Alphabeta Math
DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablePipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-13
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

Relative cup product for an excisive triad

Definition

Let A,B be subspaces of X and R a commutative unital ring. Set U=A∪B and N=C∗(A;R)+C∗(B;R)⊂C∗(X;R). Use the relative cochains of Relative singular cochain complex, so C∗(X,A;R) means cochains vanishing on C∗(A;R). For φ∈Cp(X,A;R) and ψ∈Cq(X,B;R), use the front/back formula of Singular cup product on cochains. A simplex wholly in A has its front face in A, and one wholly in B has its back face in B. Thus φ⌣ψ vanishes on N and defines a functional on C∗(X;R)/N.

The Leibniz identity of Cup product Leibniz identity holds in these quotient-functional complexes. Its representative-change primitive also vanishes on N: each of its summands has a first factor vanishing on A and a second vanishing on B. Consequently this construction descends to Hp(X,A;R)⊗RHq(X,B;R)⟶Hp+q(Hom⁡R(C∗(X;R)/N,R)).

Assume now that A,B are open in U (in particular they may be open in X). The relative cup product has target Hp+q(X,U;R), using the following canonical comparison. By Cover-small chains for a two-open cover, N is exactly the small-chain complex of the cover U=A∪B. We need the following stronger data, not merely the abstract chain-homotopy-equivalence assertion of The cover-small inclusion is a chain homotopy equivalence. Let S be barycentric subdivision and let T satisfy 1−S=dT+Td, as supplied by Subdivision is chain homotopic to the identity, Barycentric subdivision operator, and Subdivision prism homotopy. These operators preserve simplex images. For a simplex σ, let a(σ) be the least subdivision count making it small, whose existence follows from Finite chains eventually become cover-small, and recursively set m(σ)=max⁡({a(σ)}∪{m(σδj):0≤j≤dim⁡σ}), with m=0 on vertices. If σ is already small then m(σ)=0. Define Dσ=∑h=0m(σ)−1TShσ and r=1−dD−Dd. The telescoping identity shows that rσ is small: besides Sm(σ)σ, each face correction is a sum of TSh(σδj) with h≥m(σδj) and is therefore small. Thus r:C∗(U;R)→N is a chain map, ri=1, 1−ir=dD+Dd, and D∣N=0. The integral construction extends to R by tensoring, so all these identities remain valid and all operators preserve chains in U.

Here is why this gives the needed relative cohomology comparison, not just an absolute homology comparison. Extend D to a degree-one map E on C∗(X;R) by the same formula on simplices with image in U, and by zero on all other simplex generators. This is an unambiguous linear extension; it need not itself commute with d. Put P=1−dE−Ed. Then P is a chain map, P∣N=1, and P(C∗(U;R))⊂N. It therefore induces Pˉ:C∗(X;R)/C∗(U;R)⟶C∗(X;R)/N. The quotient map q:C∗(X;R)/N→C∗(X;R)/C∗(U;R) is a chain map. Since E preserves both N and C∗(U;R), it descends to each quotient; the identity 1−P=dE+Ed shows that Pˉq and qPˉ are homotopic to the respective identities. Applying Hom⁡R(−,R) preserves these explicit homotopy identities. Hence q∗:H∗(X,U;R)⟶H∗(Hom⁡R(C∗(X;R)/N,R)) is an isomorphism. Define the relative cup product by composing the preceding product with (q∗)−1. This inverse on cohomology is unique; auxiliary choices in an alternative small-chain comparison cannot affect it.

The same definition applies whenever a specified neighborhood or subcomplex replacement has separately proved this quotient-cochain comparison and its compatibility with the pair maps. Such a replacement is an additional hypothesis, not an assertion for every triad. In general a simplex in A∪B can meet both members without lying in either, so vanishing on N alone does not mean vanishing on C∗(A∪B).

If either relative class is zero, its product is zero by the displayed primitive. If A=B=∅, then N=0 and q is the identity, recovering absolute cup. If A=X or B=X, one source group is zero. Empty X, zero coefficients and point spaces satisfy the same formulas. Degree-zero factors evaluate at a vertex; negative-degree groups and their possible primitives are zero. All singular simplices, including degenerate ones, are retained. The small-chain operators use least subdivision counts, and the extension of D is prescribed on simplex generators. No AC is required.

Depends on

Dependency tree · 2 levels

Sources