1

I have a question regarding the cohomology groups of the Eilenberg-MacLane space $K(\mathbb{Z}_p \times \mathbb{Z}_p,1)$. For $n$ > $2$, is there a way to show that $H^n(K(\mathbb{Z}_p \times \mathbb{Z}_p,1);\mathbb{Z}_p)$ is not equal to $0$ or $\mathbb{Z}_p$? I came across this while attempting problem 4.2.28 of Hatcher's Algebraic Topology.

I have heard that, in general, the cohomology groups of $K(G,1)$ are isomorphic to the group cohomologies $H^*(G,\mathbb{Z})$, but I cannot find a proof of this in the Hatcher book. Is there an easy proof of this?

Najib Idrissi
  • 54,185
Andrew
  • 1,008

2 Answers2

1

An example of a $K(\mathbb{Z}_p, 1)$ is the infinite lens space $S^{\infty}/\mathbb{Z}_p$, so $S^{\infty}/\mathbb{Z}_p\times S^{\infty}/\mathbb{Z}_p$ is an example of a $K(\mathbb{Z}_p\times\mathbb{Z}_p, 1)$. Recall that Eilenberg-MacLane spaces are unique up to homotopy equivalence, so it is enough to calculate the cohomology of $S^{\infty}/\mathbb{Z}_p\times S^{\infty}/\mathbb{Z}_p$.

When $p = 2$, the infinite lens space $S^{\infty}/\mathbb{Z}_p$ is infinite real projective space $\mathbb{RP}^{\infty}$. Exactly as in the $p = 2$ case, $S^{\infty}/\mathbb{Z}_p$ has a simple CW complex structure consisting of a single cell in each dimension (see Example $2.43$ of Hatcher) which gives rise to a chain complex

$$0 \to \mathbb{Z} \xleftarrow{0} \mathbb{Z} \xleftarrow{p} \mathbb{Z} \xleftarrow{0} \mathbb{Z} \xleftarrow{p} \mathbb{Z} \xleftarrow{0} \dots$$

If we use $\mathbb{Z}_p$ coefficients instead of integers, we obtain the chain complex

$$0 \to \mathbb{Z}_p \xleftarrow{0} \mathbb{Z}_p \xleftarrow{0} \mathbb{Z}_p \xleftarrow{0} \mathbb{Z}_p \xleftarrow{0} \mathbb{Z}_p \xleftarrow{0} \dots$$

The corresponding cochain complex (using $\mathbb{Z}_p$ coefficients) is

$$0 \to \mathbb{Z}_p \xrightarrow{0} \mathbb{Z}_p \xrightarrow{0} \mathbb{Z}_p \xrightarrow{0} \mathbb{Z}_p \xrightarrow{0} \mathbb{Z}_p \xrightarrow{0} \dots$$

The homology of this complex is the cohomology of $S^{\infty}/\mathbb{Z}_p$ with $\mathbb{Z}_p$ coefficients, so we see that $H^k(S^{\infty}/\mathbb{Z}_p; \mathbb{Z}_p) \cong \mathbb{Z}_p$ for all $k \geq 0$.

Note that $p$ is prime (not stated in the post, but it is in the book), so $\mathbb{Z}_p$ is a field. As such, the Künneth theorem tells us that

$$H^k(S^{\infty}/\mathbb{Z}_p\times S^{\infty}/\mathbb{Z}_p; \mathbb{Z}_p) \cong \bigoplus_{i+j = k}H^i(S^{\infty}/\mathbb{Z}_p; \mathbb{Z}_p)\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}_p}H^j(S^{\infty}/\mathbb{Z}_p; \mathbb{Z}_p).$$

As $\mathbb{Z}_p\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}_p}\mathbb{Z}_p \cong \mathbb{Z}_p$, we see that

$$H^k(S^{\infty}/\mathbb{Z}_p\times S^{\infty}/\mathbb{Z}_p; \mathbb{Z}_p) \cong \mathbb{Z}_p^{k+1}.$$

In particular, $H^k(S^{\infty}/\mathbb{Z}_p\times S^{\infty}/\mathbb{Z}_p; \mathbb{Z}_p) \neq 0, \mathbb{Z}_p$ for $k > 0$.


