2
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to understand the proof of Corollary 1.3 part b. in a paper by Bestvina and Mess titled 'The Boundary of negatively curved groups'. I do not understand why $\smash{\check{H}}^{q}(X,A;R)\cong H_{c}^{q}(X-A;R)$. Here $(X, A)$ satisfies the property that $A$ is a $Z$-set in $X$. In particular, I would like to understand why one needs to take Čech cohomology on the left.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The subscript $c$ on the right might refer to compactly supported cohomology, not Čech, I think. This is Alexander duality. $\endgroup$
    – Z. M
    Commented Jan 8 at 13:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Z.M This is not Alexander duality, but just excision. Alexander duality has a degree shift and no appearance of compactly supported cohomology. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 8 at 17:31
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @ConnorMalin You are correct: it is simply excision. But Alexander duality has compactly supported cohomology (if your total space is not compact). $\endgroup$
    – Z. M
    Commented Jan 8 at 20:06
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ TeX note: $\check{H}^q$ \check{H}^q puts the superscript too high. To get TeX to ignore the extra height of the accent, you have to \smash it: $\smash{\check{H}}^q$ \smash{\check{H}}^q. I have edited accordingly. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Jan 13 at 18:25
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The link should be to this paper: ams.org/journals/jams/1991-04-03/S0894-0347-1991-1096169-1/… . $\endgroup$
    – HJRW
    Commented Jan 14 at 8:10

2 Answers 2

4
$\begingroup$

Let $U$ be $X-A$. Then $H^q_c(U)$ is the direct limit, over compact $K\subset U$, of $H^q(U,U-K)$. By excision, $H^q(U,U-K)$ is $H^q(X,X-K)$. The direct limit of $H^q(X,X-K)$ over compact $K\subset U$, i.e. the direct limit of $H^q(X,V)$ over all open neighborhoods $V$ of $A$, is $\smash{\check{H}}^q(X,A)$.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

At the risk of stating the obvious, perhaps it’s also worth addressing the final question, of “why one needs to take Čech cohomology on the left”, with an example.

The typical object of study in the famous Bestvina–Mess paper that the OP cites is a hyperbolic group together with its Gromov boundary. The Gromov boundary is a fractal (all I mean by this is that it needn’t have the homotopy type of a CW complex) and so the Čech and singular cohomologies needn’t coincide.

In the simplest concrete example, the hyperbolic group $G$ is the free group of rank 2, and $A=\partial G$ is the Cantor space. As mentioned in the question, the fact the OP asks about is used to prove Bestvina–Mess’s Corollary 1.3(b), which states (using $\mathbb{Z}$ coefficients, say):

$H^i(G,\mathbb{Z}G)\cong \smash{\check{H}}^{i-1}(\partial G)$.

If we could get away with singular cohomology, then applying this to the example with $i=1$, we would conclude that the singular cohomology of the Cantor space was a countable direct sum $\bigoplus_i \mathbb{Z}$. But this is (very) false: the 0th singular cohomology of the Cantor space is an uncountable direct product of copies of $\mathbb{Z}$.

This is why it is vital to use Čech cohomology when working with the Bestvina–Mess theorem in full generality.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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