Let $G_1$ be a finite-index subgroup of $G_2$. Let $i : H^{\ast}(G_2) \rightarrow H^{\ast}(G_1)$ be the induced map of rings. There is then a transfer homomorphism $\tau : H^{\ast}(G_1) \rightarrow H^{\ast}(G_2)$ whose key property is that $\tau(i(x)) = [G_2:G_1] \cdot x$ for all $x \in H^{\ast}(G_2)$. I have two questions.

  1. If $\tau$ a map of rings? In other words, if $x,y \in H^{\ast}(G_1)$, then must we have $\tau(x \cup y) = \tau(x) \cup \tau(y)$? My guess is that the answer is "no".

  2. Assuming that the answer to the first question is "no", does there exist explicit examples of groups $G_1$ and $G_2$ as above and elements $x_1,\ldots,x_k \in H^1(G_1)$ such that $\tau(x_i)=0$ for all $i$ but $\tau(x_1 \cup \cdots \cup x_k) \neq 0$?


What is true is that $\tau$ is a map of modules; that is, $$\tau(i^*(x)\cup y) = x\cup \tau(y)$$ for $x\in H^*(G_2)$ and $y\in H^*(G_1)$.

In particular, the kernel of $\tau$ is a sub-$i^*(H^*(G_2))$-module of $H^*(G_1)$.

For an example, consider $G_1=C_p$ (cyclic group) and $G_2=\Sigma_p$ (symmetric group), where $p$ is an odd prime. The generator $x\in H^2(C_p)$ satisfies $\tau(x)=0$ (since $H^2(\Sigma_p)=0$), but $\tau(x^{p-1})\neq 0$.

Added. As Neil points out, I'm using cohomology with mod $p$ coefficients here.

  • $\begingroup$ But $H^2(\Sigma_3) = \mathbf{Z}/2$ (see Adem-Miglgram: "Cohomology of finite groups", Lemma IV.6.3)! $\endgroup$
    – Ralph
    Mar 11 '11 at 16:28
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Ralph: Charles secretly means to take cohomology everywhere with coefficients in $\Z/p$, and $p$ is secretly an odd prime. $\endgroup$ Mar 11 '11 at 16:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yep, I do mean to use $Z/p$ coefficients. You can lift this counterexample to integral cohomology: the $x\in H^2(C_p,Z/p)$ is the image of $\tilde{x}\in H^2(C_p,Z)$, and its still true that $\tau(\tilde{x})=0$ and $\tau(\tilde{x}^{p-1})\neq0$ in $H^*(\Sigma_p,Z)$. $\endgroup$ Mar 11 '11 at 17:39

Since $i$ is a map of rings, if $\tau$ were a map of rings, then $\tau\circ i$ would also be a map of rings. But the latter maps $1\in H^0(G_2)$ to $[G_2:G_1]$ which, in general, is not $1$.

  • $\begingroup$ Good point! Really, the second question was the one that interested me the most -- I'm a little embarrassed that I didn't see this argument for the first. $\endgroup$
    – Troy A
    Mar 11 '11 at 15:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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