On invariant (co)homology of a group (Q2661712): Difference between revisions

From the Introduction: ``In [J. Algebra 298, No. 1, 15--33 (2006; Zbl 1107.20041)], \textit{K. P. Knudson} defined homology and cohomology groups for a group \(G\) with an action of another group \(Q\) by group automorphisms and computed homology groups for some \(\mathbb{Z}/2\) actions on cyclic groups. Later, in [\textit{R. Jimenez} et al., Mosc. Math. J. 18, No. 1, 149--162 (2018; Zbl 1422.55007)] a formula was given for the first homology group in terms of the action and a spectral sequence was constructed to compute homology in some cases. It is natural to ask in this context about the relation of Knudson groups with classical constructions and results on (co)homology of groups. In this paper, we will do the following: \begin{itemize} \item relate Knudson homology groups with the homology of the semidirect product \(G\rtimes Q\) as an application of the Hochschild-Serre spectral sequence. This generalizes the spectral sequence in [Jimenez et al., loc. cit.]; \item give an interpretation of the first homology group as a so called weighed abelianization, a suitable group made up by orbits of the action. The relation with classic group constructions is also addressed. And \item define new cohomology groups and study the notion of invariant group extensions related to them. \end{itemize} The cohomology groups defined coincide with those of Knudson in some very special cases. Some properties of the new groups are studied. The corresponding homology groups do not coincide in general with those of Knudson.'' The first section of the paper is entitled ``Knudson groups, invariant resolutions and semidirect product''. If \(G\) is a \(Q\)-group and \(A\) is an abelian group with trivial \(G\)- and \(Q\)-actions, by \(C_\ast(G,A)\) is denoted the complex \(C_\ast(G)\otimes A\), where \(C_\ast(G)\) is the bar complex. In this case, there is an induced action of \(Q\) on the complex \(C_\ast(G,A)\) given by \(q([q_1]\cdots [g_n]\otimes a)=[qg_1]\cdots [qg_n]\otimes a\). Then, according to [Jimenez et al., loc. cit.] are defined the homology and cohomology groups of invariant group chains as \(H_\ast^Q(G,A)=H_\ast(C(G,A)^Q), H^\ast_Q(G,A)=H^\ast(Hom(C(G)^Q,A))\). Since the differential of the chain complex \(C_\ast(G,A)\) is \(Q\)-equivariant, there is a well defined action of \(Q\) on the homology groups \(H_\ast(G,A)\). The aim of this section is to prove the following \textbf{Theorem 2}. Let \(Q\) be a finite group. Let \(G\) be a \(Q\)-group and let \(A\) be an abelian group with trivial \(G\)- and \(Q\)-actions. If \(|Q|\) is invertible in \(A\), then \(H^Q_q(G,A)\cong H_q(G\rtimes Q,A)\). Here, if \(A\) is an abelian group and \(n\in \mathbb Z\), then \(n\) is called \emph{invertible} in \(A\) if the group homomorphism \(\psi:A\rightarrow A\), given by \(\psi(a)=na\), is an isomorphism. Theorem 2 is an answer to the first question posed by the authors. As an example of the application of Theorem 2, the authors compute the groups \(H^Q_\ast(G,A)\), for \(Q=\mathbb{Z}/2=\langle t\rangle\), \(G=\mathbb{Z}/n\) and \(A=\mathbb{Z}/m\), with \(m\) odd, \(n\geq 2\geq, t(g)=g^{-1}, g\in G\) and the action of \(G\) and \(G\) on \(A\) is trivial. In these conditions \(G\rtimes_\varphi Q=D_{2n}\), the dihedral group. Then the authors remark, by an example, that, in general, homology of invariant group chains does not agree with the group homology of the semidirect product. Theorem 2 is a special case. The second question is entitled ``The first homology group of invariant group chains''. In this section the authors discuss the relations between Knudson first homology groups and two types of abelianization, the first one (``orbit group'') is an adhoc construction made to coincide with this group, and the second is ``a natural construction given in terms of the semidirect product of groups and suitable commutants''. The orbit group. For an action of \(Q\) on \(G\), a new set of orbits is defined. For an element \(g\in G\), its \(Q\)-\textit{ordered orbit} is \((q(g))_{q\in Q}\). These orbits form a set \(\mathcal{O}(G,Q)\subset \Pi_{q\in Q}(G)_q\) and this set has a natural group structure. Then, the \textit{weighted orbit abelianization} \(\mathcal{O}(G,Q)_{wab}\) of the action of a finite group \(Q\) on a group \(G\) is the \(Q\)-orbits \(\sum_{q\in Q}q(g),g\in G\), such that the map \(\mathcal{O}(G,Q)\rightarrow \mathcal{O}(G,Q)_{wab}; (q(g))_{q\in Q}\mapsto \sum_{q\in Q}q(g)\) is a group homomorphism. \textbf{Theorem 4}. Let \(Q\) be a finite group, \(G\) be a group and \(Q\times G\rightarrow G\) be an action of \(Q\) on \(G\) by group automorphisms. Denote by \(H_1^Q(G,\mathbb{Z})\) the first homology group of \(Q\)-invariant chains on the group \(G\) (see [Jimenez et al., loc. cit.]). Then, there is an isomorphism \(H_1^Q(G,\mathbb{Z})\cong \mathcal{O}(G,Q)_{wab}\). The \textit{orbit group} of the action of the group \(Q\) on \(G\), denoted \(G//Q\), is the image of \(G\) in \((G\rtimes Q)/[G,Q]^{G\rtimes Q}\) under the composition \(G\hookrightarrow G\rtimes Q\rightarrow (G\rtimes Q)/[G,Q]^{G\rtimes Q}\). This group has the following universal property: if \(\varphi:G\rightarrow H\) is a group homomorphism such that \(\varphi(q(g))=\varphi(g)\), \(\forall q\in Q,g\in G\), then there is a unique homomorphism \(\psi:G//Q\rightarrow H\) such that \(\phi=\psi\circ p\), with \(p:G\rightarrow G//Q\) the above composition onto its image. \textbf{Theorem 5}. There is a homomorphism \((G//Q)_{ab}\rightarrow H_1^Q(G,\mathbb{Z})\) commuting with the map \(\overline{N}:G\rightarrow H_1^Q(G,\mathbb{Z})\), and this factors through a homomorphism \((G//Q)_{ab}\rightarrow H_1^Q(G,\mathbb{Z})\). Theorem 4 is an answer to the second question that the authors proposed. And the homomorphism \((G//Q)_{ab}\rightarrow H_1^Q(G,\mathbb{Z})\) and Theorem 5 is a reference with the same address but in terms of the semidirect product of groups and suitable commutants (\([G,Q]\) is the commutator subgroup in \(G\rtimes Q\) of the form \([g,q]=g(qg^{-1}q^{-1})\) and \([G,Q]^{G\rtimes Q}\) is the normal closure of \([G,Q]\) in \(G\rtimes Q\)). Section 3 is entitled ``Invariant cohomology, invariant group extension with Abelian kernel and free actions'' and it has two subsections: 3.1. \textit{Low dimensional cohomology and group extensions with Abelian kernel}, 3.2. \textit{Free actions}. In this section the authors give a new definition of invariant cohomology that generalizes the usual cohomology of a group and which is an invariant of the \(Q\)-group \(G\) that provides algebraic information. Also the corresponding homology is defined and this, the authors say, is a generalization of homology defined by them previously [Jimenez et al., loc. cit.]