arXiv reader

Topology of angle valued maps, bar codes and Jordan blocks

Dan Burghelea and Stefan Haller

arXiv
1303.4328v7 · PDF · 27 June 2017
Categories
math.AT
Licence
CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

In this paper one presents a collection of results about the "bar codes" and "Jordan blocks" introduced by Burghelea-Day as "computer friendly" invariants of a tame angle-valued map and one relates these invariants to the Betti numbers, Novikov Betti numbers and the monodromy of the underlying space and map. Among others, one organizes the bar codes as two configurations of points in C and one establishes their main properties: stability property and when the underlying space is a closed topological manifold, Poincaré duality property. One also provides an alternative "computer friendly" definition of the monodromy of an angle valued map based on the algebra of linear relations as well as a refinement of Morse and Morse-Novikov inequalities.

Items 84

Theorem

Theorem 1.1 (Homotopy invariants)

SFN9

If f\colon X\to \mathbb S^1 is a tame map and \xi_f\in H^1(X;\mathbb Z) is the integral cohomology class represented by f then:

  1. \sharp\mathcal B^c_r(f)+\sharp\mathcal B^o_{r-1}(f) is a homotopy invariant of the pair (X,\xi_f), more precisely is equal to the Novikov–Betti number \beta^N_r(X;\xi_f).

  2. The collection \mathcal J_r(f) is a homotopy invariant of the pair (X,\xi_f). More precisely, \bigoplus_{J\in \mathcal J_r(f)}J := \bigoplus_{J\in \mathcal J_r(f)}(V_J,T_J) is the r-monodromy (V_r, T_r) of (X;\xi_f).

  3. \sharp \mathcal B^c_r(f)+\sharp \mathcal B^o_{r-1}(f)+\sharp \mathcal J_{r,1}(f)+\sharp \mathcal J_{r-1,1}(f) is equal to the Betti number \beta_r(X).

Proof (Proof of Theorem 1.1) of Theorem 1.1

Part (?) follows from Propositions 3.1 and 2.7 which relate the Betti numbers to the bar codes and Jordan cells via the short exact sequence (3.1). Similarly one can compute \dim H_r(X,(\xi_f,u)) in terms of barcodes and Jordan cells using the short exact sequence (3.1).

To check parts (?) and (?) recall that according to Lemma 2.8 we have isomorphisms of \kappa[T^{-1},T]-modules:

\begin{aligned} \operatorname{coker} M(\tilde\rho_r(f))&\cong\kappa[T^{-1},T][\mathcal B^c_r(f)]\oplus\kappa[\tilde{\mathcal J}_r(f)], \\ \ker M(\tilde\rho_{r-1}(f))&\cong\kappa[T^{-1},T][\mathcal B^o_r(f)]. \end{aligned}

In particular, the \kappa[T^{-1},T]-module \ker M(\tilde\rho_{r-1}(f)) is free. Hence, the short exact sequence (3.1) splits and we obtain an isomorphism of \kappa[T^{-1},T]-modules,

H_r(\tilde X)\cong\kappa[T^{-1},T][\mathcal B^c_r(f)\sqcup\mathcal B^o_{r-1}(f)]\oplus\kappa[\tilde{\mathcal J}_r(f)].

Tensorizing with \kappa[T^{-1},T]], we obtain an isomorphisms of \kappa[T^{-1},T]]-vector spaces,

H^N_r(X;\xi_f)\cong\kappa[T^{-1},T]][\mathcal B^c_r(f)\sqcup\mathcal B^o_{r-1}(f)].

We conclude \beta^N_r(X;\xi_f)=\sharp\mathcal B^c_r(f)+\sharp\mathcal B^o_{r-1}(f), whence part (a). Moreover,

V_r(\xi_f)\cong\kappa[\tilde{\mathcal J}_r(f)]\cong\bigoplus_{J\in\mathcal J_r(f)}J,

whence part (b).

Uses Proposition 3.1, Proposition 2.7, Lemma 2.8
Theorem

Theorem 1.2 (Stability)

OFNC

Suppose X is a compact ANR. Then the assignment

C_{\xi, t}(X,\mathbb S^1)\ni f \mapsto C_r(f)\in S^{n}(\mathbb T),

equivalently,

C_{\xi, t}(X,\mathbb S^1)\ni f \mapsto P^f_r(z)\in \mathbb C^{n-1}\times (\mathbb C\setminus 0),

is continuous, where n=\beta^N_r(X,\xi).

Moreover, if X is homeomorphic to a simplicial complex, this extends to a continuous map, C_{\xi}(X,\mathbb S^1)\to S^{n}(\mathbb T), equivalently, C_{\xi}(X,\mathbb S^1)\to \mathbb C^{n-1}\times (\mathbb C\setminus 0).

Used by Proof
Theorem

Theorem 1.3 (Poincaré duality)

VRZO

If M^n is a closed \kappa-orientable (If \kappa has characteristic 2 any manifold is \kappa-orientable if not the manifold should be orientable.) topological manifold and f\colon M\to \mathbb S^1 a tame map, then

C_r(f)(\langle a,b\rangle)=C_{n-r}(f)(\langle b, a\rangle).

Equivalently, C_r(f)(z)=C_{n-r}(f)(\tau(z)) where \tau(z):=1/\bar z=z/|z|^2 denotes the inversion across the unit circle, z\in\mathbb C\setminus0.

Theorem

Theorem 1.4 (Monodromy theorem)

4KN5

If f is a tame map and r a non-negative integer, then for any angle \theta the pair (R^\theta_r)_\mathrm{reg} is isomorphic to

(\bigoplus_{J\in\mathcal J_r(f)} V_J, \bigoplus_{J\in\mathcal J_r(f)} T_J),

with J= (V_J, T_J) and is a homotopy invariant of the pair (X,\xi_f).

Theorem

Theorem 1.5 (CEH stability)

DIA7

The assignment f\mapsto C^m_r(f) is a continuous map from the space C_t(X,\mathbb S^1) of tame maps to \mathcal\operatorname{Confg}(\mathbb T\setminus \Delta_{\mathbb T}) when the first space is equipped with the compact open topology and the second with the topology described above in case (X,K)= (\mathbb T, \Delta_{\mathbb T}).

Theorem

Theorem 1.6 (Poincaré duality)

7QFQ

If M^n is a closed \kappa-orientable topological manifold, f\colon M\to \mathbb S^1 a tame map, then

C^m_r(f)(\langle a,b\rangle)=C^m_{n-1-r}(f)(\langle b, a\rangle).

Equivalently, C^m_r(f)(z)=C^m_{n-1-r}(f)(\tau(z)), where \tau(z):=1/\bar z=z/|z|^2 denotes the inversion across the unit circle, z\in\mathbb C\setminus0.

Used by Proof
Theorem

Theorem 1.7

70JR

Let M^n be closed smooth manifold, (The result remains true for compact manifolds with boundary satisfying an appropriate hypothesis on the behavior of f along the boundary.) consider a field \kappa, and suppose r is a non-negative integer. If f\colon M\to\mathbb R is a real-valued Morse map, then

c_r(f)=\beta_r(M)+\sharp\mathcal B^{co}_r(f)+\sharp\mathcal B^{co}_{r-1}(f).

Moreover, if f\colon M\to\mathbb S^1 is an angle-valued Morse map, then

c_r(f)=\beta^N_r(M;\xi_f)+\sharp\mathcal B^{co}_r(f)+\sharp\mathcal B^{co}_{r-1}(f).
Theorem

Theorem 2.1 (Krull–Remak–Schmidt)

UXPK

Any \Gamma-representation with finite support is isomorphic to a direct sum \rho_1\oplus\cdots\oplus\rho_n with indecomposable summands \rho_i. Moreover, the components \rho_i are unique up to isomorphism and reordering.

Lemma

Lemma 2.2

CVB3

(a) If \rho is a G_{2m}-representation then

\mathcal B(\tilde \rho)=\tilde{\mathcal B}(\rho),\qquad\mathcal J(\tilde \rho)=\tilde{\mathcal J}(\rho),
\mathcal B^c(\tilde \rho)=\tilde{\mathcal B}^c(\rho),\quad \mathcal B^o(\tilde \rho)=\tilde{\mathcal B}^o(\rho),\quad \mathcal B^{co}(\tilde \rho)=\tilde{\mathcal B}^{co}(\rho),\quad \mathcal B^{oc}(\tilde \rho)=\tilde{\mathcal B}^{oc}(\rho),

and:

\begin{aligned} \mathcal B^c(T_{k,l}(\rho))&=\{I\cap[k,l]:\text{$I\in\tilde{\mathcal B}(\rho)$ such that $I\cap [k, l]$ is non-empty and closed}\} \\&\qquad \sqcup \{\text{$[k,l]$ with multiplicity $\sharp\tilde{\mathcal J}(\rho)$}\}, \\ \mathcal B^o(T_{k,l}(\rho))&=\{I\in\tilde{\mathcal B}^o(\rho): I\subset [k,l] \} \\ \mathcal J(T_{k,l}(\rho))&=\emptyset. \end{aligned}

(b) If \rho is a good \mathcal Z-representation then:

\begin{aligned} \mathcal B^c(T_{k,l}(\rho))&=\{I\cap[k,l]:\text{$I\in \mathcal B(\rho)$ such that $I\cap [k,l]$ is non-empty and closed}\} \\&\qquad \sqcup \{\textrm{$[k,l]$ with multiplicity $\sharp{\mathcal J}(\rho)$}\}, \\ \mathcal B^o(T_{k,l}(\rho))&=\{I\in \mathcal B^o(\rho) : I\subset [k,l] \}, \\ \mathcal J(T_{k,l}(\rho))&=\emptyset. \end{aligned}
Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 2.2

To see (a) observe that infinite cyclic covering and truncation are both additive constructions, that is to say, \widetilde{\rho_1\oplus\rho_2}=\tilde\rho_1\oplus\tilde\rho_2 and T_{k,l}(\rho_1\oplus\rho_2)=T_{k,l}(\rho_1)\oplus T_{k,l}(\rho_2) for any two G_{2m}-representations \rho_1 and \rho_2. The expressions for \mathcal B(\rho), \mathcal B^c(\rho), \mathcal B^o(\rho), \mathcal B^{co}(\rho), \mathcal B^{oc}(\rho), and \mathcal J(\rho) thus follow immediately from (?). Similarly, the expressions for \mathcal B^c(T_{k,l}(\rho)), \mathcal B^o(T_{k,l}(\rho)), and \mathcal J(T_{k,l}(\rho)) follow from (?). Since the truncation is also additive for good \mathcal Z-representations, part (b) follows from (?).

Lemma

Lemma 2.3

HCTT

Suppose \rho, \rho_1 and \rho_2 are representations of G_{2m} or \mathcal Z. Then the following hold true for \lambda,u\in\kappa\setminus0, k\in\mathbb N, and all intervals I with integral endpoints:

  1. \dim(\rho_u)= \dim(\rho).

  2. (\rho_1 \oplus \rho_2)_u= (\rho_1)_u\oplus (\rho_2)_u.

  3. \rho^G(\lambda,k)_u= \rho^G(u\lambda, k).

  4. \rho^G(I)_u=\rho^G(I).

  5. \dim(\rho_1\oplus \rho_2)= \dim(\rho_1) + \dim(\rho_2).

  6. \dim \ker (\rho_1\oplus \rho_2)= \dim \ker (\rho_1) + \dim \ker (\rho_2).

  7. \dim \operatorname{coker}(\rho_1\oplus \rho_2)= \dim \operatorname{coker}(\rho_1) + \dim\operatorname{coker}(\rho_2).

Proof of Lemma 2.3

The statements in parts (a) and (b) are trivial. Part (c) follows from the fact that the Jordan block T(u\lambda,k), see (?), is conjugate to uT(\lambda,k) via the diagonal matrix \operatorname{diag}(1,u,u^2,\dotsc,u^{k-1}). Part (d) readily follows from the classification of indecomposable G_{2m}-representations. The statement in (e) is obvious. To see (f) and (g) note that M(\rho_1\oplus\rho_2)=M(\rho_1)\oplus M(\rho_2), hence \ker(\rho_1\oplus\rho_2)=\ker(\rho_1)\oplus\ker(\rho_2) and \operatorname{coker}(\rho_1\oplus\rho_2)=\operatorname{coker}(\rho_1)\oplus\operatorname{coker}(\rho_2). For G_{2m}-representations the latter can be found in [BD11, Proposition 4.1].

Proposition

Proposition 2.4

8K6U

  1. For indecomposable G_{2m}-representations of type I we have

    1. \dim \ker \rho^G([i,j])=0, \dim \operatorname{coker} \rho^G([i,j])=1,

    2. \dim \ker \rho^G([i,j))=0, \dim \operatorname{coker} \rho^I([i,j))=0,

    3. \dim \ker \rho^G((i,j])=0, \dim \operatorname{coker} \rho^G((i,j])=0,

    4. \dim \ker \rho^G((i,j))=1, \dim \operatorname{coker} \rho^G((i,j))=0,

    and for indecomposable \mathcal Z-representations with finite support:

    1. \dim \ker\rho^{\mathcal Z}([i,j])=0, \dim \operatorname{coker}\rho^{\mathcal Z}([i,j])=1,

    2. \dim \ker\rho^{\mathcal Z}([i,j))=0, \dim \operatorname{coker}\rho^{\mathcal Z}([i,j))=0,

    3. \dim \ker\rho^{\mathcal Z}((i,j])=0, \dim \operatorname{coker}\rho^{\mathcal Z}((i,j])=0,

    4. \dim \ker\rho^{\mathcal Z}((i,j))=1, \dim \operatorname{coker}\rho^{\mathcal Z}((i,j))=0.

