4
$\begingroup$

I am following Ararat Babakhanian's Cohomological Methods in Group theory.

Let $A,B,C$ be $G$ modules then we have a $G$ module structre on $\text{Hom}_{\mathbb{Z}}(B,C)$ with $$\sigma.f(x)=\sigma(f\sigma^{-1}x)$$

$ A\times B\xrightarrow{\cdot } C$ is called a $G$ pairing if $\sigma a\cdot \sigma b=\sigma (a\cdot b)$ for all $\sigma\in G$ and $a\in A, b\in B$.

By Universal property of tensor products, this induces a unique linear map $\Omega : A\otimes B\rightarrow C$ such that $\Omega (a\otimes b)=a\cdot b$.

There is then a homomorphism of cohomology groups $H^{p+q}(G,A\otimes B)\xrightarrow{\Omega^*} H^{p+q}(G,C)$ induced from $\Omega : A\otimes B\rightarrow C$.

We have cup product map $H^p(G,A)\times H^q(G,B)\xrightarrow{\cup} H^{p+q}(G,A\otimes B)$, composing with $\Omega^*$ we have the map $$H^p(G,A)\times H^q(G,B)\rightarrow H^{p+q}(G,C)$$

He then says we have evaluation (Bilinear) map $$\text{Hom}_{\mathbb{Z}}(B,C)\times B\rightarrow C$$

with $(f,b)\mapsto f(b)$. I checked that this is a $G$ pairing.

In this case we should get map

$$H^p(G,\text{Hom}_{\mathbb{Z}}(B,C) )\times H^q(G,B)\rightarrow H^{p+q}(G,C)$$

But then, he writes there is a map

$$H^p(G,\text{Hom}(B,C) )\times H^q(G,B)\rightarrow H^{p+q}(G,C)$$

Where $\text{Hom}(B,C)$ denote all $G$ module homomorphisms..

So, what happened here? Though We can restrict evaluation mp to $\text{Hom}(B,C)$, there is no module strutre on this, so we can not talk about cohomology or anything..

This continued in further material.. Let me know what is the point here.

enter image description here

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ I have not read Babakhanian, so I am only guessing. But could it be that he meant that there is a $G$-map $\mbox{Hom}(B,C) \to \mbox{Hom}_{\mathbb Z}(B,C)$ and this is what induces the pairing? Here $Hom(B,C)$ is considered a $G$-module with the trivial action, and the map is inclusion of fixed points. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 7, 2016 at 12:02
  • $\begingroup$ It can be that.. I am not sure @GregoryArone $\endgroup$
    – user37663
    Commented Sep 7, 2016 at 12:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This just sounds like a typo in the book. (Which can very well get repeated over and over -- authors often write formulas by copypasting.) $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 7, 2016 at 13:21
  • $\begingroup$ @darijgrinberg : I would be happy if that is the case.... How much sure are you about this? $\endgroup$
    – user37663
    Commented Sep 7, 2016 at 18:00
  • $\begingroup$ By definition, ${\rm Hom}(B,C)$ is the submodule of ${\rm Hom}_{\mathbb Z}(B,C)$ on which $G$ acts trivially, so there is a $G$-module structure on it, the trivial one. So your interpretation via restriction does make sense, but a typo still seems more likely. It is actually much more common to write ${\rm Hom}$ for all $\mathbb{Z}$-linear homs, and ${\rm Hom}_G$ for $G$-homs. $\endgroup$
    – Alex B.
    Commented Sep 7, 2016 at 18:27

0