. For the purpose of the approach to those mentioned, the authors introduce the so called \(Q\text{-}G\mathcal{M}od\) category. For \(G\) a \(Q\)-group and \(M\) a simultaneously a \(G\)-module and a \(Q\)-module, \(M\) is called a \(Q\text{-}G\) module if \(q(gm)=q(g)qm\), for \(g\in G\), \(q\in Q\), \(m\in M\). The category \(Q\text{-}G \mathcal{M}od\) has as objects \(Q\text{-}G\) modules and as morphism the functions \(f:M\rightarrow N\) such that \(f\) is both \(G\)-linear and \(Q\)-linear. Proposition 2. The category \(Q\text{-}G \mathcal{M}od\) is equivalent to the category of modules over \(\mathbb{Z}(G\rtimes Q)\). Proposition 3. A \(Q\text{-}G\) module \(M\) is free if and only if \(M\) admits a \(\mathbb{Z}G\)-basis where \(Q\) acts freely. If \(G\) is a \(Q\)-group and \(M\) is a \(Q\text{-}G\) module, then there are natural actions: \(Q\times Hom_G(B_n(G),M)\rightarrow Hom_G(B_n(G),M)\), \(q.f([q_1]\cdots [q_n])=qf([q^{-1}g_1]\cdots [q^{-1}g_n])\), and \(Q\times B_n(G)\otimes _GM\rightarrow B_n(G)\otimes_GM\), \(q([q_1]\cdots [g_n]\otimes m)=[qg_1]\cdots [qg_n]\otimes qm\), and the differential induced in \(Hom_G(B(G),M)\) and \(B(G)\otimes_G M\) by the resolution are \(Q\)-equivariant. Then the homology and cohomology of invariants are defined as: \(HH^Q_n=H_n((B(G)\otimes_GM)^Q)\) and \(HH^n_Q(G,M)=H^n(Hom_G(B(G),M)^Q)\). These invariants are ``immediate'' generalizations of the usual homology and cohomology of the group \(G\) since if \(Q\) acts trivially on \(G\) and \(M\), then \(HH^n_Q(G,M)=H^n(G,M)\) and \(HH^Q_n(G,M)=H_n(G,M)\). Proposition 4. If \(Q\) is a finite group and \(|Q|\) is invertible in \(M\), then \(HH^n_Q(G,M)\cong H^n(G,M)^Q\). Proposition 5. If \(Q\) is a finite group, \(M\) is a trivial \(Q\text{-}G\) module and \(Q\) is invertible in \(M\), then \(HH^n_Q(G,M)\cong H^n_Q(G,M)\). In Subsection 3.1 the authors generalize some classical results on low dimensional cohomology of groups for their theory. A first result is \(HH^0_Q(G,M)=(M^G)^Q\). Then for \(HH^1_Q(G,M)\), are defined the notions of \(Q\)-\textit{derivation} and that of \textit{inner \(Q\)-derivation}. Namely: A \(Q\)-derivation of \(G\) in \(M\) is a \(Q\)-equivariant map \(d:G\rightarrow M\) such that \(d(g_1g_2)=d(g_1)+g_1d(g_2)\), and the set of \(Q\)-derivations is denoted by \(Der_Q(G,M)\); then for \(m\in M^Q\), an inner \(Q\)-derivation \(d_m:G\leftarrow M\) is defined by \(d_m(g)=(g-1)m\), and the set of inner \(Q\)-derivations is denoted by \(IDer_Q(G,M)\). By these notations, \(HH^1_Q(G,M)=Der_Q(G,M)/IDer_Q(G,M)\). In order to give information about the group \(HH^2_Q(G,M)\), the authors are inspired by a classic result. In a paper by \textit{S. Eilenberg} and \textit{S. MacLane} [Ann. Math. (2) 48, 51--78 (1947; Zbl 0029.34001)] it is shown that equivalence classes of group extensions \(0\rightarrow K\rightarrow G\rightarrow H\rightarrow 0\), where \(K\) is a commutative group and given a right action \(H\times K\rightarrow K\) by group automorphisms are classified by the second group of \(H^2(H,K)\). Adopting this result to their theory, the authors prove the following theorem. \textbf{Theorem 6}. Let \(G\), \(H\) be \(Q\)-groups and let \(K\) be a \(Q\)-\(H\) module, Then the set of equivalence classes of \(Q\)-equivariant extensions \(0\rightarrow K\rightarrow G\rightarrow H\rightarrow 1\) that admit a normalized \(Q\)-equivariant section \(s:H\rightarrow G\) is in one-to-one correspondence with the elements of the group \(HH^2_Q(G,M)\). \textbf{Corollary 2}. If \(M\) is a \(Q\text{-}G\) module with trivial action and \(|Q|\) is invertible in \(M\), then the group \(HH^2_Q(M,G)\) classifies \(Q\)-equivariant extensions \(0\rightarrow M\rightarrow E\rightarrow G\rightarrow 1\) inducing a trivial action of \(G\) on \(M\). The last part of the article (Subsection 3.2) is motivated by the authors as follows: ``One of the greatest difficulties in the study of invariant cohomology lies in its very definition, since the bar resolution \(B(G)\rightarrow \mathbb{Z}\) is not a projective resolution in the category \(Q\text{-}G \mathcal{M}od\). In this section, we analyze the case when action of \(Q\) on \(G\) is ``free'' in order to replace the bar resolution with a projective resolution of the augmentation ideal. At the end of the paragraph we will analyze some examples.'' An action of a group \(Q\) on a group \(G\) is \textit{free} if \(Q_g=\{1\}\) for each \(g\in G, g\neq 1\). Then \(G\) is called a \textit{free \(Q\)-group}. Proposition 6. If \(G\) is a free \(Q\)-group, then \(B_n(G)\) is a free \(Q\text{-}G\) module for each \(n>0\). If \(G\) is a free \(Q\)-group, by considering the restriction of the bar resolution to the augmentation ideal a projective resolution is obtained \[ \dots\rightarrow B_2(G)\stackrel{d_2}\longrightarrow B_1(G)\stackrel{d_1}\longrightarrow I_G\rightarrow 0, \] of the augmentation ideal \(I_G\) in the category \(Q\text{-}G \mathcal{M}od\). Then by applying the derived functor of \(Hom_{Q\text{-}G}(-,M)\) of the \(Q\text{-}G\) module \(I_G\), the following expression for \(HH^n_Q(G,M)\) is obtained: \(HH^0_Q(G,M)={M^G}^Q; HH^1_Q(G,M)=Ext^0_{Q\text{-}G}(I_G,M)/IDer_Q(G,M)\); \(HH^n_Q(G,M)=Ext^{n-1}_{Q\text{-}G}(I_G,M),n\geq 2\). If \(A\) is a \(Q\text{-}G\) module with trivial actions, then \(IDer_Q(G,A)=0\) and the following is obtained: \(HH^0_Q(G,A)=A; HH^n_Q(G,A)=Ext^{n-1}_{Q\text{-}G}(I_G,M), n\geq 1\). The examples are the following: \textbf{Example 1}. \(Q\) is a group which acts free on a set \(S\) and \(F(S)\) is the \(Q\)-group obtained by this action. Then: \(HH^0_Q(F(S),\mathbb{Z})=\mathbb{Z}; HH^1_Q(F(S),\mathbb{Z})=Der_Q(F(S),\mathbb{Z})\); \(HH^n_Q(F(S),Z)=0, n\geq 2\). \textbf{Example 2}. \(Q=\mathbb{Z}/2=\langle s|s^2\rangle\) and \(G=\mathbb{Z}=\langle t\rangle\), with \(\mathbb{Z}/2\) acting freely on \(\mathbb{Z}\), by \(s(t^n)=t^{-n}\), such that \(\mathbb{Z}\) is a free \(\mathbb{Z}/2\)-group. In this case the cohomology groups are: \(HH^0_{\mathbb{Z}/2}(\mathbb{Z},\mathbb{Z})=\mathbb{Z}; HH^{2k-1}_{\mathbb{Z}/2}(\mathbb{Z},\mathbb{Z})=0; HH^{2k}_{\mathbb{Z}/2}(\mathbb{Z},\mathbb{Z})=\mathbb{Z}/2, k\geq 1\). And since \(HH^2_{\mathbb{Z}/2}(\mathbb{Z},\mathbb{Z})=\mathbb{Z}/2\), it results, in the interpretation ``Eilenberg-MacLane'', that there are only two \(\mathbb{Z}/2\) equivalence classes of extensions: \(0\rightarrow \mathbb{Z}\rightarrow E\rightarrow \mathbb{Z}\rightarrow 1\), inducing the trivial action on \(\mathbb{Z}\).