  2. For indecomposable G_{2m}-representations of type II we have

    1. \dim \ker\rho^G(J)=0 if J\ne (\kappa^k, T(1,k)); \dim \ker\rho^G(\kappa^k, T(1,k))=1

    2. \dim \operatorname{coker}\rho^G(J)=0 if J\ne (\kappa^k, T(1,k)); \dim \operatorname{coker}\rho^G(\kappa^k, T(1,k))=1

    and for the \mathcal Z-representation \rho^{\mathcal Z}_\infty:

    1. \dim \ker (\rho^{\mathcal Z}_\infty)=0,

    2. \dim \operatorname{coker} (\rho^{\mathcal Z}_\infty)=1.

Used by Proof, Proof
Proof of Proposition 2.4

The statements in (a1), (a2), (a3), (a4), (b1), and (b2) can be found in [BD11, Proposition 4.3]. Parts (a5), (a6), (a7), (a8), (b3), and (b4) can be proved analogously. Indeed, the calculation of the kernel of M(\rho) reduces to the description of the space of solutions of the linear system:

\begin{aligned} \alpha_1(v_1)&=\beta_1(v_3)\\ \alpha_2(v_3)&=\beta_2(v_5)\\ &\ \, \vdots\\ \alpha_m(v_{2m-1})&=\beta_m(v_1) \end{aligned}

wit v_{2i-1}\in V_{2i-1}. This is straight forward for indecomposable representations.

Lemma

Lemma 2.5

0KY1

If \rho=\{V_i,\alpha_i,\beta_i\} is a regular \mathcal Z-representation, i.e. all \alpha_i and \beta_i are isomorphisms, then \ker M(\rho)=0, and for every i the canonical inclusion V_{2i}\to\bigoplus_{r\in \mathbb Z} V_{2r} followed by the projection onto \operatorname{coker} M(\rho) provides an isomorphism V_{2i}\cong\operatorname{coker} M(\rho).

Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 2.5

By regularity, the system of equations \alpha_r(v_{2r-1})=\beta_r(v_{2r+1}) does not have a non-trivial solution for which only finitely many of the v_{2r-1}\in V_{2r-1} are non-trivial, whence \ker M(\rho)=0. To see that V_{2i} intersects the image of M(\rho) trivially, suppose w\in V_{2i}\cap\operatorname{img} M(\rho). Then there exist v_{2r-1}\in V_{2r-1}, almost all zero, such that w=\alpha_i(v_{2i-1})-\beta_i(v_{2i+1}) and \alpha_r(v_{2r-1})=\beta_r(v_{2r+1}) for all r\neq i. As v_{2r+1}=0 for sufficiently large r, the latter equations imply v_{2i+1}=0. Similarly, since v_{2r-1}=0 for sufficiently small r, we obtain v_{2i-1}=0, whence w=0. Finally, if u\in V_{2r}, then the corresponding element in \operatorname{coker} M(\rho) can also be represented by by an element in V_{2r+2}, namely \alpha_{r+1}\beta_r^{-1}(u). Consequently, each element in \operatorname{coker} M(\rho) can be represented by an element in V_{2i}.

Definition

Definition 2.6

OEA9

For a set S denote by \kappa[S] the vector space generated by S, i.e. the vector space of \kappa-valued maps on S with finite support, and by \kappa[[S]] the vector space of all \kappa-valued maps on S. If S is finite, then \kappa[S]=\kappa[[S]].

For two subsets S_1 and S_2 of S the canonical linear maps \kappa[S_1]\to \kappa[S_2], \kappa[S_1]\to \kappa[[S_2]], or \kappa[[S_1]]\to \kappa[[S_2]] are the unique linear maps which restrict to the identity on S_1\cap S_2 and to zero on S_1\setminus S_2.

Proposition

Proposition 2.7

4V85

(a) Let \rho be a G_{2m}-representation. Then every decomposition \rho=\bigoplus_{I\in\mathcal B(\rho)}\rho^G(I)\oplus\bigoplus_{J\in\mathcal J(\rho)}\rho^G(J) induces isomorphisms \Psi^o, \Psi^o_{k,l}, \Psi^c, and \Psi^c_{k,l} such that the diagrams

\vcenter{ \xymatrix{ \ker M(T_{k,l}(\rho))\ar[r]^-{i} &\ker M(T_{k',l'}(\rho))\ar[r]^-{i'} &\ker M(\rho) \\ \kappa[\mathcal B^o(T_{k,l}(\rho))]\ar[u]_\cong^{\Psi^o_{k,l}} \ar[r] &\kappa[\mathcal B^o(T_{k',l'}(\rho))] \ar[u]_\cong^{\Psi^o_{k',l'}}\ar[r] &\kappa[\mathcal B^o(\rho)\sqcup \mathcal J_1(\rho)]\ar[u]_\cong^{\Psi^o} }}

and

\vcenter{ \xymatrix{ \operatorname{coker} M(T_{k,l}(\rho))\ar[r]^-{j} &\operatorname{coker} M(T_{k',l'}(\rho))\ar[r]^-{j'} &\operatorname{coker} M(\rho) \\ \kappa[\mathcal B^c(T_{k,l}(\rho))]\ar[u]_\cong^{\Psi^c_{k,l}} \ar[r] &\kappa[\mathcal B^c(T_{k',l'}(\rho))] \ar[u]_\cong^{\Psi^c_{k',l'}}\ar[r] &\kappa[\mathcal B^c(\rho)\sqcup \mathcal J_1(\rho)].\ar[u]_\cong^{\Psi^c} }}

commute for all integers 1\leq k'\leq k\leq l\leq l'\leq m.

(b) Let \rho be a good \mathcal Z-representation. Then every decomposition \rho=\bigoplus_{I\in\mathcal B(\rho)}\rho(I)\oplus\bigoplus_n\rho^{\mathcal Z}_\infty, where n=\sharp J(\rho), induces isomorphisms \Psi^o, \Psi^o_{k,l}, \Psi^c, and \Psi^c_{k,l} such that the diagrams

\vcenter{ \xymatrix{ \ker M(T_{k,l}(\rho))\ar[r]^-{i} &\ker M(T_{k',l'}(\rho))\ar[r]^-{i'} &\ker M(\rho) \\ \kappa[\mathcal B^o(T_{k,l}(\rho))]\ar[u]_\cong^{\Psi^o_{k,l}} \ar[r] &\kappa[\mathcal B^o(T_{k',l'}(\rho))] \ar[u]_\cong^{\Psi^o_{k',l'}}\ar[r] &\kappa[\mathcal B^o(\rho)]\ar[u]_\cong^{\Psi^o} }}

and

\vcenter{ \xymatrix{ \operatorname{coker} M(T_{k,l}(\rho))\ar[r]^-{j} &\operatorname{coker} M(T_{k',l'}(\rho))\ar[r]^-{j'} &\operatorname{coker} M(\rho) \\ \kappa[\mathcal B^c(T_{k,l}(\rho))]\ar[u]_\cong^{\Psi^c_{k,l}} \ar[r] &\kappa[\mathcal B^c(T_{k',l'}(\rho))] \ar[u]_\cong^{\Psi^c_{k',l'}}\ar[r] &\kappa[\mathcal B^c(\rho)\sqcup \mathcal J(\rho)].\ar[u]_\cong^{\Psi^c} }}

commute for all integers k'\leq k\leq l\leq l'.

Used by Proof, Proof
Proof of Proposition 2.7

Since the involved constructions are all additive, that is to say, compatible with direct sums of representations, it suffices to construct the isomorphisms \Psi^o, \Psi^o_{k,l}, \Psi^c, and \Psi^c_{k,l}for indecomposable representations. For indecomposable representations, however, the constructions are tautological in view of Proposition 2.4.

Uses Proposition 2.4
Lemma

Lemma 2.8

JK2M

Let \rho be a G_{2m}-representation and let \tilde\rho denote the associated infinite cyclic covering \mathcal Z-representation. Then the following hold true:

a) The linear isomorphisms

\Psi^o\colon\kappa[\mathcal B^o(\tilde\rho)]\to\ker M(\tilde\rho)\quad\text{and}\quad\Psi^c\colon\kappa[\mathcal B^c(\tilde\rho)\sqcup\mathcal J(\tilde\rho)]\to\operatorname{coker} M(\tilde\rho)

in Proposition 2.7(b) are isomorphisms of \kappa[T^{-1},T]-modules (since by construction compatible with the m-periodicity).

b) The modules \kappa[\mathcal B^o(\tilde\rho)] and \kappa[\mathcal B^c(\tilde\rho)] are free. More precisely, we have isomorphisms of \kappa[T^{-1},T]-modules

\kappa[\mathcal B^o(\tilde\rho)]\cong\kappa[T^{-1},T][\mathcal B^o(\rho)]\quad\text{and}\quad\kappa[\mathcal B^c(\tilde\rho)]\cong\kappa[T^{-1},T][\mathcal B^c(\rho)].

c) The torsion part of the \kappa[T^{-1},T]-module \operatorname{coker} M(\tilde\rho) equipped with the automorphism induced by T is isomorphic to the monodromy of the representation \rho, that is, \kappa[\mathcal J(\tilde\rho)]\cong\bigoplus_{J\in\mathcal J(\rho)}J.

Used by Proof, Proof
Proof of Lemma 2.8

Since the statement is additive in the G_{2m}-representation \rho, it suffices to consider indecomposable G_{2m}-representations \rho. Part c) follows from Lemma 2.5. Indeed if \rho is a barcode representation the result follows from Proposition 2.4. In this case both \ker(M(\tilde \rho)) and \operatorname{coker}(M(\tilde \rho)) are free of rank 1 or 0. and there is no regular part of \rho. If \rho is a Jordan block, hence \rho is regular, the result follows from Lemma 2.5.

Uses Lemma 2.5, Proposition 2.4
Proposition

Proposition 3.1

O5D0

Let f\colon X\to \mathbb S^1 be a tame map and \tilde f\colon\tilde X\to \mathbb R its infinite cyclic covering. Let \rho_r= \rho_r(f) and \tilde \rho_r=\rho_r(\tilde f)= \widetilde\rho_r(f) be the representations associated with f and \tilde f. One has the following short exact sequences

0\to\operatorname{coker} M((\rho_r)_u)\to H_r(X; (\xi_f,u))\to\ker M((\rho_{r-1})_u)\to0,

which for u=1 becomes

0\to\operatorname{coker} M(\rho_r)\to H_r(X)\to\ker M(\rho_{r-1})\to0.

Moreover, one has a short exact sequence of \kappa[T^{-1},T]-modules

0\to\operatorname{coker} M(\tilde \rho_r)\to H_r(\tilde X)\to\ker M(\tilde \rho_{r-1})\to0.

These sequences are all compatible with truncations as explained below, see Diagrams (?) and (?).

Used by Proof, Proof
Proof

Proof

FN5Q

The reader should recognize in the matrices M(T_{i, j}( \tilde \rho_{r})), M( (\rho_{r})_u) and M (\tilde \rho_{r}) the linear maps induced from \bigoplus_{i\leq k\leq j} H_r(R_k) to H_r( X_{[\theta_i,\theta_j]}), from \bigoplus_{1\leq i\leq m} H_r(R_i) to H_r(X; (\xi_f,u)) and from \bigoplus_{1\leq i\leq m} H_r(R_i) to H_r(\tilde X) respectively.

Denote by \mathcal R:=\bigsqcup_{1\leq i\leq m}R_i, \tilde{\mathcal R}:=\bigsqcup _{i \in \mathbb Z} R_i, \mathcal X:=\bigsqcup _{1\leq i\leq m} X_i and \tilde{\mathcal X}:=\bigsqcup _{ i\in \mathbb Z} X_i. The short exact sequence (3.1) follows from the long exact sequence

\to H_r(\mathcal R)\xrightarrow{M((\rho_r)_u)}H_r(\mathcal X)\to H_r(X;(\xi,u))\to H_{r-1}(\mathcal R)\xrightarrow{M((\rho_{r-1})_u)}H_{r-1}(\mathcal X)\to

with H_r(\mathcal R)= \bigoplus_{1\leq i\leq m} H_r(R_i) and H_r(\mathcal X)= \bigoplus_{1\leq i\leq m} H_r(X_i), and the short exact sequence (3.1) follows from the long exact sequence

\cdots\to H_r(\tilde {\mathcal R})\xrightarrow{M(\rho_r)}H_r(\tilde {\mathcal X})\to H_r(\tilde X)\to H_{r-1}(\tilde {\mathcal R})\xrightarrow{M(\rho_{r-1})}H_{r-1}(\tilde{\mathcal X})\to\cdots.

which remain to be established. The sequence in (3.1) appears as a special case of the sequence in (3.1) for u=1.

Since both long exact sequences (?) and (?) are derived in the same way we will treat only (?) and for simplicity only the case u=1.

First choose an \epsilon>0 small enough so that 2\epsilon<t_1 and \theta_{i-1}+2\epsilon<t_i<\theta_i-2\epsilon. To simplify the writing, since i\leq m, introduce \theta_{m+1}=\theta_1+2\pi, let

f^{-1}\bigl([\theta_m\pm\epsilon,\theta_{m+1}\pm \epsilon)\bigr):=\tilde f^{-1}\bigl([\theta_m\pm\epsilon,\theta_1+2\pi\pm\epsilon]\bigr),

and define

\mathcal P':=\bigsqcup_{1\leq i\leq m}f^{-1}\bigl([\theta_i, \theta_{i+1}-\epsilon)\bigr), \qquad \mathcal P'':=\bigsqcup_{1\leq i\leq m}f^{-1}\bigl((\theta_i+\epsilon, \theta_{i+1}]\bigr).

Observe that in view of the choice of \epsilon and of the tameness of f the inclusions \mathcal X \subset \mathcal P', \mathcal X \subset \mathcal P'', and \mathcal X \sqcup \mathcal R\subset \mathcal P'\cap \mathcal P'' are homotopy equivalences. The Mayer–Vietoris long exact sequence for X=\mathcal P'\cup \mathcal P'' gives the commutative diagram

\xymatrix{ & & H_r(\mathcal R)\ar[r]^{M(\rho_r(f))} & H_r(\mathcal X)\ar@/^/[rd] &&\\ \ar[r]&H_{r+1}(X)\ar@/^/[ur] \ar[r]^-{\partial_{r+1}}&H_r(\mathcal R)\oplus H_r(\mathcal X)\ar[u]^{\operatorname{pr}_1}\ar[r]^N &H_r(\mathcal X)\oplus H_r(\mathcal X)\ar[u]^{(\operatorname{Id},-\operatorname{Id})}{\ar[r]^-{(i_r, -i_r)}} &H_r(X)\ar[r] &\\ & &H_r(\mathcal X)\ar[u]^{\operatorname{in}_2}\ar[r]^{\rm Id} &H_r(\mathcal X)\ar[u]^{\Delta} && }

where \Delta denotes the diagonal, \operatorname{in}_2 the inclusion on the second component, \operatorname{pr}_1 the projection on the first component, i_r the linear map induced in homology by the inclusion \mathcal X\subset X. Recall that the matrix M(\rho_r(f)) is defined by

\begin{pmatrix} \alpha^r_1 & -\beta^r_1 & 0 & \cdots & 0\\ 0 & \alpha^r_2 & -\beta^r_2 & \ddots & \vdots\\ \vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & 0 \vspace{0.5ex}\\ 0 & \cdots & 0 & \alpha^r_{m-1} & -\beta^r_{m-1}\vspace{1ex}\\ -\beta^r_m & 0 & \cdots & 0 & \alpha^r_m \end{pmatrix}

with \alpha^r_i\colon H_r(R_i)\to H_r(X_i) and \beta^r_i\colon H_r(R_{i+1})\to H_r(X_i) induced by the maps a_i and b_i. The block matrix N is defined by

N:= \begin{pmatrix} \alpha^r & \operatorname{Id}\\ -\beta^r & \operatorname{Id} \end{pmatrix}

where \alpha^r and \beta^r are the matrices

\begin{pmatrix} \alpha^r_1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\ 0 & \alpha^r_2 & \ddots &\vdots \\ \vdots & \ddots & \ddots &0 \\ 0 & \cdots & 0 & \alpha^r_{m-1} \end{pmatrix} \quad\text{and}\quad \begin{pmatrix} 0 & \beta^r_1 & 0 & \dots & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \beta^r_2 & \ddots & \vdots \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \ddots & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \dots & 0 & \beta^r_{m-1}\\ \beta^r_m & 0 & \dots & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}.

The long exact sequence (?) is the top sequence in the diagram (?).

The long exact sequence (?) can be established analogously. The naturality of the Mayer–Vietoris sequence w.r. to maps which preserve the decomposition of a space in two pieces implies that the homomorphisms in the sequence (?) intertwine the automorphisms induced by the fundamental deck transformation on H_r(\tilde{\mathcal R}), H_r(\tilde{\mathcal X}), and H_r(\tilde X), respectively. Hence, (3.1) is a short exact sequence of \kappa[T^{-1},T]-modules. Compatibility with truncations follows from the naturality of the Mayer–Vietoris sequence too.

Uses Proposition 3.1
Proposition

Proposition 4.1

DFUH

Let f\colon X\to \mathbb S^1 be a tame map and suppose that for each r a decomposition of the representation \rho_r(f) as a sum of bar code representations and Jordan block and a collection of compatible splittings is provided. Then:

a) For u\in\kappa\setminus 0 the decompositions and the collections of compatible splittings provide the isomorphisms

\omega_{r,u}\colon\kappa[S_{r,u}(f)] \to H_r(X; (\xi_f ,u))

and for any closed multi interval K\subset \mathbb S^1 the isomorphisms

\omega_{r, K, u}\colon\kappa[S_{r,K, u} (f)]\to \mathbb I_r(f;K,u)

such that for any pair K', K of closed multi-intervals in \mathbb S^1 with K'\subset K, the diagram (?) is commutative.

\vcenter{ \xymatrix{ \mathbb I_r(f;K',u) \ar[r]^-{\subseteq} &\mathbb I_r(f;K,u) \ar[r]^-{\subseteq} &H_r( X; (\xi_f, u))\\ \kappa[S_{r, K', u}(f)]\ar[u]_\cong^{\omega_{r, K', u}}\ar[r] & \kappa[S_{r, K, u}(f)]\ar[u]_\cong^{\omega_{r, K, u}} \ar[r]& \kappa[S_{r, u}(f)]\ar[u]_\cong^{\omega_{r, u}}. }}

The horizontal arrows in the bottom line are induced by the inclusions of the sets in brackets.

b) The decompositions and the collection of compatible splittings provide the isomorphisms

\widetilde\omega_{r}\colon\kappa[\widetilde S_{r}(f)] \to H_r(\tilde X)

and for any closed multi interval K\subset \mathbb R the isomorphisms

\widetilde{\omega}_{r, K}\colon\kappa[\widetilde S_{r,K} (f)]\to \mathbb I_r(\tilde f;K)

such that for any pair K', K of closed multi-intervals in \mathbb R with K'\subset K, the diagram (?) is commutative.

\vcenter{ \xymatrix{ \mathbb I_r(\tilde f;K') \ar[r]^{\subseteq} &\mathbb I_r(\tilde f;K) \ar[r]^{\subseteq} &H_r( \tilde X)\\ \kappa[\widetilde S_{r, K'}(f)]\ar[u]_\cong^{\widetilde \omega_{r,K'}}\ar[r] & \kappa[\widetilde S_{r, K}(f)]\ar[u]_\cong^{\widetilde \omega_{r;K}} \ar[r]& \kappa[\widetilde S_{r}(f)]\ar[u]_\cong^{\widetilde \omega_{r}}. }}

The horizontal arrows in the bottom line are induced by the inclusions of the sets in brackets. The isomorphism \tilde\omega_r is an isomorphism of \kappa[T^{-1}, T]-modules.

c) The decompositions and the splittings provide the isomorphisms

\omega^N_r\colon\kappa[T^{-1}, T]] \ [\mathcal B^c_r(f)\sqcup \mathcal B^o_{r-1}(f)]\to H_r^N(X;\xi_f).
Proof (Proof of Propositions 4.1 and 4.2) of Proposition 4.1

In view of the properties of the sets S_{K,-} and \tilde S_{K,-}, it suffices to prove the statements for K consisting of one single interval and in view the tameness of f one can suppose that \theta_1, \theta_2 are critical angles and a, b critical values. We treat first the part (a) in both Propositions (4.1) and (4.2).

The compatible splittings lead to the commutative diagram (?) with horizontal arrows isomorphisms.

\vcenter{ \xymatrix{ {\operatorname{coker} M(T_{\theta_2,\theta_3}( \rho_{r}))\oplus \ker M(T_{\theta_2,\theta_3}( \rho_{r-1}))} \ar[d]^{v_l\oplus v_r} \ar[r] &H_r( X_{[\theta_2,\theta_3]})\ar[d]^v \\ {\operatorname{coker} M(T_{\theta_1,\theta_4}( \rho_{r})) \oplus \ker M(T_{\theta_1,\theta_4}( \rho_{r-1}))} \ar[d]^{v'_l\oplus v'_r} \ar[r] &H_r( X_{[\theta_1,\theta_4]})\ar[d]^{v'} \\ \quad {\operatorname{coker} M( (\rho_{r})_u) \oplus \ker M(( \rho_{r-1})_u)} \ar[r] &H_r(X; (\xi_f,u)) }}

Proposition 2.7 combined with Lemma 2.2 gives the commutative diagram (?) with horizontal lines isomorphisms.

\vcenter{ \xymatrix{ \kappa[\tilde S'_{r,[\theta_1, \theta_4]}(f)] \ar[d] \ar[r] & \operatorname{coker} M(T_{\theta_2,\theta_3}( \rho_{r}))\oplus \ker M(T_{\theta_2,\theta_3}( \rho_{r-1}))\ar[d]^{v_l\oplus v_r}\\ \kappa[\tilde S'_{r,[\theta_2, \theta_3]}(f)] \ar[d]\ar[r] & \operatorname{coker} M(T_{\theta_1,\theta_4}( \rho_{r})) \oplus \ker M(T_{\theta_1,\theta_4}( \rho_{r-1})) \ar[d]^{v'_l\oplus v'_r}\\ \kappa[S_{r,u}] \ar[r] & \operatorname{coker} M( (\rho_r)_u) \oplus \ker M(( \rho_{r-1})_u) }}

The isomorphism \omega_{r,u} (in Proposition 4.1) is the composition of horizontal arrows in the last line of diagrams (?) and (?) and the isomorphisms \omega_{r,[\theta_2, \theta_3],u} and \omega_{r, [\theta_1, \theta_4], u} are restrictions of \omega_{r,u}. Similarly he isomorphism \omega'_{r,[\theta_2,\theta_3]} and \omega'_{r,[\theta_1,\theta_4]} (in Proposition 4.2) are the compositions of the horizontal arrows in the first and second lines of the same diagrams.

The commutativity of the diagrams (?) and (?)

is the consequence of the commutativity of the diagrams (?) and (?).

This establishes part (a) in both Propositions 4.1 and 4.2.

Parts (b) are verified essentially in the same way. More precisely, the decompositions of the representations \rho_r imply decompositions of \tilde \rho_r and T_{k,l}(\tilde \rho_r). Observe that the commutative diagrams (?) and (?) remain valid when one replaces X by \tilde X, the representation \rho_r by \tilde \rho_r, and \theta_1, \theta_2, \theta_3, \theta_4 by a, b, c, d. In this case \tilde\omega is defined in the same way as \omega_u, namely as the composition of the horizontal arrows in the last lines of the diagrams which replace diagrams (?) and (?) derived considering \tilde \omega instead of \omega_u.

To check part (c) in Proposition 4.1, observe first that

\kappa [\tilde S_r(f)]=\kappa[\tilde {\mathcal B}^o_{r-1}(f)]\oplus \kappa[\tilde {\mathcal B}^c_{r}(f)\sqcup \tilde{\mathcal J}_r( f)] and as pointed out by Lemma 2.8 at the end of Section ?, both linear maps \Psi^o and \Psi^c are actually isomorphisms of \kappa[T^{-1}, T] modules; therefore so is \tilde{\omega}_r. Then one takes \omega^N_r=\tilde{\omega}_r\otimes_{\kappa[T^{-1}, T]}\kappa [T^{-1}, T]]. Clearly \kappa [\tilde S_r(f)]\otimes_{\kappa[T^{-1}, T]}\kappa [T^{-1}, T]]=\kappa [T^{-1}, T]] [\mathcal B^c_r(f)\sqcup \mathcal B^o_{r-1}(f)] since \kappa[ \tilde J( f)] as a \kappa[T^{-1}, T]-module is a torsion module, cf. Lemma 2.8.

Uses Proposition 4.2, Proposition 2.7, Lemma 2.2, Lemma 2.8
Proposition

Proposition 4.2

L039

a) The decompositions and the collections of compatible splittings provide for any pair of angles \theta', \theta'', 0< \theta'\leq \theta'' <2\pi, the isomorphisms

\omega'_{r,[\theta', \theta'']}\colon\kappa[S'_{r, [\theta', \theta'']}(f)] \to H_r(X_{[\theta', \theta'']})

such that for 0<\theta_1\leq \theta_2 \leq \theta_3 \leq \theta_4 <2\pi the diagram (?) below is commutative:

\vcenter{ \xymatrix{ H_r(X_{[\theta_2, \theta_3]}) \ar[r]^{v_r} &H_r(X_{[\theta_1, \theta_4]}) \ar[r]^{v'_r} &H_r( X; (\xi_f,u)) \\ \kappa[S'_{r,[\theta_2,\theta_3]}(f)]\ar[u]^{\omega'_{r,[\theta_2,\theta_3]}}\ar[r] & \kappa[S'_{r,[\theta_1,\theta_4]}(f)]\ar[u]^{\omega'_{r,[\theta_1,\theta_4]}} \ar[r]& \kappa[S_{r, u}(f)]\ar[u]^{\omega_{r,u}}. }}

b) The decompositions and the compatible splittings provide for any a\leq b, a, b real numbers or \pm\infty the isomorphisms

\tilde \omega'_{r, [a, b]}\colon\kappa[\tilde S'_{r, [a,b]}(f)] \to H_r(\tilde X_{[a,b]})

such that for a\leq b\leq c\leq d the diagram (?) below is commutative.

\vcenter{ \xymatrix{ H_r(\tilde X_{[b,c]})\ar[r] ^{v_r} &H_r(\tilde X_{[a,d]}) \ar[r]^{v'_r} &H_r( \tilde X) \\ \kappa[\tilde S'_{r,[b,c]}(f)]\ar[u]^{\tilde\omega_{r,[b,c]}} \ar[r] & \kappa[\tilde S'_{r,[a,d]}(f)]\ar[u]^{\tilde\omega_{r,[a,d]}} \ar[r]& \kappa[\tilde S _r(f)] \ar[u]^{\tilde \omega_{r}}. }}

In both diagrams the horizontal arrows in the top line are linear maps induced by the obvious inclusions, while in the bottom line are the canonical linear maps provided by the sets in brackets subsets of a larger set of all bar codes and all \tilde {\mathcal J}(f)'s, cf. Definition 2.6. A bar code in the set S'_{r, \cdots} or in {\tilde S'}_{r,\cdots} is sent to itself if belongs to the next set and if not, to zero in the next vector space.

