek's "Computational Homology" and Edelsbrunner and Harer's "Computational Topology" to find a breadth of applications of homology to physical and life sciences.

Update: The OP and others in a similar position may also be interested in my own upcoming book. You can find the cover here.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ The link for Peter May's book seems not to work. $\endgroup$
    – Dietrich Burde
    Commented Jul 8, 2013 at 13:45
  • $\begingroup$ I second the recommendation of Edelsbrunner and Harer. Very nice read. $\endgroup$
    – Steve Huntsman
    Commented Jul 8, 2013 at 13:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @danielmoskovich you can start reading May from Chapter 12, completely bypassing the homotopy theory. But of course, you shouldn't! $\endgroup$
    – Vidit Nanda
    Commented Jul 8, 2013 at 14:14
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ Thanks to several people. I've checked the link to Concise and it seems to work fine --- math.uchicago.edu/~may/CONCISE/ConciseRevised.pdf There is a sequel now on line too, More (or less) Concise ---math.uchicago.edu/~may/TEAK/KateBookFinal.pdf $\endgroup$
    – Peter May
    Commented Jul 8, 2013 at 20:54
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I can't seem to find the 'upcoming book' anywhere, and the cover link is broken, so I can't even know what it is supposed to be called. $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts ♦
    Commented Mar 30, 2019 at 0:54
17
$\begingroup$

There's a great book called Lecture Notes in Algebraic Topology by Davis and Kirk which I highly recommend for advanced beginners, especially those who like the categorical viewpoint and homological algebra. I think the treatment in Spanier is a bit outdated. Davis and Kirk is written with an eye towards what you might learn next, e.g. model categories. By the way, there's a pdf of it available for free here.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
11
$\begingroup$

My sense is you haven't read Allen Hatcher's book closely enough. I certainly need to go through it.

Jacob Lurie had nice Geometric Topology course a few years back, if you like that style. Here's an intriguiging sounding course on Chromatic Homotopy Theory

Akhil Matthew took notes on a course by Michael Hopkins.

You may wish to delve into the literature more directly. Have you looked into Twisted K-Theory ?

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
9
$\begingroup$

A recent book is tom Dieck's "Algebraic Topology", which is precisely written and quite comprehensive. But I've only skimmed it, so I'd be interested in more expert opinions.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ But the OP would not like it, since tom Dieck carefully avoids spectral sequences. $\endgroup$
    – Johannes Ebert
    Commented Jul 9, 2013 at 8:07
  • $\begingroup$ This is a nice book, however it requires a lot of struggle to read. I would recommend Spanier instead $\endgroup$
    – user90041
    Commented Nov 6, 2016 at 18:48
  • $\begingroup$ @user90041: I am convinced Spanier requires much more struggle than tom Dieck. In fact, Spanier is dry and tasteless, typical to textbooks of late 1960's. $\endgroup$
    – eltonjohn
    Commented Feb 12, 2017 at 14:57
8
$\begingroup$

I think you're describing Spanier.

Everyone I know who has seriously studied from Spanier swears by it- it's an absolute classic. The approach is exactly as you describe- algebraic topology for grown-ups. The treatment of homological algebra in it is extremely nice, and quite sophisticated.

A second, quite brilliant book along the same lines is Rotman. It's more geometric than Spanier, for those who like such things, and find it easier to read (although that's a matter of taste of course). Again, the treatment is unembarrassed to employ nontrivial homological algebra and category theory, in a good way.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
8
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ From a purely typographical point of view, I find Spanier pretty brutal to read. $\endgroup$
    – Todd Trimble
    Commented Jul 8, 2013 at 15:54
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I read Spanier when I was a graduate student and learned a lot from it, but it is pretty old-fashioned (and has some eccentricities; for instance, the chapter on the fundamental group only discusses Seifert-van Kampen in an exercise, and then only for simplicial complexes). $\endgroup$
    – Andy Putman
    Commented Jul 8, 2013 at 23:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Spanier isn't for everyone; but I think it might be exactly what the OP is looking for. And everyone who I know who took it seriously seems to have gotten a tremendous amount out of it... kind of like Hatshorne or EGA in Alg. Geom. $\endgroup$
    – Daniel Moskovich
    Commented Jul 9, 2013 at 3:54
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @ToddTrimble If copyright were nonexistent, it might be wonderful to re-typeset Spanier. Maybe throw in some comments to highlight aspects where the emphasis has shifted with time. Spanier is worth it! $\endgroup$
    – Daniel Moskovich
    Commented Jul 9, 2013 at 3:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think Rotman is the best introduction to the subject PERIOD. It's rigorous without being too abstract and Rotman was a master teacher. Spanier, to me, is a great example of how NOT to write a textbook-it's just insanely compressed and the author just crams too much into too few pages. $\endgroup$
    – The Mathemagician
    Commented Aug 14, 2019 at 7:00
6
$\begingroup$

My suggestion:

Algebraic Topology: Homotopy and Homology - by Robert M. Switzer

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ There is also an advanced book in homotopy theory which uses concepts you mentioned in your question. Simplicial Homotopy Theory, by P.G. Goerss and J.F. Jardine. $\endgroup$
    – user23860
    Commented Jul 8, 2013 at 19:37
6
$\begingroup$

You might find Jeff Strom's new book attractive. Here is a review.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I really like it! Definitely the sort of book for someone who likes thinking categorically. $\endgroup$
    – ಠ_ಠ
    Commented Sep 6, 2016 at 4:03
6
$\begingroup$

You have many good suggestions already. Another book which you might enjoy is "Cohomology Operations and Applications in Homotopy Theory" by Mosher and Tangora.

This is not really a beginner's book per-se, as it assumes a basic knowledge of ordinary cohomology from the start. However it has a lot to recommend it, including brevity, affordability and concreteness (the focus is on applications of cohomology theory to calculations of the homotopy groups of spheres). It also seems to meet your criteria in that it gets quickly to the deeper applications of homological algebra and spectral sequences in homotopy theory.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .