Relative homology of a retract: Help to understand a proof.












3












$begingroup$


I need some help to understand the proof of the following theorem:



Theorem If $Asubset X$ is a retract of $X$ then, $$H_n(X)simeq H_n(A)oplus H_n(X, A),$$ all $ngeq 0$.



Proof. Let $r:Xlongrightarrow A$ be a retraction. Since $rcirc imath=id_A$ it follows $r_*circ imath_*=id_{H_n(A)}$ hence $imath_*$ is injective. Consider the exact homology sequence of the pair $(X, A)$: $$ldotslongrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X, A)stackrel{partial}{longrightarrow}H_{n-1}(A)longrightarrowldots$$ Since $imath_*$ is injective we find $textrm{ker}(imath_*)=0=textrm{im}(partial)$. But this says $jmath_*:H_n(X)longrightarrow H_n(X, A)$ is onto for all $ngeq 0$. In other words, for all $ngeq 0$, we have a short exact sequence $$0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0,$$ which splits. Therefore, for all $ngeq 0$, $H_n(X)simeq H_n(A)oplus H_n(X, A)$.



Question: Where did the $0's$ in $0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0$ come from?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    They came from injectivity and surjectivity.
    $endgroup$
    – Moishe Cohen
    May 4 '14 at 0:32










  • $begingroup$
    can you explain this fact more generally?
    $endgroup$
    – PtF
    May 4 '14 at 0:50






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    math.stackexchange.com/questions/101570/…
    $endgroup$
    – Thomas Rot
    May 4 '14 at 0:54
















3












$begingroup$


I need some help to understand the proof of the following theorem:



Theorem If $Asubset X$ is a retract of $X$ then, $$H_n(X)simeq H_n(A)oplus H_n(X, A),$$ all $ngeq 0$.



Proof. Let $r:Xlongrightarrow A$ be a retraction. Since $rcirc imath=id_A$ it follows $r_*circ imath_*=id_{H_n(A)}$ hence $imath_*$ is injective. Consider the exact homology sequence of the pair $(X, A)$: $$ldotslongrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X, A)stackrel{partial}{longrightarrow}H_{n-1}(A)longrightarrowldots$$ Since $imath_*$ is injective we find $textrm{ker}(imath_*)=0=textrm{im}(partial)$. But this says $jmath_*:H_n(X)longrightarrow H_n(X, A)$ is onto for all $ngeq 0$. In other words, for all $ngeq 0$, we have a short exact sequence $$0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0,$$ which splits. Therefore, for all $ngeq 0$, $H_n(X)simeq H_n(A)oplus H_n(X, A)$.



Question: Where did the $0's$ in $0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0$ come from?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    They came from injectivity and surjectivity.
    $endgroup$
    – Moishe Cohen
    May 4 '14 at 0:32










  • $begingroup$
    can you explain this fact more generally?
    $endgroup$
    – PtF
    May 4 '14 at 0:50






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    math.stackexchange.com/questions/101570/…
    $endgroup$
    – Thomas Rot
    May 4 '14 at 0:54














3












3








3


2



$begingroup$


I need some help to understand the proof of the following theorem:



Theorem If $Asubset X$ is a retract of $X$ then, $$H_n(X)simeq H_n(A)oplus H_n(X, A),$$ all $ngeq 0$.



Proof. Let $r:Xlongrightarrow A$ be a retraction. Since $rcirc imath=id_A$ it follows $r_*circ imath_*=id_{H_n(A)}$ hence $imath_*$ is injective. Consider the exact homology sequence of the pair $(X, A)$: $$ldotslongrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X, A)stackrel{partial}{longrightarrow}H_{n-1}(A)longrightarrowldots$$ Since $imath_*$ is injective we find $textrm{ker}(imath_*)=0=textrm{im}(partial)$. But this says $jmath_*:H_n(X)longrightarrow H_n(X, A)$ is onto for all $ngeq 0$. In other words, for all $ngeq 0$, we have a short exact sequence $$0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0,$$ which splits. Therefore, for all $ngeq 0$, $H_n(X)simeq H_n(A)oplus H_n(X, A)$.



Question: Where did the $0's$ in $0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0$ come from?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I need some help to understand the proof of the following theorem:



Theorem If $Asubset X$ is a retract of $X$ then, $$H_n(X)simeq H_n(A)oplus H_n(X, A),$$ all $ngeq 0$.



Proof. Let $r:Xlongrightarrow A$ be a retraction. Since $rcirc imath=id_A$ it follows $r_*circ imath_*=id_{H_n(A)}$ hence $imath_*$ is injective. Consider the exact homology sequence of the pair $(X, A)$: $$ldotslongrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X, A)stackrel{partial}{longrightarrow}H_{n-1}(A)longrightarrowldots$$ Since $imath_*$ is injective we find $textrm{ker}(imath_*)=0=textrm{im}(partial)$. But this says $jmath_*:H_n(X)longrightarrow H_n(X, A)$ is onto for all $ngeq 0$. In other words, for all $ngeq 0$, we have a short exact sequence $$0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0,$$ which splits. Therefore, for all $ngeq 0$, $H_n(X)simeq H_n(A)oplus H_n(X, A)$.



Question: Where did the $0's$ in $0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0$ come from?







algebraic-topology homology-cohomology






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited May 4 '14 at 0:27







PtF

















asked May 3 '14 at 23:59









PtFPtF

3,94921733




3,94921733








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    They came from injectivity and surjectivity.
    $endgroup$
    – Moishe Cohen
    May 4 '14 at 0:32










  • $begingroup$
    can you explain this fact more generally?
    $endgroup$
    – PtF
    May 4 '14 at 0:50






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    math.stackexchange.com/questions/101570/…
    $endgroup$
    – Thomas Rot
    May 4 '14 at 0:54














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    They came from injectivity and surjectivity.
    $endgroup$
    – Moishe Cohen
    May 4 '14 at 0:32










  • $begingroup$
    can you explain this fact more generally?
    $endgroup$
    – PtF
    May 4 '14 at 0:50






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    math.stackexchange.com/questions/101570/…
    $endgroup$
    – Thomas Rot
    May 4 '14 at 0:54








1




1




$begingroup$
They came from injectivity and surjectivity.
$endgroup$
– Moishe Cohen
May 4 '14 at 0:32




$begingroup$
They came from injectivity and surjectivity.
$endgroup$
– Moishe Cohen
May 4 '14 at 0:32












$begingroup$
can you explain this fact more generally?
$endgroup$
– PtF
May 4 '14 at 0:50




$begingroup$
can you explain this fact more generally?
$endgroup$
– PtF
May 4 '14 at 0:50




1




1




$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/101570/…
$endgroup$
– Thomas Rot
May 4 '14 at 0:54




$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/101570/…
$endgroup$
– Thomas Rot
May 4 '14 at 0:54










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

We have ${rm im}(partial)=0$, so $partial=0$ as map $H_n(X,A)to H_{n-1}(A)$, so it factors through the zero object: $H_n(X,A)to 0to H_{n-1}(A)$. Extending the long exact sequence with these $0$'s will keep the exactness.



Anyway, injectivity of a map $f$ is equivalent to $ker f=0$, i.e. $0to A overset{f}to B$ is exact, and dually, surjectivity is equivalent to $Ato Bto 0$ being exact.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Your second observation was the key. I was trying to deduce the short exact sequence from the long one but what happens is that I'm considering a new sequence $0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0$ which is exact because $imath_*$ is injective and $jmath_*$ is surjective..
    $endgroup$
    – PtF
    May 4 '14 at 1:03





















1












$begingroup$

The reason why one can obtain a short exact sequence $0 to H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) to 0$ in the proof is expressed generally by the result below




Result: Consider an exact sequence of abelian groups $$dots to C_{n+1} to A_n xrightarrow{i_n} B_n xrightarrow{p_n} C_n to A_{n-1} xrightarrow{i_{n-1}} B_{n-1} xrightarrow{p_{n-1}} C_{n-1} to dots$$ in which every third map $i_n$ is injective. Then the sequence $$0 to A_n xrightarrow{i_n} B_n xrightarrow{p_n} C_n to 0$$ is exact for all $n$




Now in the proof supplied in the question, we have the following long exact sequence (of abelian groups)



$$dots H_{n+1}(X, A) xrightarrow{partial} H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) xrightarrow{partial} H_{n-1}(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_{n-1}(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_{n-1}(X, A) todots$$



and every third map $i_*$ is injective, so by the result above we obtain a short exact sequence $0 to H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) to 0$ as desired.





This result quoted above is Exercise 5.14 (i) in Introduction to Algebriac Topology by J. Rotman. It is not too difficult to prove this result.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f780239%2frelative-homology-of-a-retract-help-to-understand-a-proof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    2












    $begingroup$

    We have ${rm im}(partial)=0$, so $partial=0$ as map $H_n(X,A)to H_{n-1}(A)$, so it factors through the zero object: $H_n(X,A)to 0to H_{n-1}(A)$. Extending the long exact sequence with these $0$'s will keep the exactness.



    Anyway, injectivity of a map $f$ is equivalent to $ker f=0$, i.e. $0to A overset{f}to B$ is exact, and dually, surjectivity is equivalent to $Ato Bto 0$ being exact.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Your second observation was the key. I was trying to deduce the short exact sequence from the long one but what happens is that I'm considering a new sequence $0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0$ which is exact because $imath_*$ is injective and $jmath_*$ is surjective..
      $endgroup$
      – PtF
      May 4 '14 at 1:03


















    2












    $begingroup$

    We have ${rm im}(partial)=0$, so $partial=0$ as map $H_n(X,A)to H_{n-1}(A)$, so it factors through the zero object: $H_n(X,A)to 0to H_{n-1}(A)$. Extending the long exact sequence with these $0$'s will keep the exactness.



    Anyway, injectivity of a map $f$ is equivalent to $ker f=0$, i.e. $0to A overset{f}to B$ is exact, and dually, surjectivity is equivalent to $Ato Bto 0$ being exact.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Your second observation was the key. I was trying to deduce the short exact sequence from the long one but what happens is that I'm considering a new sequence $0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0$ which is exact because $imath_*$ is injective and $jmath_*$ is surjective..
      $endgroup$
      – PtF
      May 4 '14 at 1:03
















    2












    2








    2





    $begingroup$

    We have ${rm im}(partial)=0$, so $partial=0$ as map $H_n(X,A)to H_{n-1}(A)$, so it factors through the zero object: $H_n(X,A)to 0to H_{n-1}(A)$. Extending the long exact sequence with these $0$'s will keep the exactness.



    Anyway, injectivity of a map $f$ is equivalent to $ker f=0$, i.e. $0to A overset{f}to B$ is exact, and dually, surjectivity is equivalent to $Ato Bto 0$ being exact.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    We have ${rm im}(partial)=0$, so $partial=0$ as map $H_n(X,A)to H_{n-1}(A)$, so it factors through the zero object: $H_n(X,A)to 0to H_{n-1}(A)$. Extending the long exact sequence with these $0$'s will keep the exactness.



    Anyway, injectivity of a map $f$ is equivalent to $ker f=0$, i.e. $0to A overset{f}to B$ is exact, and dually, surjectivity is equivalent to $Ato Bto 0$ being exact.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered May 4 '14 at 0:56









    BerciBerci

    60.2k23672




    60.2k23672












    • $begingroup$
      Your second observation was the key. I was trying to deduce the short exact sequence from the long one but what happens is that I'm considering a new sequence $0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0$ which is exact because $imath_*$ is injective and $jmath_*$ is surjective..
      $endgroup$
      – PtF
      May 4 '14 at 1:03




















    • $begingroup$
      Your second observation was the key. I was trying to deduce the short exact sequence from the long one but what happens is that I'm considering a new sequence $0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0$ which is exact because $imath_*$ is injective and $jmath_*$ is surjective..
      $endgroup$
      – PtF
      May 4 '14 at 1:03


















    $begingroup$
    Your second observation was the key. I was trying to deduce the short exact sequence from the long one but what happens is that I'm considering a new sequence $0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0$ which is exact because $imath_*$ is injective and $jmath_*$ is surjective..
    $endgroup$
    – PtF
    May 4 '14 at 1:03






    $begingroup$
    Your second observation was the key. I was trying to deduce the short exact sequence from the long one but what happens is that I'm considering a new sequence $0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0$ which is exact because $imath_*$ is injective and $jmath_*$ is surjective..
    $endgroup$
    – PtF
    May 4 '14 at 1:03













    1












    $begingroup$

    The reason why one can obtain a short exact sequence $0 to H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) to 0$ in the proof is expressed generally by the result below




    Result: Consider an exact sequence of abelian groups $$dots to C_{n+1} to A_n xrightarrow{i_n} B_n xrightarrow{p_n} C_n to A_{n-1} xrightarrow{i_{n-1}} B_{n-1} xrightarrow{p_{n-1}} C_{n-1} to dots$$ in which every third map $i_n$ is injective. Then the sequence $$0 to A_n xrightarrow{i_n} B_n xrightarrow{p_n} C_n to 0$$ is exact for all $n$




    Now in the proof supplied in the question, we have the following long exact sequence (of abelian groups)



    $$dots H_{n+1}(X, A) xrightarrow{partial} H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) xrightarrow{partial} H_{n-1}(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_{n-1}(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_{n-1}(X, A) todots$$



    and every third map $i_*$ is injective, so by the result above we obtain a short exact sequence $0 to H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) to 0$ as desired.





    This result quoted above is Exercise 5.14 (i) in Introduction to Algebriac Topology by J. Rotman. It is not too difficult to prove this result.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      1












      $begingroup$

      The reason why one can obtain a short exact sequence $0 to H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) to 0$ in the proof is expressed generally by the result below




      Result: Consider an exact sequence of abelian groups $$dots to C_{n+1} to A_n xrightarrow{i_n} B_n xrightarrow{p_n} C_n to A_{n-1} xrightarrow{i_{n-1}} B_{n-1} xrightarrow{p_{n-1}} C_{n-1} to dots$$ in which every third map $i_n$ is injective. Then the sequence $$0 to A_n xrightarrow{i_n} B_n xrightarrow{p_n} C_n to 0$$ is exact for all $n$




      Now in the proof supplied in the question, we have the following long exact sequence (of abelian groups)



      $$dots H_{n+1}(X, A) xrightarrow{partial} H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) xrightarrow{partial} H_{n-1}(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_{n-1}(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_{n-1}(X, A) todots$$



      and every third map $i_*$ is injective, so by the result above we obtain a short exact sequence $0 to H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) to 0$ as desired.





      This result quoted above is Exercise 5.14 (i) in Introduction to Algebriac Topology by J. Rotman. It is not too difficult to prove this result.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        The reason why one can obtain a short exact sequence $0 to H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) to 0$ in the proof is expressed generally by the result below




        Result: Consider an exact sequence of abelian groups $$dots to C_{n+1} to A_n xrightarrow{i_n} B_n xrightarrow{p_n} C_n to A_{n-1} xrightarrow{i_{n-1}} B_{n-1} xrightarrow{p_{n-1}} C_{n-1} to dots$$ in which every third map $i_n$ is injective. Then the sequence $$0 to A_n xrightarrow{i_n} B_n xrightarrow{p_n} C_n to 0$$ is exact for all $n$




        Now in the proof supplied in the question, we have the following long exact sequence (of abelian groups)



        $$dots H_{n+1}(X, A) xrightarrow{partial} H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) xrightarrow{partial} H_{n-1}(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_{n-1}(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_{n-1}(X, A) todots$$



        and every third map $i_*$ is injective, so by the result above we obtain a short exact sequence $0 to H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) to 0$ as desired.





        This result quoted above is Exercise 5.14 (i) in Introduction to Algebriac Topology by J. Rotman. It is not too difficult to prove this result.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        The reason why one can obtain a short exact sequence $0 to H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) to 0$ in the proof is expressed generally by the result below




        Result: Consider an exact sequence of abelian groups $$dots to C_{n+1} to A_n xrightarrow{i_n} B_n xrightarrow{p_n} C_n to A_{n-1} xrightarrow{i_{n-1}} B_{n-1} xrightarrow{p_{n-1}} C_{n-1} to dots$$ in which every third map $i_n$ is injective. Then the sequence $$0 to A_n xrightarrow{i_n} B_n xrightarrow{p_n} C_n to 0$$ is exact for all $n$




        Now in the proof supplied in the question, we have the following long exact sequence (of abelian groups)



        $$dots H_{n+1}(X, A) xrightarrow{partial} H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) xrightarrow{partial} H_{n-1}(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_{n-1}(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_{n-1}(X, A) todots$$



        and every third map $i_*$ is injective, so by the result above we obtain a short exact sequence $0 to H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) to 0$ as desired.





        This result quoted above is Exercise 5.14 (i) in Introduction to Algebriac Topology by J. Rotman. It is not too difficult to prove this result.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Dec 8 '18 at 13:24









        PerturbativePerturbative

        4,21611551




        4,21611551






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f780239%2frelative-homology-of-a-retract-help-to-understand-a-proof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            To store a contact into the json file from server.js file using a class in NodeJS

            Redirect URL with Chrome Remote Debugging Android Devices

            Dieringhausen