Used by Proof, Proof, Proof
Lemma

Lemma 5.1

0QR8

  1. For a\leq a' and b'\leq b, we have F^f_r(a,b)\leq F^f_r(a',b') and G^f_r(a,b)\geq G^f_r(a',b').

  2. If |f-g|<\epsilon and a\leq b then F^f_r(a-\epsilon,b+\epsilon)\leq F^g_r(a, b) and G^f_r(a,b) \leq G^g_r(a-\epsilon, b+\epsilon).

  3. F^f_r(a,b)=F^{-f}_r(-b,-a) and G^f_r(a,b)= G^{-f}_r(-b,-a).

Used by Proof, Proof
Proof of Lemma 5.1

To check (?), notice that X^f_a\subseteq X^f_{a'} and X^{b'}_f\supseteq X^b_f imply \mathbb I^f_a\subseteq \mathbb I^f_{a'} and \mathbb I^{b'}_f\subseteq \mathbb I^{b}_f and \mathbb I^{b'}_f\subseteq \mathbb I^{b}_f, hence \mathbb I^f_a\cap \mathbb I^b_f \subseteq \mathbb I^f_{a'} \cap \mathbb I_f^{b'} and \mathbb I^f_a +\mathbb I^b_f \subseteq \mathbb I^f_{a'} + \mathbb I_f^{b'}, then the statement. To check (?), notice that |f-g|<\epsilon implies f-\epsilon <g<f+\epsilon which implies X^f_{a-\epsilon}\subseteq X^g_a and X^f_{b+\epsilon} \subseteq X^g_b. These inclusions imply \mathbb I^f_{a-\epsilon}\subseteq \mathbb I^g_{a} and \mathbb I^{b+\epsilon}_f\subseteq \mathbb I_g^{b}, hence F^f(a-\epsilon, b+\epsilon)\leq F^g(a,b). The arguments for G are similar. To check (?), one uses the fact that f^{-1}((-\infty,a])=(-f)^{-1}([-a,\infty)).

Proposition

Proposition 5.2

9IY9

If f\colon X\to\mathbb R is a tame map, then:

  1. F_r^f(a,b)<\infty.

  2. G^f_r(a,b)<\infty.

Proof of Proposition 5.2

To ease the writing, we (sometimes) drop f from notation. We start with (?). In view of Observation 5.1 it suffices to check the statements for a>b.

Consider

i_a(r)-i^b(r)\colon H_r(X_a)\oplus H_r(X^b) \to H_r(X),

let p_1\colon H_r(X_a)\oplus H_r(X^b) \to H_r(X_a) be the first factor projection

and observe that \mathbb I^f_a(r)\cap\mathbb I^b_f(r)=(i_a(r)\cdot p_1)(\ker(i_a(r)-i^b(r)).

Then

\dim\bigl(\mathbb I^f_a(r)\cap \mathbb I^b_f(r)\bigr)\leq\dim\ker\bigl(i_a(r)-i^b(r)\bigr).

Since a\geq b we have X= X_a\cup X^b. In view of the Mayer–Vietoris long exact sequence associated with X=X_a\cup X^b

\ker\bigl(i_a(r)-i^b(r)\bigr)=\operatorname{img}\bigl(H_r(X^b_a)\to H_r(X_a)\oplus H_r(X^b)\bigr)

has finite dimension since \dim H_r(X^b_a) is finite.

Next we prove (?).

If a<b one uses the long exact sequence of the pair (X,X_a\sqcup X^b) to conclude that H_r(X)/(\mathbb I^f_a(r) + \mathbb I^b_f(r)) is isomorphic to a subspace of H_r(X, X_a\sqcup X^b)= H_r(X^b_a,X(a) \sqcup X(b)) which is of finite dimension. Indeed, f tame implies that X(a), X(b), and X_a^b are compact ANRs, hence with finite dimensional homology.

If a\geq b one uses the Mayer–Vietoris exact sequence associated with X_a, X^b to conclude that H_r(X)/(\mathbb I^f_a(r) + \mathbb I^b_f(r)) is isomorphic to a subspace of H_r(X^b_a) which is of finite dimension.

Uses Lemma 5.1
Proposition

Proposition 5.3

4WL8

If X is compact or f is a tame map, then:

  1. \mu_r^{F,f}(B)=\mu_r^{G,f}(B).

  2. Putting \mu^f_r(B):=\mu_r^{F,f}(B)=\mu_r^{G,f}(B), we have \mu^f_r(B)\geq0.

  3. If B=B_1\cup B_2, B_1\cap B_2=\emptyset with B_1, B_2 boxes, then \mu^f (B)=\mu^f(B_1)+\mu^f(B_2).

  4. If if B' and B'' are boxes with B'\subseteq B'' one has \mu^f(B')\leq \mu^f(B'').

Used by Proof
Proof of Proposition 5.3

To ease the writing, we drop f and r from notation and introduce:

\begin{aligned} I_1&:=\dim\bigl(\mathbb I_a\cap\mathbb I^d\bigr), \\ I_2&:=\dim\bigl((\mathbb I_a\cap\mathbb I^c)/(\mathbb I_a\cap\mathbb I^d)\bigr), \\ I_3&:=\dim\bigl((\mathbb I_b\cap\mathbb I^d)/(\mathbb I_a\cap \mathbb I^d)\bigr), \\ I_4&:=\dim\bigl((\mathbb I_b\cap \mathbb I^c)/(\mathbb I_a\cap\mathbb I^c+\mathbb I_b\cap\mathbb I^d)\bigr), \\ I_5&:=\dim\bigl(\mathbb I_b/(\mathbb I_a+\mathbb I_b\cap\mathbb I^c)\bigr), \\ I_6&:=\dim\bigl(\mathbb I^c/(\mathbb I_a\cap\mathbb I^c+\mathbb I^d)\bigr), \\ I_7&:=\dim\bigl(H/(\mathbb I_b+\mathbb I^c)\bigr),\qquad\textrm{with $H=H_r(X)$.} \end{aligned}
The paper has a figure here, which this page does not show.

Using Figure Proof, it is not hard to notice that:

\begin{aligned} F(a,d)&=I_1, & G(a,d)&=I_7 +I_6 +I_5 + I_4, \\ F(b,c)&=I_1+ I_2 + I_3 + I_4, & G(b,c)&=I_7, \\ F(a,c)&=I_1 + I_2, & G(a,c)&=I_7 +I_5, \\ F(b,d)&=I_1 +I_3, & G(b,d)&=I_7 + I_6. \end{aligned}

Then we have:

\begin{gathered} F(a,d)+F(b,c)-F(a,c)-F(b,d) \\=I_1+(I_1+I_2+I_3+I_4)-(I_1+I_2)-(I_1+I_3)=I_4 \end{gathered}

and

\begin{gathered} G(a,d)+G(b,c)-G(a,c)-G(b,d) \\=(I_7+I_6+I_5+I_4)+I_7-(I_7+I_5)-(I_7+I_6)=I_4. \end{gathered}

These equalities establish (?) and (?). Part (?) follows from (?) by inspecting the all relative positions of B_1 and B_2 as disjoint subsets of B. To check part (?) one tiles B'' as a disjoint union of boxes B''= B''_1\sqcup B''_2\cdots \sqcup B''_{r-1}\sqcup B''_r s.t. B' is one of these boxes and use item (?) to inductively derive that \mu(B'')= \sum _{1\leq i\leq r} \mu(B''_u). This implies the result

Proposition

Proposition 5.4

OXY7

If X is compact or f is a tame map then:

  1. For a<b and c<d one has \mu^f_r\bigl((a,b]\times [c,d)\bigr)=\sum_{a<x\leq b, c\leq y<d}\delta^f_r (x,y).

  2. F^f_r(b,c)=\sum_{x\leq b, c\leq y}\delta^f_r(x,y).

  3. G^f_r(a,d)=\sum_{a\leq x, y\leq d}\delta^f_r(x,y).

Used by Proof
Proof of Proposition 5.4

Item (?) follows from Proposition 5.3(?) as shown below.

First observe that in in view of (?) if both (b-a) and (d-c) are small enough then \mu^f_r\bigl((a,b]\times [c,d)\bigr)= \delta^f_r(c,d). Then choose subdivisions a_0=a <a_1 <\cdots < a_r= b and c=c_0 <c_1 <\cdots < c_k= d such that all critical values between a and b rep. between c and d are among a_i’s and c_j’s respectively and both a_{i}- a_{i-1} and c_{j}- c_{j-1} are small enough s.t. \mu^f_r((a_{i-1}, a_i]\times [ c_i, c_{i+1}))= \delta^f_r(a_i, c_i). Applying Proposition 5.3(?) one obtains \mu^f_r\bigl((a,b]\times [c,d)\bigr)= \sum_{i\geq 1, j \geq 1} \mu^f_r\bigl((a_{i-1},a_i]\times [c_{j-1}, c_j,d)\bigr) which implies the result as stated.

Item (?) follows from (?) by letting a\to-\infty and d\to\infty. Similarly, item (?) follows from item (?) by letting b\to\infty and c\to-\infty.

Uses Proposition 5.3
Proposition

Proposition 5.5

ZFF5

Let f\colon X\to \mathbb R be a tame map with \epsilon (f)>0. For any \epsilon,\epsilon'<\epsilon(f) one has:

F^f_r(c_i, c_j) = F^f_r(c_i+\epsilon, c_j-\epsilon') = F^f_r(c_{i+1}-\epsilon, c_{j-1}+\epsilon'),

and

\delta^f _r(c_i, c_j)= F^f_r(c_{i-1}, c_{j+1}) + F^f_r(c_i, c_j)- F^f_r(c_{i-}, c_j) - F^f_r(c_i, c_{j+1}).
Used by Proof, Proof
Proof of Proposition 5.5

The tameness of f and the hypothesis \epsilon,\epsilon'<\epsilon(f) imply that the inclusions X^f_{c_i}\subseteq X^f_{c_i+\epsilon}, X^f_{c_i}\subseteq X^f_{c_{i+1}-\epsilon'} and X_f^{c_j-\epsilon}\supseteq X_f^{c_j}, X_f^{c_{j-1}+\epsilon'}\supseteq X_f^{c_j} induce isomorphisms in homology. These facts imply that \mathbb I^f_{c_i}=\mathbb I^f_{c_i+\epsilon}=\mathbb I^f_{c_{i+1}-\epsilon'} and \mathbb I_f^{c_{j-1}+\epsilon}=\mathbb I_f ^{c_j-\epsilon'}=\mathbb I_f ^{c_j} which imply (5.5). To check (5.5), recall that in view of (?), (?) and (5.5), for \epsilon very small, one has \delta^f_r (c_i, c_j)= F_r(c_i-\epsilon, c_j+\epsilon) + F_r(c_i+\epsilon, c_j-\epsilon)- F_r(c_i-\epsilon, c_j-\epsilon) - F_r(c_i+\epsilon, c_j+\epsilon). Thus (5.5) follows from (5.5) by taking \epsilon<\epsilon (f).

Proposition

Proposition 5.6

JSQF

Let f\colon X\to\mathbb R be a tame map with \epsilon (f)>0 and \epsilon<\epsilon(f)/4. For any tame map g with |f-g|<\epsilon and any (a,b)\in\operatorname{supp}\delta^f_r the following holds:

  1. \operatorname{supp}(\delta^f_r)\cap B(a,b;2\epsilon)\equiv (a,b)

  2. \sharp\bigl(\operatorname{supp}(\delta^g_r)\cap\bigl(\bigsqcup_{(a,b)\in\operatorname{supp}\delta^f_r}B(a,b;2\epsilon)\bigr)\bigr)=\sharp\operatorname{supp}(\delta^f_r).

In particular, if the cardinality of the supports(Recall that the cardinality of the support is the sum of multiplicity of the elements in the support.) of \delta^f_r and \delta^g_r are equal and |g-f|<\epsilon, then the support of \delta^g_r lies in an \epsilon-neighborhood(Here \epsilon-neighborhood of (a,b) means the domain (a-\epsilon,a+\epsilon)\times (b-\epsilon,b+\epsilon).) of the support of \delta^f_r.

