In 2005, prof. Emil Skoldberg developed a theory, similar to Forman's Discrete Morse Theory, but suited for arbitrary based chain complexes, in his [*Morse Theory from an algebraic viewpoint*][1]. I'm going through the paper and am having some difficulties. I'd be most grateful for an answer to my question 2 below.

**Question 1:** On p. 116, in the definition of a *Morse matching*, there is written:

> We call a partial matching $M$ on the digraph $G_K$ a *Morse matching* if
> for each edge $\alpha\to\beta\in M$ the corresponding component $d_{\beta,\alpha}$ is an
> isomorphism, and furthermore, there is a well-founded partial order $\preceq$
> on each $I_n$ such that $\alpha\succ\gamma$ **whenever** there is a path $\alpha^{(n)}\to\beta\to\gamma^{(n)}$ in $G^M_K$.

Is $\preceq$ defined by "exists a path $\alpha^{(n)}\to\beta\to\gamma^{(n)}$ in $G^M_K$", or is that just a necessary condition on $\preceq$? More precisely, the word "whenever" in the above quote, is that meant as $\Leftarrow$ or $\Leftrightarrow$?

**Edit:** Which definition is the right one (are all of them ok?): for $\alpha,\beta\in I_n$, we let:

 1. $\alpha\succeq\beta$ iff there exists a directed path in $G_K^M$ from $\alpha$ to $\beta$;
 2. $\alpha\succeq\beta$ iff there exists a directed path in $G_K^M$ from $\alpha$ to $\beta$ 
    with vertices in $I_{n+1}\cup I_n$;
 3. $\alpha\succeq\beta$ iff there exists a directed path in $G_K^M$ from $\alpha$ to $\beta$ 
    with vertices in $I_n\cup I_{n-1}$;

**Question 2:** In the proof of Theorem 2 on p. 121. How do Lemmas 3 and 4 imply that for $x\in K_\alpha$ with $\alpha \in M_n^0$ there holds the equality $$\rho\pi(x)=x?$$ We have $\rho\pi(x)=\rho(x)-\rho\phi d(x)-\rho d\phi(x)$. Since $x \in C_n$ and $\rho$ is a projection, we have $\rho(x)=x$. By Lemma 3, we have $d\phi(x)= 0$. By Lemma 4, we have $\phi d(x) = \sum_{\beta\preceq\alpha}y_\beta=:(\ast)$ for some $y_\beta \in K_\beta$, but why is $(\ast)=0$ when $\alpha$ is critical?

**Question 3:** In Corollary 3, in the first sum, $\sigma$ ranges through $M^0_{n-1}$, right?

**Question 4:** If I understand correctly, the proof of Theorem 2 shows that if $\pi(K)$ has the induced boundary operator $d|_{\pi(K)}$ and $C$ has the operator $\tilde{d} := \rho(d-d\phi d) = \rho d \pi$, then the maps $\pi: C\longrightarrow \pi(C)=\pi(K)$ and $p: \pi(K)=\pi(C)\longrightarrow C$ are inverse to each other. Furthermore, $\pi\tilde{d} = \pi\rho(d-d\phi d) = d-d\phi d = d(\mathrm{id}-\phi d-d\phi) = d\phi$, so $\pi$ is a chain map. However, $\tilde{d}\rho = \rho(d-d\phi d)\rho = \rho d\rho-\rho d\phi d\rho \overset{???}{=} \rho d$.

**Question 5:** In general, there does not hold $\tilde{d}|_{\pi(K)}=d|_{\pi(K)}$, right?

**Question 6:** In the proof of Corollary 3, by Lemma 5 we have $\tilde{d}(x)$ $=$ $\rho(d-d\phi d)(x)$ $=$ $\rho(\sum_{\alpha\to\beta}d_{\beta\alpha}(x)-d\phi\sum_{\alpha\to\beta}d_{\beta\alpha}(x))$ $=$ $\rho\sum_{\alpha\to\beta}(d_{\beta\alpha}(x)-d\phi d_{\beta\alpha}(x))$ $=$ $\rho\sum_{\alpha\to\beta}(d_{\beta\alpha}(x)-d\sum_{\alpha'\in I_n,\gamma\in\Gamma_{\alpha',\beta}} m(\gamma)d_{\beta\alpha}(x))$. How do I continue to get $\rho\sum_{\sigma\in I_{n-1},\gamma\in\Gamma_{\sigma,\alpha}} m(\gamma)(x)$?

P.S. I might later add additional questions regarding p.116-122.
  [1]: http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~aar/papers/skoldberg.pdf