Note, the Künneth theorem actually gives an isomorphism of rings

$$H^*(S^{\infty}/\mathbb{Z}_p\times S^{\infty}/\mathbb{Z}_p; \mathbb{Z}_p) \cong H^*(S^{\infty}/\mathbb{Z}_p; \mathbb{Z}_p)\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}_p}H^*(S^{\infty}/\mathbb{Z}_p; \mathbb{Z}_p).$$

1

One definition of group cohomology is that $H^n(G,M)$ (for the ab. group $M$, with trivial $G$-action) is that it is the cohomology of $K(G,1)$ with coefficients in the ab. group $M$.

If you want to regard this as a theorem instead, you have to begin from some other definition of group cohomology. Which one are you starting with?

If $G = G_1\times G_2$, then $K(G,1) = K(G_1,1)\times K(G_2,1)$, and so you can apply Kunneth to compute the cohomology (in terms of the cohomology of $G_1$ and $G_2$ separately).

Added: By the way, I noticed that in the related column on the right, the first link is Why is the cohomology of a $K(G,1)$ group cohomology?. Have you looked at the answers there?

Matt E
  • 123,735
  • Thanks for the response! So the Kunneth formula implies that $H^n(K(\mathbb{Z}_p \times \mathbb{Z}_p, 1); \mathbb{Z}_p)$ is isomorphic to the tensor product of $H^n(K(\mathbb{Z}_p , 1); \mathbb{Z}_p)$ with itself. But unless my algebra is wrong, that means $H^n(K(\mathbb{Z}_p \times \mathbb{Z}_p, 1); \mathbb{Z}_p)$ can still be $0$ or $\mathbb{Z}_p$; namely, if $H^n(K(\mathbb{Z}_p , 1); \mathbb{Z}_p)$ is trivial or is $\mathbb{Z}_p$. I don't see where to go from here, and I'd like to try to finish the proof without appealing to group cohomology. – Andrew Jan 10 '14 at 01:42
  • Also, I took a look at the link you recommended, but it was more of a discussion of the history and motivation of group cohomology than what I was looking for. Thank you for the suggestion, though. – Andrew Jan 10 '14 at 01:46
  • @Andrew: Dear Andrew, Kunneth would say that $H^n$ of the product is the sum over $i+j = n$ of $H^i \otimes H^j$, except that there are also corrections coming from Tor to take into account. Regards, – Matt E Jan 10 '14 at 01:46
  • 1
    Dear Andrew, Regarding the link; one argument mentioned there that might suit you is comparing the construction of $K(G,1)$ by gluing cells with the bar resolution for computing group cohomology. This is one way to see they give the same thing (if your definition of group cohomology is an algebraic one). Regards, – Matt E Jan 10 '14 at 01:48
  • @ Matt: Thanks again! – Andrew Jan 10 '14 at 02:03
  • Thanks for your answers, but I still can't figure this out. According to Hatcher (p. 277), a general Kunneth formula gives $H^n(K(\mathbb{Z}_p \times \mathbb{Z}_p, 1); \mathbb{Z}_p)$ $\approx$ $\oplus_i H^i(K(\mathbb{Z}_p,1);H^{n-i}(K(\mathbb{Z}_p,1);\mathbb{Z}_p))$.

    Since $H_0(K(\mathbb{Z}_p,1)) \approx \mathbb{Z}$ and $H_1(K(\mathbb{Z}_p,1)) \approx \mathbb{Z}_p$, the universal coefficient theorem gives $H^1(K(\mathbb{Z}_p,1)) \approx \mathbb{Z}_p$, but I have no idea how to calculate any higher cohomology groups. Am I going about this the wrong way?

    – Andrew Jan 10 '14 at 20:23
  • Since Hatcher doesn't mention group homology in his book, that leads me to think there is some simple way to prove this (perhaps with the Kunneth formula) without appealing to group cohomology. – Andrew Jan 10 '14 at 21:53