Proof

Proof

0F0X

Item (?) follows from the definition of \delta^f_r. To prove item (?) observe that if (a,b)\in\operatorname{supp}\delta^f both numbers have to be critical values, hence the a=c_i, b=c_j. In view of Proposition 5.5, for any \epsilon',\epsilon''<\epsilon(f) one has:

\begin{aligned} F^f_r(c_{i-1}, c_{j+1})&=F^f_r(a-\epsilon', b+\epsilon'')\\ F^f_r(c_i, c_j)&=F^f_r(a+\epsilon', b-\epsilon'')\\ F^f_r(c_i, c_{j+1})&=F^f_r(a+\epsilon', b+\epsilon'')\\ F^f_r(c_{i-1}, c_j)&=F^f_r(a-\epsilon', b-\epsilon'') \end{aligned}

Since |f-g|<\epsilon, in view of Observation 5.1 one has:

\begin{array}{rcccl} F^f_r(a-3\epsilon,b+3\epsilon)&\leq&F^g_r(a-2\epsilon,b+2\epsilon)&\leq&F^f_r(a- \epsilon,b+\epsilon) \\ F^f_r(a+ \epsilon,b- \epsilon)&\leq&F^g_r(a+2\epsilon,b-2\epsilon)&\leq&F^f_r(a+3\epsilon,b-3\epsilon)\\ F^f_r(a+ \epsilon,b+3\epsilon)&\leq&F^g_r(a+2\epsilon,b+2\epsilon)&\leq&F^f_r(a+3\epsilon,b+\epsilon) \\ F^f_r(a-3\epsilon,b- \epsilon)&\leq&F^g_r(a-2\epsilon,b-2\epsilon)&\leq&F^f_r(a- \epsilon,b-3\epsilon) \end{array}

Since \epsilon<\epsilon(f)/4, equations (Proof) and (Proof) imply:

\begin{aligned} F^g_r(a-2\epsilon, b+2\epsilon)&=F^f_r(c_{i-1}, c_{j+1})\\ F^g_r(a+2\epsilon, b-2\epsilon)&=F^f_r(c_i,c_j)\\ F^g_r(a+2\epsilon, b+2\epsilon)&=F^f_r(c_{i},c_{j+1})\\ F^g_r(a-2\epsilon, b-2\epsilon)&=F^f_r(c_{i-1}, c_{j}) \end{aligned}

In view of Proposition 5.4 we have

\begin{aligned} \sharp\bigl(\operatorname{supp}(\delta^g_r)\cap B(a,b;2\epsilon)\bigr) &=\mu^g_r\bigl(B(a,b;2\epsilon)\bigr) \\&=F^g_r(a-2\epsilon,b+2\epsilon)+F^g_r(a+2\epsilon,b-2\epsilon) \\&\qquad-F^g_r(a-2\epsilon,b-2\epsilon)-F^g_r(a+2\epsilon,b+2\epsilon). \end{aligned}

Using the equations (Proof) and the equation (5.5) in Proposition 5.5 one derives

\sharp\bigl(\operatorname{supp}(\delta^g_r)\cap B(a,b;2\epsilon)\bigr)=\sharp\bigl(\operatorname{supp}(\delta^f_r)\cap B(a,b;2\epsilon)\bigr)=\delta^f_r(a,b),
Uses Proposition 5.5, Lemma 5.1, Proposition 5.4
Proposition

Proposition 5.7

9MHN

If f is a tame real- or angle-valued map defined on X, a compact ANR, then \delta^f_r and C_r(f) are equal \mathbb Z_{\geq 0}-valued functions defined on \mathbb R^2 or \mathbb T.

Proof of Proposition 5.7

We check the case of an angle valued map f\colon X\to \mathbb S^1 only. The real valued case can be regarded as a particular case of the angle valued map. First note that \epsilon (f)>0. In view of the definition of \delta^{\tilde f}_r it suffices to check that:

  1. If at least one, a or b, is not a critical value then we have \delta^{\tilde f}_r(a,b)=0.

  2. If a=c_i and b=c_j are critical values with c_i\geq c_j, then

    \delta^{\tilde f}_r(c_i,c_j)=\sharp\bigl\{I\in \tilde{\mathcal B}^c_r(f)\bigm|I=[c_j, c_i]\bigr\}.

  3. If a=c_i and b=c_j are critical values with c_i<c_j, then

    \delta^{\tilde f}_r(c_i,c_j)=\sharp\bigl\{I\in \tilde{\mathcal B}^o_{r-1}(f)\bigm|I=(c_j, c_j)\bigr\}.

Recall that \delta^{\tilde f}_r(a,b)=\lim_{\epsilon \to 0}(-F^{\tilde f}_r(a-\epsilon, b-\epsilon)- F^{\tilde f}_r(a+\epsilon, b+\epsilon)+ F^{\tilde f}_r(a-\epsilon, b+\epsilon) + F^{\tilde f}_r(a+\epsilon, b-\epsilon)). In view of Proposition 5.5, if a is not a critical value, y\in\mathbb R and \epsilon>0 is sufficiently small, then F^{\tilde f}_r(a-\epsilon,y)=F^{\tilde f}_r(a+\epsilon,y) and thus \delta^{\tilde f}_r(a,y)=0. Similarly, if b is not a critical value, x\in\mathbb R and \epsilon>0 is sufficiently small, then F^{\tilde f}_r(x,b-\epsilon)=F^{\tilde f}_r(x,b+\epsilon) and thus \delta^{\tilde f}_r(x,b)=0. This establishes statement (?).

Suppose that a=c_i and b=c_j critical values. In view of Proposition 5.5 and of the definition of \delta^{\tilde f} one has

\delta^{\tilde f}_r(c_i, c_j)= -F^{\tilde f}_r(c_{i-1},c_j) - F^{\tilde f}_r(c_i,c_{j+1}) +F^{\tilde f}_r(c_{i-1}, c_{j+1}) + F^{\tilde f}_r(c_i, c_j).

By Propositions 4.2 (b) when c_i\geq c_j, one has

  • \begin{gathered} F^{\tilde f}_r(c_i, c_j) =\sharp\bigl\{I\in\tilde{\mathcal B}_r^c(f)\bigm|I \cap [c_j,c_i]\ne\emptyset\bigr\} \\+\sharp\bigl\{I\in\tilde{\mathcal B}^o_{r-1}(f)\bigm|I\subset(c_j,c_i)\bigr\} +\sharp\tilde{\mathcal J}_r(f), \end{gathered}

    and when c_i>c_j

    one has

    F^{\tilde f}_r(c_i,c_j) =\sharp\bigl\{I\in\tilde{\mathcal B}_r^c(f)\bigm| I\supset[c_i,c_j]\bigr\} +\sharp\tilde{\mathcal J}_r(f).

    Indeed Proposition 4.2 (b) calculates \mathbb I^{\tilde f}_a(r) and \mathbb I_{\tilde f}^b(r) as the \kappa-vector space generated by

    \{ I\in \widetilde {\mathcal B}_r^c \mid I\cap (-\infty, a]\ne \emptyset\}\cup \{ I\in \widetilde {\mathcal B}_{r-1}^o \mid I\subset (-\infty, a)\}

    and

    \{ I\in \widetilde {\mathcal B}_r^c \mid I\cap ([b,\infty )\ne \emptyset\}\cup \{ I\in \widetilde {\mathcal B}_{r-1}^o \mid I\subset (b, \infty)\}

    of which the above descriptions follow.

    Comparing the collections of bar codes whose cardinality are given by F^{\tilde f}_r(c_{i-1},c_j), F^{\tilde f}_r(c_i,c_{j+1}), F^{\tilde f}_r(c_{i-1}, c_{j+1}) and F^{\tilde f}_r(c_i,c_j) and using (?), (?) and (?) one derives the statement

    (?), and (?).

    • Uses Proposition 5.5, Proposition 4.2
    Proof

    Proof (Theorem 2)

    GDCZ

    Observation (?) makes the assignment C(X,\mathbb S^1)_{t, \xi}\ni f\mapsto\delta^f_r\in S^{\beta^N_r(X,\xi)} (\mathbb T) a continuous map.

    In order to conclude the existence of a continuous extension of \delta^f_r to the entire C_\xi(X,\mathbb S^1), in view of the completeness of the metrics D, and \underline D, stated in observations (?) and (?) above, it suffices to show that for a Cauchy sequence \{f_\alpha\}, f_\alpha\in \mathcal U, the sequence \delta_r^{f_\alpha} is a Cauchy sequence in S^{\beta^N_r(X,\xi)}(\mathbb T). This will follow once we can show that (?) holds for any two f,g\in\mathcal U with d(f,g)<\pi. To establish this we proceed as in [CEH07, Section 3.3].

    Start with f,g\in \mathcal U with D(f,g)<\pi and consider h_t, t\in [0,1] defined in (?) above. Choose a finite sequence 0=t_0<t_2<t_4<\cdots<t_{2L-2}<t_{2L}=1, Lpositive integer, so that the open intervals I_{2i}=(t_{2i}-o(t_{2i}),t_{2i}+o(t_{2i})) cover [0,1] with o(t) from item (?) (2). The compacity of [0,1] makes such choice possible.

    By possibly removing some of the points t_{2i} and decreasing o(t_{2i}) if necessary one can make I_{2i}\cap I_{2i+2}\ne\emptyset and t_{2t_-2},t_{2i+2}\notin I_{2i}. Choose t_1<t_3<\cdots<t_{2L-1} with t_{2i}<t_{2i+1}<t_{2i} and t_{2i+1}\in I_{2i}\cap I_{2i+2}. We have then |t_{2i+1}-t_{2i}|<o(t_{2i}) and |t_{2i+2}-t_{2i+1}|<o(t_{2i+2}).

    In view of item (?), |t_{2i+1}-t_{2i}|< o(t_{2i}) implies

    D(h_{t_{2i}},h_{t_{2i+1}})<\epsilon(h_{t_{2i}})/3

    and |t_{2i+2}-t_{2i+1}|<o(t_{2i+2}) implies

    D(h_{t_{2i+2}},h_{t_{2i+1}})<\epsilon(h_{t_{2i+2}})/6.

    In view of item (?) the last inequalities imply

    \underline D(\delta^{h_{t_{2i+1}}}_r,\delta^{h_{t_{2i}}}_r) < 2 D(h_{t_{2i}},h_{t_{2i+1}})

    as well as

    \underline D(\delta^{h_{t_{2i+2}}}_r, \delta^{h_{t_{2i+1}}}_r) < 2 D(h_{t_{2i+2}},h_{t_{2i+1}}).

    Therefore, for any 0\leq k\leq {2L-1} one has \underline D(\delta^{h_{t_{k+1}}}_r, \delta^{h_{t_{k}}}_r) < 2 D(h_{t_{k+1}},h_{t_k}). Then by (?) and (?) cf item (ii), one obtains

    \underline D(\delta^f, \delta^g) \leq \sum_{0\leq i<2L-1} \underline D(\delta^{h_{t_{i+1}}}, \delta^{h_{t_i}}) \leq 2\sum_{0\leq i<2L-1} D(h_{t_{i+1}}, h_{t_i}) = D(f,g).

    This finishes the proof of Theorem 1.2.

    Uses Theorem 1.2
    Proposition

    Proposition 6.1

    UD6H

    Let a,b fixed and suppose l satisfies a>-l, b<l. Then

    1. \operatorname{coker}(i_{ -l, a}(r))=\kappa[\mathcal M_{-l,a}(r)] with

      \begin{aligned} \mathcal M_{-l,a}(r) &:=\{[\alpha,\beta]\in \mathcal B^c_r \mid -l <\alpha \leq a\} \\&\qquad\cup\{(\alpha,\beta)\in \mathcal B^o_{r-1} \mid -l <\beta \leq a\} \\&\qquad\cup\{[\alpha,\beta)\in \mathcal B^{co}_r \mid -l <\alpha \leq a < \beta \}. \end{aligned}

    2. \ker(i_{ -l,a}(r))=\kappa[\mathcal N_{-l,a}(r)] with

      \mathcal N_{-l,a}(r):=\{[\alpha,\beta)\in \mathcal B^{co}_r \mid \alpha \leq -l <\beta \leq a\}.

    3. \operatorname{coker}(i^{b,l}(r))=\kappa[\mathcal M^{b,l}(r)] with

      \begin{aligned} \mathcal M^{b,l}(r) &:=\{[\alpha,\beta]\in \mathcal B^c_r \mid b \leq \beta <l \} \\&\qquad\cup\{(\alpha,\beta)\in \mathcal B^o_{r-1} \mid b \leq \alpha <l\} \\&\qquad\cup\{(\alpha,\beta]\in \mathcal B^{oc}_r \mid \alpha< b \leq \beta< l\}. \end{aligned}

    4. \ker(i^{b,l}(r))=\kappa[\mathcal N^{b,l}(r)] with

      \mathcal N^{b,l}(r):=\{(\alpha,\beta] \in \mathcal B^{oc}_r \mid b \leq \alpha < l \leq \beta\}.

    If 2l>{L(f)} then:

    1. \operatorname{coker}(i_{-l}^l(r))=\kappa[\mathcal M_{-l}^l(r)] with

      \begin{aligned} \mathcal M_{-l}^l(r) &:=\{[\alpha,\beta]\in \mathcal B^c_r \mid [\alpha, \beta]\subset (-l,l)\} \\&\qquad\cup\{(\alpha,\beta)\in \mathcal B^o_{r-1} \mid \alpha <l, \beta> -l\}. \end{aligned}

    2. \ker(i_{-l}^l(r))=\kappa[\mathcal N_{-l}^l(r)\sqcup \tilde J_r(f)] with(In view of the hypothesis (a,b) can not contain both -l and l.)

      \begin{aligned} \mathcal N_{-l}^l(r) &:=\{[\alpha,\beta)\in \mathcal B^{co}_r \mid (\alpha ,\beta)\ni -l\} \\&\qquad\cup\{(\alpha,\beta]\in \mathcal B^{oc}_r \mid (\alpha ,\beta)\ni l\}. \end{aligned}
    Proposition

    Proposition 6.2

    605R

    1. H^{{\rm BM}}_r(\tilde X) = \kappa[[\tilde S_r (f)\sqcup \tilde {\mathcal J}_{r-1}(f)]]= \kappa[[\tilde {\mathcal B}^c_r(f)\sqcup \tilde{\mathcal B} ^o_{r-1}(f)\sqcup \tilde {\mathcal J}_{r-1}(f)]].

    2. \mathbb I^{{\rm BM}, \tilde f}_a(r)=\kappa[[\tilde S_{r, (-\infty, a]}(f)]]= \kappa [[\tilde {\mathcal B}^c_{r, (-\infty,a]}(f)\sqcup \tilde {\mathcal B }^o_{r-1, (-\infty,a]}(f)]].

    3. H^{{\rm BM}}_r(\tilde X_a) = \kappa[[\tilde S '_{r, (-\infty, a]}(f)]]= \kappa[[\tilde {\mathcal B}^{co}_{r, (-\infty, a]}\sqcup \tilde S_{r, (-\infty, a]}(f)]].

    4. \mathbb I^{{\rm BM}, b}_{\tilde f}(r)=\kappa[[\tilde S_{r, [b, \infty)}(f)]]= \kappa [[\tilde {\mathcal B}^c_{r, ([b,\infty)}(f)\sqcup\tilde {\mathcal B }^o_{r-1, [b,\infty)}(f)]].

    5. H^{{\rm BM}}_r(\tilde X^b) = \kappa[[\tilde S'_{r, (b,\infty)}(f)]]= \kappa[[ \tilde {\mathcal B}^{oc}_{r, [b,\infty)}\sqcup \tilde S_{r, (-\infty, a]}(f)]].

    Theorem

    Theorem

    L70J

    The assignment f\mapsto C^m_r(f) from C_{\xi, t}(X,\mathbb S^1) the space of tame maps equipped with the compact open topology to \mathcal\operatorname{Confg}(\mathbb T\setminus \Delta) equipped with the bottleneck topology for case (X,K)= (\mathbb T, \Delta_{\mathbb T}) as described in Section ? is continuous. ( A direct verification of Theorem 1.5 without reference to [ELZ02] can be found in the forthcoming book [BUR].)

    Proposition

    Proposition 7.1

    SGU6

    If f is a tame real- or angle-valued map defined on X, a compact ANR, then \delta^{m,f}_r and C^m_r(f) are equal \mathbb Z_{\geq 0}-valued functions defined on \mathbb R^2\setminus \Delta or \mathbb T\setminus \Delta_{\mathbb T}.

    Proposition

    Proposition 7.2

    5HW3

    Suppose f\colon X\to \mathbb S^1 is a tame map with \tilde f\colon\tilde X\to \mathbb R its infinite cyclic covering,

    and a, b real numbers with a\leq b. Then:

    \begin{aligned} \mathbb K_a(r) &= \kappa\bigl[\{I\in \tilde{\mathcal B}^{co}_r(f) \mid I \ni a\}\bigr], \\ \mathbb K^a(r) &= \kappa\bigl[\{I\in \tilde{\mathcal B}^{oc}_r (f)\mid I \ni a\}\bigr], \\ \ker\bigl(\tilde\iota_{a,b}(r)\bigr) &= \kappa\bigl[\{I\in \tilde{\mathcal B}^{co}_r(f) \mid I \ni a, \ b\notin I\}\bigr], \\ \operatorname{coker}\bigl(\tilde\iota_{a,b}(r)\bigr) &= \kappa\bigl[\{I\in \tilde{\mathcal B}^{co}_r(f) \mid I \ni b,\ a\notin I \}\bigr], \\ \ker\bigl(\tilde\iota^{b,a}(r)\bigr) &= \kappa\bigl[\{I\in \tilde{\mathcal B}^{oc}_r(f) \mid I \ni b,\ a\notin I\}\bigr], \\ \operatorname{coker}\bigl(\tilde\iota^{b,a}(r)\bigr) &= \kappa\bigl[\{I\in \tilde{\mathcal B}^{oc}_r(f) \mid I \ni a,\ b\notin I \}\bigr]. \end{aligned}
    Proof

    Proof (Theorem T6)

    D2CH

    Suppose now that X=M is a closed \kappa-orientable n-dimensional manifold and \alpha is a regular value of \tilde f. Poincaré duality for the manifold \tilde M and for the pairs (\tilde M,\tilde M_\alpha) and (\tilde M,\tilde M^\alpha) provides the commutative diagram

    \vcenter{ \xymatrix{ \mathbb K_\alpha(r)\ar@{=}[d]\ar[r]&H_r(\tilde M_\alpha)\ar[d]\ar[r]^{i_\alpha(r)} &H_r(\tilde M)\ar[d]\\ \mathbb K^{{\rm BM}}_\alpha(r)\ar[d]^{{\rm PD_1}}\ar[r]&H^{{\rm BM}}_r(\tilde M_\alpha)\ar[d]^{{\rm PD_2}}\ar[r]^{i^{{\rm BM}}_\alpha(r)} &H^{{\rm BM}}_r(\tilde M)\ar[d]^{{\rm PD_3}}\\ (\operatorname{coker} j^\alpha(n-r))^\ast \ar[r]&(H_{n-r}(\tilde M, \tilde M^\alpha))^\ast \ar[r]&(H_{n-r}(\tilde M))^\ast }}

    with the bottom vertical arrows PD_1, PD_2, PD_3 isomorphisms. This is because PD_2 and PD_3 which appear in (?) are isomorphisms as indicated in Section ?. The diagram is natural w.r. to the inclusion of pairs (X, X_\alpha)\subseteq (X, X_\beta), provided \alpha and \beta are regular values. It leads to the following commutative diagram whose vertical arrows are all isomorphisms:

    \vcenter{ \xymatrix{ \mathbb K_\alpha(r) \ar[d]\ar[rr]^{\tilde\iota_{a,b}(r)} && \mathbb K_\beta(r) \ar[d] \\ (\operatorname{coker} j^\alpha(n-r))^\ast \ar[rr] && (\operatorname{coker} j^b(n-r))^\ast \\ \mathbb K^\alpha(n-r-1)^\ast \ar[u]_{\hat{\partial}^a(n-r)^\ast} \ar[rr]^{\tilde\iota^{\beta,\alpha}(n-r-1)^\ast} && \mathbb K^\beta(n-r-1)^\ast \ar[u]_{\hat{\partial}^\beta(n-r)^\ast} }}

    To finalize the proof of Theorem 1.6, recall that the tameness of f implies the tameness of \tilde f and for a, b critical values and \epsilon<\epsilon(f), the numbers a\pm \epsilon, b\pm \epsilon are regular values, therefore by (?) one has

    \tilde\iota_{a\pm\epsilon, b\pm\epsilon'}(r)=\bigl(\tilde\iota^{b\pm\epsilon, a\pm\epsilon'}(n-1-r)\bigr)^\ast.

    The equations (?), (?), and (?) imply \delta_r^{m,\tilde f}(a,b)=\delta_{n-r-1}^{m,\tilde f}(b,a) and then C^m_r(f)(\langle a,b\rangle)= \delta_r^{m,f}(\langle a,b\rangle)= \delta_{n-r-1}^{m,f}(\langle b, a\rangle)= C^m_{n-r-1}(f)(\langle b, a\rangle). equality which establishes Theorem 1.6.

    Uses Theorem 1.6
    Lemma

    Lemma 8.1

    5YZ0

    For a linear relation R\colon V\leadsto W the following are equivalent:

    1. R is an isomorphism in the category of modules and linear relations.

    2. \operatorname{dom}(R)=V, \operatorname{img}(R)=W, \ker(R)=0, and \operatorname{mul}(R)=0.

    3. R is an isomorphism of modules.

    In this case R^{-1}=R^\dag.

    Used by Proof, Proof
    Proposition

    Proposition 8.2

    9U4F

    The relation R_\mathrm{reg}\colon V_\mathrm{reg}\leadsto V_\mathrm{reg} is an isomorphism of modules. Moreover, the natural inclusion induces a canonical isomorphism

    V_\mathrm{reg}=\frac{D}{(K_-+K_+)\cap D}\xrightarrow\cong\frac{(K_-+D_+)\cap(D_-+K_+)}{K_-+K_+}

    which intertwines R_\mathrm{reg} with the relation induced on the right hand side quotient.

    Used by Proof
    Proof of Proposition 8.2

    Clearly, (8.2) is well defined and injective. To see that it is onto let

    x=k_-+d_+=d_-+k_+\in(K_-+D_+)\cap(D_-+K_+),

    where k_\pm\in K_\pm and d_\pm\in D_\pm. Thus

    x-k_--k_+=d_+-k_+=d_--k_-\in D_+ \cap D_-=D.

    We conclude x\in D+K_-+K_+, whence (8.2) is onto. We will next show that this isomorphism intertwines R_\mathrm{reg} with the relation induced on the right hand side. To do so, suppose xR\tilde x where

    \begin{aligned} x&=k_-+d_+=d_-+k_+\in(K_-+D_+)\cap(D_-+K_+), \\ \tilde x&=\tilde k_-+\tilde d_+=\tilde d_-+\tilde k_+\in(K_-+D_+)\cap(D_-+K_+), \end{aligned}

    and k_\pm,\tilde k_\pm\in K_\pm and d_\pm,\tilde d_\pm\in D_\pm. Note that there exist k_+'\in K_+ and \tilde k_-'\in K_- such that k_+Rk_+' and \tilde k_-'R\tilde k_-. By linearity of R we obtain

    \underbrace{(x-k_+-\tilde k_-')}_{\in D_-}R\underbrace{(\tilde x-k_+'-\tilde k_-)}_{\in D_+}.

    We conclude d:=x-k_+-\tilde k_-'\in D, \tilde d:=\tilde x-k_+'-\tilde k_-\in D, and dR\tilde d. This shows that the relations induced on the two quotients in (8.2) coincide. We complete the proof by showing that R_\mathrm{reg} is an isomorphism. Clearly, \operatorname{dom}(R_\mathrm{reg})=V_\mathrm{reg}=\operatorname{img}(R_\mathrm{reg}). We will next show \ker(R_\mathrm{reg})=0. To this end suppose dR\tilde d, where

    d\in D\quad\text{and}\quad\tilde d=\tilde k_-+\tilde k_+\in(K_-+K_+)\cap D

    with \tilde k_\pm\in K_\pm. Note that \tilde k_-=\tilde d-\tilde k_+\in K_-\cap D_+. Thus there exists k_-\in K_-\cap D_+ such that k_-R\tilde k_-. By linearity of R, we get (d-k_-)R\tilde k_+, whence d-k_-\in K_+ and thus d\in K_-+K_+. This shows \ker(R_\mathrm{reg})=0. Analogously, we have \operatorname{mul}(R_\mathrm{reg})=0. In view of Lemma 8.1 we conclude that R_\mathrm{reg} is an isomorphism of modules.

    Uses Lemma 8.1
    Proposition

    Proposition 8.3

    DFZ6

    Let R\colon V\leadsto V be a linear relation on a finite dimensional vector space over a field , and let R\cong R_1\oplus\cdots\oplus R_N denote a decomposition into indecomposable linear relations. Then R_\mathrm{reg} is isomorphic to the direct sum of factors R_i whose relations are linear isomorphisms.

    Proof of Proposition 8.3

    Since the definition of R_\mathrm{reg} is a natural one, we clearly have

    R_\mathrm{reg}\cong(R_1)_\mathrm{reg}\oplus\cdots\oplus(R_N)_\mathrm{reg}.

    Consequently, it suffices to show the following two assertions:

    1. If R\colon V\leadsto V is an isomorphism of vector spaces, then V_\mathrm{reg}=V and R_\mathrm{reg}=R.

    2. If R\colon V\leadsto V is an indecomposable linear relation on a finite dimensional vector space which is not a linear isomorphism, then V_\mathrm{reg}=0.

    The first statement is obvious, in this case we have K_-=K_+=0 and D=D_-=D_+=V. To see the second assertion, note that an indecomposable linear relation R\subseteq V\times V gives rise to an indecomposable representation R\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\to}{\to}V of the quiver G_2. Since R is not an isomorphism, the quiver representation has to be of the bar code type. Using the explicit descriptions of the bar code representations, it is straight forward to conclude V_\mathrm{reg}=0.

    Proposition

    Proposition 8.4

    UUQ6

    Suppose R\colon V\leadsto V is a linear relation on a finite dimensional vector space. Then:

    D_+=D+K_+,\quad D_-=K_-+D,\quad\text{and}
    K_-\cap D_+=K_-\cap K_+=D_-\cap K_+.
    Proof (Proof of Proposition 8.4) of Proposition 8.4

    From Lemma 8.6 we get \operatorname{img}(\pi\iota^\dag R^k)=D_+/K_+, whence D_+\subseteq\operatorname{img}(R^k)+K_+, for every k\geq0, and thus D_+\subseteq D_-+K_+. This implies D_+=D+K_+. Considering R^\dag we obtain the other equality in (8.4). From Lemma 8.6 we also get \operatorname{mul}(\pi\iota^\dag R^k)=0, whence \operatorname{mul}(R^k)\cap D_+\subseteq K_+, for every k\geq0. This gives K_-\cap D_+=K_-\cap K_+. Considering R^\dag we get the other equality in (8.4).

    Uses Lemma 8.6
    Lemma

    Lemma 8.5

    6EA1

    Suppose R\colon V\leadsto W is a linear relation between vector spaces such that \dim V=\dim W<\infty. Then the following are equivalent:

    1. R is an isomorphism.

    2. \operatorname{dom}(R)=V and \ker(R)=0.

    3. \operatorname{img}(R)=W and \operatorname{mul}(R)=0.

    Used by Proof
    Proof of Lemma 8.5

    This follows immediately from the dimension formula

    \dim\operatorname{dom}(R)+\dim\operatorname{mul}(R)=\dim(R)=\dim\operatorname{img}(R)+\dim\ker(R)

    and Lemma 8.1.

    Uses Lemma 8.1
    Lemma

    Lemma 8.6

    2CBD

    If V is finite dimensional, then the composition of relations

    D_+/K_+\overset{\pi^\dag}\leadsto D_+\overset\iota\leadsto V\overset{R^k}\leadsto V\overset{\iota^\dag}\leadsto D_+\overset\pi\leadsto D_+/K_+,

    is a linear isomorphism, for every k\geq0, where \iota and \pi denote the canonical inclusion and projection, respectively. Analogously, the relation induced by R^k on D_-/K_- is an isomorphism, for all k\geq0. Moreover, for sufficiently large k,

    D_-=\operatorname{img}(R^k)\quad\text{and}\quad D_+=\operatorname{dom}(R^k).
    Used by Proof
    Proof of Lemma 8.6

    One readily verifies \operatorname{dom}(\pi\iota^\dag R^k\iota\pi^\dag)=D_+/K_+ and \ker(\pi\iota^\dag R^k\iota\pi^\dag)=0. The first assertion thus follows from Lemma 8.5 above. Considering R^\dag we obtain the second statement. Clearly, \operatorname{dom}(R^k)\supseteq\operatorname{dom}(R^{k+1}), for all k\geq0. Since V is finite dimensional, we must have \operatorname{dom}(R^k)=\operatorname{dom}(R^{k+1}), for sufficiently large k. Given v\in\operatorname{dom}(R^k), we thus find v_1\in\operatorname{dom}(R^k) such that vRv_1. Proceeding inductively, we construct v_i\in\operatorname{img}(R^k) such that vRv_1Rv_2R\cdots, whence v\in D_+. This shows \operatorname{dom}(R^k)\subseteq D_+, for sufficiently large k. As the converse inclusion is obvious we get D_+=\operatorname{dom}(R^k). Considering R^\dag, we obtain the last statement.

    Uses Lemma 8.5
    Observation

    Observation 8.7

    VJBL

    Suppose A,B\colon V\to W are two linear maps.

    1. If A',B'\colon V\to W' denote the composition of A and B with an inclusion of vector spaces, W\subseteq W', then R(A,B)=R(A',B').

    2. If A is invertible then R(A,B)= R({\rm Id}, A^{-1}B)=R(A^{-1}B,{\rm Id})^\dag.

    3. If A is invertible then R(A,B)_\mathrm{reg}=((A^{-1}B)_\mathrm{reg})^{-1}.

    Lemma

    Lemma 8.8

    T8BQ

    Suppose r_1\leq r_2\leq r_3 and assume r_2 is a tame value. Then, as linear relations, B_{r_2}^{r_3}B_{r_1}^{r_2}=B_{r_1}^{r_3}.

    Proof of Lemma 8.8

    Since r_2 is a tame value, we have an exact Mayer–Vietoris sequence,

    H_*(\tilde X _{r_2})\to H_*(\tilde X_{[r_1,r_2]})\oplus H_*(\tilde X_{[r_2,r_3]})\to H_*(\tilde X_{[r_1,r_3]}).

    This immediately gives B_{r_2}^{r_3}B_{r_1}^{r_2}\supseteq B_{r_1}^{r_3}. As the converse inclusion, B_{r_2}^{r_3}B_{r_1}^{r_2}\subseteq B_{r_1}^{r_3}, is obvious, the lemma follows.

    Lemma

    Lemma 8.9

    YD1B

    If a,b\in H_*(X_\theta) and aRb, then a=\tau_*b in H_*(\tilde X).

    Used by Proof
    Lemma

    Lemma 8.10

    NBLP

    We have:

    \begin{aligned} K_+&=\ker\bigl(H_*(X_\theta)\to H_*(\tilde X_{[\tilde\theta,\infty)})\bigr) \\ K_-&=\ker\bigl(H_*(X_\theta)\to H_*(\tilde X_{(-\infty,\tilde\theta]})\bigr) \end{aligned}

    Both maps are induced by the canonical inclusion X_\theta=\tilde X_{\tilde\theta}\to\tilde X.

    Used by Proof, Proof
    Proof of Lemma 8.10

    We will only show the first equality, the other one can be proved along the same lines. To see the inclusion K_+\subseteq\ker(H_*(X_\theta)\to H_*(\tilde X_{[\tilde\theta,\infty)})), let a\in K_+. Hence, there exist a_k\in H_*(X_\theta), almost all of which vanish, such that aRa_1Ra_2R\cdots. In H_*(\tilde X_{[\tilde\theta,\tilde\theta+2\pi]}), we thus have:

    a=\tau_*a_1,\quad a_1=\tau_*a_2,\quad a_2=\tau_*a_3,\quad\dotsc

    In H_*(\tilde X_{[\tilde\theta,\infty)}), we obtain:

    a=\tau_*a_1=\tau_*^2a_2=\tau_*^3a_3=\cdots

    Since some a_k have to be zero, we conclude that a vanishes in H_*(\tilde X_{[\tilde\theta,\infty)}).

    To see the converse inclusion, K_+\supseteq\ker(H_*(\tilde X_\theta)\to H_*(\tilde X_{[\tilde\theta,\infty)})), set

    U:=\bigsqcup_{\text{$0\leq k$ even}}\tilde X_{[\tilde\theta+2\pi k,\tilde\theta+2\pi(k+1)]},\qquad V:=\bigsqcup_{\text{$1\leq k$ odd}}\tilde X_{[\tilde\theta+2\pi k,\tilde\theta+2\pi(k+1)]}

    and note that U\cup V=\tilde X_{[\tilde\theta,\infty)}, as well as U\cap V=\bigsqcup_{k\in\mathbb N}\tilde X_{\tilde\theta+2\pi k}. Since \theta is a tame value, we have an exact Mayer–Vietoris sequence

    \bigoplus_{k\in\mathbb N}H_*(\tilde X_{\tilde\theta+2\pi k})=H_*\Bigl(\bigsqcup_{k\in\mathbb N}\tilde X_{\tilde\theta+2\pi k}\Bigr)\to H_*(U)\oplus H_*(V)\to H_*(\tilde X_{[\tilde\theta,\infty)}).

    For b\in\ker(H_*(X_\theta)\to H_*(\tilde X_{[\tilde\theta,\infty)})) we thus find b_k\in H_*(\tilde X_{\tilde\theta+2\pi k}), almost all of which vanish, such that:

    \begin{aligned} b&=b_1\in H_*(\tilde X_{[\tilde\theta,\tilde\theta+2\pi]})\\ b_1+b_2&=0\in H_*(\tilde X_{[\tilde\theta+2\pi,\tilde\theta+4\pi]})\\ b_2+b_3&=0\in H_*(\tilde X_{[\tilde\theta+4\pi,\tilde\theta+6\pi]})\\ &\,\,\,\,\vdots \end{aligned}

    Putting c_k:=(-1)^{k-1}\tau^{-k}_*b_k\in H_*(\tilde X_{\tilde\theta}), we obtain the following equalities in H_*(\tilde X_{[\tilde\theta,\tilde\theta+2\pi]}):

    b=\tau_*c_1,\quad c_1=\tau_*c_2,\quad c_2=\tau_*c_3,\quad\dotsc

    In other words, we have the relations bRc_1Rc_2Rc_3R\cdots. Since some c_k has to be zero, we conclude b\in K_+, whence the lemma.

    Lemma

    Lemma 8.11

    C126

    We have:

    \begin{aligned} D_+&=\ker\bigl(H_*(X_\theta)\to H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},+}(\tilde X_{[\tilde\theta,\infty)})\bigr) \\ D_-&=\ker\bigl(H_*(X_\theta)\to H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},-}(\tilde X_{(-\infty,\tilde\theta]})\bigr) \end{aligned}

    Both maps are induced by the canonical inclusion X_\theta=\tilde X_{\tilde\theta}\to\tilde X.

    Used by Proof
    Proof of Lemma 8.11

    Using the exact Mayer–Vietoris sequence

    \prod_{k\in\mathbb N}H_*(\tilde X_{\tilde\theta+2\pi k})= H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},+}\Bigl(\bigsqcup_{k\in\mathbb N}\tilde X_{\tilde\theta+2\pi k}\Bigr)\to H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},+}(U)\oplus H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},+}(V)\to H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},+}(\tilde X_{[\tilde\theta,\infty)}),

    this can be proved along the same lines as Lemma 8.10.

    Uses Lemma 8.10
    Lemma

    Lemma 8.12

    IYKX

    We have:

    \begin{aligned} K_-+K_+&=\ker\bigl(H_*(X_\theta)\to H_*(\tilde X)\bigr) \\ K_-+D_+&=\ker\bigl(H_*(X_\theta)\to H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},+}(\tilde X)\bigr) \\ D_-+K_+&=\ker\bigl(H_*(X_\theta)\to H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},-}(\tilde X)\bigr) \\ D_-+D_+&=\ker\bigl(H_*(X_\theta)\to H_*^\mathrm{l.f.}(\tilde X)\bigr) \end{aligned}

    All maps are induced by the canonical inclusion X_\theta=\tilde X_{\tilde\theta}\to\tilde X.

    Used by Proof
    Proof of Lemma 8.12

    The first statement follows from the exact Mayer–Vietoris sequence

    H_*(\tilde X_{\tilde\theta})\to H_*(\tilde X_{(-\infty,\tilde\theta]})\oplus H_*(\tilde X_{[\tilde\theta,\infty)})\to H_*(\tilde X)

    and Lemma 8.10. The second assertion follows from the exact Mayer–Vietoris sequence

    H_*(\tilde X_{\tilde\theta})\to H_*(\tilde X_{(-\infty,\tilde\theta]})\oplus H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},+}(\tilde X_{[\tilde\theta,\infty)})\to H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},+}(\tilde X)

    and Lemma 8.10 and 8.11. Similarly, one can check the third equality. To see the last statement we use the exact Mayer–Vietoris sequence

    H_*(\tilde X_{\tilde\theta})\to H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},-}(\tilde X_{(-\infty,\tilde\theta]})\oplus H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},+}(\tilde X_{[\tilde\theta,\infty)})\to H_*^\mathrm{l.f.}(\tilde X)

    and Lemma 8.11.

    Uses Lemma 8.10, Lemma 8.11
    Lemma

    Lemma 8.13

    69Q8

    We have

    \ker\Bigl(H_*(\tilde X)\to H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},-}(\tilde X)\oplus H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},+}(\tilde X)\Bigr) \subseteq\operatorname{img}\bigl(H_*(\tilde X_{\tilde\theta})\to H_*(\tilde X)\bigr),

    where all maps are induced by the tautological inclusions.

    Used by Proof
    Proof of Lemma 8.13

    This follows from the following commutative diagram of exact Mayer–Vietoris sequences:

    \xymatrix{ H^\mathrm{l.f.}_{*+1}(\tilde X)\ar[r]^-\partial & H_*(\tilde X)\ar[r] & H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},-}(\tilde X)\oplus H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},+}(\tilde X) \\ H^\mathrm{l.f.}_{*+1}(\tilde X)\ar@{=}[u]\ar[r]^-\partial & H_*(\tilde X_{\tilde\theta})\ar[u]\ar[r] & H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},-}(\tilde X_{(-\infty,\tilde\theta]})\oplus H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},+}(\tilde X_{[\tilde\theta,\infty)}) \ar[u] }

    A similar argument was used in [HL99b, Lemma 2.5].

    Theorem

    Theorem 8.14

    1MAL

    The inclusion \iota\colon X_\theta=\tilde X_{\tilde\theta}\to\tilde X induces a canonical isomorphism

    H_*(X_\theta)_\mathrm{reg}=\frac D{(K_-+K_+)\cap D} \xrightarrow\cong\ker\Bigl(H_*(\tilde X)\to H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},-}(\tilde X)\oplus H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},+}(\tilde X)\Bigr),

    intertwining R_\mathrm{reg} with the monodromy isomorphism induced by the deck transformation \tau\colon\tilde X\to\tilde X on the right hand side. Moreover, working with coefficients in a field, and assuming that H_*(X_\theta) is finite dimensional, the common kernel on the right hand side above coincides with

    \ker\bigl(H_*(\tilde X)\to H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},-}(\tilde X)\bigr) =\ker\bigl(H_*(\tilde X)\to H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},+}(\tilde X)\bigr).

    Particularly, in this case the latter two kernels are finite dimensional too.

    Proof of Theorem 8.14

    It follows immediately from Lemma 8.12 and 8.13 that \iota_*\colon H_*(X_\theta)\to H_*(\tilde X) induces an isomorphism

    \frac{(K_-+D_+)\cap(D_-+K_+)}{K_-+K_+}\xrightarrow\cong\ker\Bigl(H_*(\tilde X)\to H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},-}(\tilde X)\oplus H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},+}(\tilde X)\Bigr).

    In view of Lemma 8.9, this isomorphism intertwines the isomorphism induced by R on the left hand side, with the monodromy isomorphism on the right hand side. Combining this with Proposition 8.2 we obtain the first assertion. For the second statement it suffices to show

    \ker\bigl(H_*(\tilde X)\to H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},+}(\tilde X)\bigr) \subseteq\ker\Bigl(H_*(\tilde X)\to H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},-}(\tilde X)\oplus H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},+}(\tilde X)\Bigr),

    as the converse inclusion is obvious, and the corresponding statement for the downward Novikov homology can be derived analogously. To this end, suppose a\in\ker\bigl(H_*(\tilde X)\to H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},+}(\tilde X)\bigr). Then there exists k such that \tau^k_*a is contained in the image of H_*(\tilde X_{(-\infty,\tilde\theta]})\to H_*(\tilde X). Using the exact Mayer–Vietoris sequence

    H_*(\tilde X_{\tilde\theta})\to H_*(\tilde X_{(-\infty,\tilde\theta]})\oplus H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},+}(\tilde X_{[\tilde\theta,\infty)})\to H_*^{\mathrm{Nov},+}(\tilde X)

    we conclude, that \tau_*^ka is contained in the image of H_*(\tilde X_{\tilde\theta})\to H_*(\tilde X). Thus \tau_*^ka is contained in \iota_*(D_+), see Lemma 8.12. Since H_*(X_\theta) is assumed to be a finite dimensional vector space, we have \iota_*(D_-)=\iota_*(D)=\iota_*(D_+), see (8.4). Using Lemma 8.12 we thus conclude \tau_*^ka is contained in the kernel on the right hand side of (Proof). Since this common kernel is invariant under the isomorphism \tau_*\colon H_*(\tilde X)\to H_*(\tilde X), we conclude that a has to be contained in the common kernel too, whence the theorem.

    Uses Lemma 8.12, Lemma 8.13, Lemma 8.9, Proposition 8.2
    Lemma

    Lemma 8.15

    TFLA

    The following equalities of relations on H_r(X_\theta) hold true:

    1. If \theta=\theta_i, then R_r^\theta=\alpha_i\beta_{i-1}^\dag\alpha_{i-1}\cdots\beta_1^\dag\alpha_1\beta_m^\dag\alpha_m\cdots\alpha_{i+2}\beta_{i+1}^\dag\alpha_{i+1}\beta_i^\dag.

    2. If \theta=t_i, then R_r^\theta=\beta_{i-1}^\dag\alpha_{i-1}\beta_{i-2}^\dag\cdots\beta_1^\dag\alpha_1\beta_m^\dag\alpha_m\cdots\beta_{i+1}^\dag\alpha_{i+1}\beta_i^\dag\alpha_i.

    Lemma

    Lemma 8.16

    CEG6

    Suppose \rho=\{V_i,\alpha_i,\beta_i\} is a G_{2m}-representation with Jordan blocks \bigoplus_{J\in\mathcal J}T(J). Then, for all 1\leq i\leq m, the following hold true:

    1. \bigl(\alpha_i\beta_{i-1}^\dag\alpha_{i-1}\cdots\beta_1^\dag\alpha_1\beta_m^\dag\alpha_m\cdots\alpha_{i+2}\beta_{i+1}^\dag\alpha_{i+1}\beta_i^\dag\bigr)_\mathrm{reg} is conjugate to \bigoplus_{J\in\mathcal J}T(J).

    2. \bigl(\beta_{i-1}^\dag\alpha_{i-1}\beta_{i-2}^\dag\cdots\beta_1^\dag\alpha_1\beta_m^\dag\alpha_m\cdots\beta_{i+1}^\dag\alpha_{i+1}\beta_i^\dag\alpha_i\bigr)_\mathrm{reg} is conjugate to \bigoplus_{J\in\mathcal J}T(J).

    Proof of Lemma 8.16

    W.l.o.g. it suffices to consider an indecomposable representation \rho. For such a \rho, however, the statement follows immediately from the classification of indecomposable representations discussed in Section ?, see also Proposition 8.3.

    Proposition

    Proposition 9.1

    6MBN

    For any tame map f\colon X\to \mathbb S^1 and 0<\epsilon<\epsilon(f) we have:

    \begin{gathered} \dim H_r\bigl(X_{[\theta_i-\epsilon,\theta_i+\epsilon]},X(\theta_i-\epsilon)\bigr) \\=\sharp\{I\in{\mathcal B}^c_r(f) \mid l(I)=\theta_i\} +\sharp\{I\in{\mathcal B}^o_{r-1}(f) \mid r(I)=\theta_i\} \\+\sharp\{I\in{\mathcal B}^{co}_r(f) \mid l(I)=\theta_i\} +\sharp\{I\in{\mathcal B}^{co}_{r-1}(f) \mid r(I)=\theta_i\}. \end{gathered}
    Proof of Proposition 9.1

    By the long exact homology sequence of the pair (X_{[\theta_i-\epsilon, \theta_i+\epsilon]}, X{(\theta_i-\epsilon)}),

    \begin{gathered} \dim H_r\bigl(X_{[\theta_i -\epsilon, \theta_i +\epsilon]}, X{(\theta_i-\epsilon)}\bigr) \\=\dim\operatorname{coker}\Bigl(H_r(X{(\theta_i-\epsilon)})\xrightarrow{i_r}H_r\bigl(X_{[\theta_i-\epsilon, \theta_i+\epsilon]})\Bigr) \\+\dim\ker\Bigl(H_{r-1}(X{(\theta_i-\epsilon)})\xrightarrow{i_{r-1}}H_{r-1}(X_{[\theta_i-\epsilon, \theta_i+\epsilon]})\Bigr). \end{gathered}

    According to Proposition 4.2, there exist isomorphisms \omega_1(r) and \omega_2(r) such that the diagram

    \xymatrix{ H_r(X(\theta_i-\epsilon))\ar[r]^-{i_r}&H_r(X_{[\theta_i-\epsilon,\theta_i+\epsilon]}) \\ \kappa[S_1(r)]\ar[u]_\cong^-{\omega_1(r)}\ar[r]&\kappa[S_2(r)]\ar[u]^\cong_-{\omega_2(r)} }

    commutes, where

    \begin{aligned} S_1(r)&=\{I\in\widetilde{\mathcal B}_r(f)\mid\theta_i-\epsilon\in I\}\sqcup\widetilde{\mathcal J}_r(f), \\ S_2(r)&=\{I\in\widetilde{\mathcal B}_r(f)\mid\theta_i\in I\}\sqcup\widetilde{\mathcal J}_r(f), \end{aligned}

    and the lower horizontal arrow in the diagram denotes the canonical map associated with the subsets S_1(r) and S_2(r) of \widetilde{\mathcal B}_r(f)\sqcup\widetilde{\mathcal J}_r(f).

    From this description one readily obtains \operatorname{coker}(i_r)\cong\kappa[S_3(r)] and \ker(i_{r-1})\cong\kappa[S_4(r)], where

    \begin{aligned} S_3(r)&=\{I\in\mathcal B^c_r\mid l(I)=\theta_i\}\sqcup\{I\in\mathcal B^{co}_r\mid l(I)=\theta_i\}, \\ S_4(r)&=\{I\in\mathcal B^o_{r-1}\mid r(I)=\theta_i\}\sqcup\{I\in\mathcal B^{co}_{r-1}\mid r(I)=\theta_i\}, \end{aligned}

    and thus

    \begin{aligned} \dim\operatorname{coker}(i_r)&=\sharp\{I\in\mathcal B^c_r\mid l(I)=\theta_i\}+\sharp\{I\in\mathcal B^{co}_r\mid l(I)=\theta_i\}, \\ \dim\ker(i_{r-1})&=\sharp\{I\in\mathcal B^o_{r-1}\mid r(I)=\theta_i\}+\sharp\{I\in\mathcal B^{co}_{r-1}\mid r(I)=\theta_i\}. \end{aligned}

    Combining these equations with (Proof) we obtain the proposition.

    Uses Proposition 4.2
    Proposition

    Proposition 9.2 (Morse theorem)

    MIO9

    If \epsilon>0 is sufficiently small, then

    \dim H_r\bigl(M_{[\theta_i -\epsilon, \theta_i+\epsilon]},M{(\theta_i-\epsilon)}\bigr)=c_{r,i},

    for every r=0,\dotsc,n and all i=1,\dotsc,N.

    Example

    Example B.1

    R4A0

    Take Y=[0,2\pi]. For 0\leq\epsilon<\pi define a map \overline f_\epsilon\colon[0,2\pi]\to [0,2\pi] by

    \overline f_\epsilon(x):= \begin{cases} \frac{\pi+\epsilon}{\pi-\epsilon}x&\text{if $0\leq x\leq \pi-\epsilon$,}\\ -x+2\pi&\text{if $\pi-\epsilon \leq x\leq \pi+\epsilon$, and}\\ \frac{\pi+\epsilon}{\pi-\epsilon}x-\frac{4\pi\epsilon}{\pi-\epsilon}&\text{if $\pi+\epsilon\leq x\leq 2\pi$.} \end{cases}

    Figure B.1 displays the graph of \overline f_\epsilon.

    The paper has a figure here, which this page does not show.

    Clearly, f_\epsilon can be made is arbitrary closed to f_0. For \epsilon=0 there are no barcodes and only one Jordan cell, \mathcal J_0(f_0)=\{(\kappa^1,\operatorname{id})\}. For 0<\epsilon<\pi we have the same Jordan block, \mathcal J_0(f_\epsilon)=\{(\kappa^1,\operatorname{id})\}, and in addition two barcodes, \mathcal B_0(f_\epsilon)=\{[\pi-\epsilon,\pi+\epsilon),(\pi-\epsilon,\pi+\epsilon]\}.

    Example

    Example B.2

    P6RX

    Take Y=Y_1\cup Y_2\cup Y_3\subseteq\mathbb R^2, where

    \begin{aligned} Y_1&=\{(x,0)\mid0\leq x\leq 2\pi\}, \\ Y_2&=\{(x,y)\mid(x-\pi/2)^2+y^2=(\pi/4)^2,y\geq0\},\,\,\text{and} \\ Y_3&=\{(x,y)\mid y=x-\pi,\,5\pi/4\leq x\leq7\pi/4\}. \end{aligned}

    For 0\leq\epsilon\leq\pi/4 define \overline f_\epsilon\colon Y\to[0,2\pi] as composition \overline f_\epsilon=l_\epsilon\circ p, where p\colon Y\to [0,2\pi] denotes the coordinate projection given by p(x,y)=x and l_\epsilon\colon[0,2\pi]\to[0,2\pi] is the piecewise linear map defined by

    l_\epsilon(t):= \begin{cases} \frac{t}{\pi/4}(\pi/4+\epsilon)&\text{if $0\leq t\leq\pi/4$,}\\ \frac{3\pi/4-t}{\pi/2}(\pi/4+\epsilon)+\frac{t-\pi/4}{\pi/2}(3\pi/4-\epsilon)&\text{if $\pi/4\leq t\leq3\pi/4$,}\\ \frac{5\pi/4-t}{\pi/2}(3\pi/4-\epsilon)+\frac{t-3\pi/4}{\pi/2}(5\pi/4+\epsilon)&\text{if $3\pi/4\leq t\leq5\pi/4$,}\\ \frac{7\pi/4-t}{\pi/2}(5\pi/4+\epsilon)+\frac{t-5\pi/4}{\pi/2}(7\pi/4-\epsilon)&\text{if $5\pi/4\leq t\leq7\pi/4$, and}\\ \frac{2\pi-t}{\pi/4}(7\pi/4-\epsilon)+\frac{t-7\pi/4}{\pi/4}2\pi&\text{if $7\pi/4\leq t\leq2\pi$.} \end{cases}

    The graph of the map l_\epsilon is displayed in Figure B.2, the space Y and the map \overline f_\epsilon are indicated in Figure B.2.

    The paper has a figure here, which this page does not show.
    The paper has a figure here, which this page does not show.

    For 0\leq\epsilon<\pi/4 we have one Jordan cell, \mathcal J_0(f_\epsilon)=\{(\kappa^1,\operatorname{id})\}, two 0-barcodes, and no 1-barcodes, that is, \mathcal B_0(f_\epsilon)=\{(\pi/4+\epsilon,3\pi/4-\epsilon),(5\pi/a+\epsilon,7\pi/4-\epsilon]\}. For \epsilon=\pi/4 we have the same Jordan cell, \mathcal J_0(f_{\pi/4})=\{(\kappa^1,\operatorname{id})\}, no 0-barcodes, and one 1-barcode, \mathcal B_1(f_{\pi/4})=\{[\pi/2,\pi/2]\}.

    Example

    Example B.3

    7578

    Take Y=Y_1\cup Y_2\subseteq[0,2\pi]\times\mathbb S^1 where Y_1=[0,2\pi]\times\{p\}, Y_2=[2\pi/3,4\pi/3]\times\mathbb S^1, and p\in\mathbb S^1 is a base point. For 0\leq\epsilon<4\pi/3 we define a map \overline f_\epsilon\colon Y\to[0,2\pi] by

    \overline f_\epsilon(x,y):= \begin{cases} \frac{2\pi+3\epsilon}{2\pi}x&\text{if $0\leq x\leq2\pi/3$,}\\ \frac{2\pi-6\epsilon}{2\pi}x+3\epsilon&\text{if $2\pi/3\leq x\leq4\pi/3$, and}\\ \frac{2\pi+3\epsilon}{2\pi}x-3\epsilon&\text{if $4\pi/3\leq x\leq2\pi$.} \end{cases}

    The space Y and the map \overline f_\epsilon are illustrated in Figure B.3.

    The paper has a figure here, which this page does not show.

    For 0\leq\epsilon\leq\pi/3 we have one Jordan cell, \mathcal J_0(f_\epsilon)=\{(\kappa^1,\operatorname{id})\}, no 0-barcodes, and one 1-barcode, \mathcal B_1(f_\epsilon)=\{[2\pi/3+\epsilon, 4\pi/3-\epsilon]\}. For \pi/3<\epsilon<4\pi/3 we have the same Jordan cell, \mathcal J_0(f_\epsilon)=\{(\kappa^1,\operatorname{id})\}, two 0-barcodes and one 1-barcode, that is, \mathcal B_0(f_\epsilon)=\{[4\pi/3-\epsilon,2\pi/3+\epsilon),(4\pi/3-\epsilon,2\pi/3+\epsilon]\}, and \mathcal B_1(f_\epsilon)=\{[4\pi/3-\epsilon,2\pi/3+\epsilon]\}.

    Theorem

    Theorem C.1

    B7UC

    Suppose M is a submodule of a free module F over a principal ideal domain. Then M is free and its dimension is at most the dimension of F.

    Theorem

    Theorem C.2

    VQ6N

    If M is a finitely generated module over a principal ideal domain, then M/\operatorname{Tor}(M) is free, and there exists an isomorphism M\cong\operatorname{Tor}(M)\oplus(M/\operatorname{Tor}(M)).

    Source and licence

    The text on this page is from arXiv:1303.4328v7 by Dan Burghelea and Stefan Haller, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

    The record of each item is in analysis/objects/1303/1303.4328.jsonl.