Finite Chains of Two-Complexes and Acyclic Covers

K has one vertex, two edges and two 2-cells, so its cellular boundary \partial_1 vanishes and \partial_2 is the exponent-sum matrix \begin{psmallmatrix}1&2\\2&3\end{psmallmatrix}, of determinant -1. Hence K is acyclic, so it is its own connected acyclic regular cover, and Theorem A gives the chains, with finite terms. A coset enumeration shows that G=\pi_1(K) has order 120; being perfect, G is \mathrm{SL}(2,5). The universal cover \widetilde K is simply connected with Euler characteristic 120\,\chi(K)=120, so \pi_2(K)\cong H_2(\widetilde K)\cong\mathbb Z^{119}.

(a) Let i\colon K\subset L with L a two-complex. Since there are no 3-cells, H_2=\ker\partial_2 on cellular chains, so H_2(i) is injective. If i is zero on \pi_2, then H_2(i)\circ h_K=h_L\circ i_*=0, hence h_K=0. Conversely, let K be Cockcroft. If \pi_1(K)\ne1, attach 2-cells along loops representing a generating set of \pi_1(K) (finite if K is finite). The resulting L is simply connected, so h_L is an isomorphism, and h_L\circ i_*=H_2(i)\circ h_K=0 gives i_*=0. If \pi_1(K)=1, then h_K is an isomorphism and zero, so \pi_2(K)=0, and we may take L=K\cup e^1\cup e^2 with e^2 attached along the loop e^1.

(b) By the lifting criterion, f lifts to \tilde f\colon A\to\widetilde Y, and f_*=p_*\tilde f_* where p\colon\widetilde Y\to Y is the covering. Now h_{\widetilde Y}\tilde f_*=H_2(\tilde f)h_A=0, and h_{\widetilde Y} is an isomorphism, so \tilde f_*=0.

(c) The Hurewicz map is invariant under the action of \pi_1, so h_X(\gamma\cdot f_*s)=h_X(f_*s)=H_2(f)h_A(s)=0 for \gamma\in\pi_1X, s\in\pi_2A. Similarly g_*(\gamma\cdot f_*s)=g_*(\gamma)\cdot g_*f_*s=0.

(d) We have H_2(g)\circ h_X=h_Y\circ g_*=0 and H_2(g) is injective, so h_X=0. For a wedge W=\bigvee_rX_r with retractions \rho_r\colon W\to X_r, the map H_2(W)\to\prod_rH_2(X_r) with coordinates H_2(\rho_r) is injective, and H_2(\rho_r)h_W=h_{X_r}\rho_{r*}=0.

K_N has no 3-cells, so H_2=\ker\partial_2; and H_1(K_N)=\pi_1(K_N)^{\mathrm{ab}}=N/[N,N].

The preimage of K is a covering space of K. A loop in K lifts to a loop in \widetilde X if and only if it is trivial in \pi_1(X), so the component through a base lift is the cover with fundamental group M. The deck group acts transitively on the fibre over the base point, hence on the components.

Restrict scalars to R=k[H]. Since k[Q] is a free R-module on a set of coset representatives, U and V are free R-modules. Let \varepsilon\colon R\to k be the augmentation, with kernel I_H. As H is normal, k[Q/H]\otimes_{k[Q]}U\cong U/I_HU \cong k\otimes_RU, and under these identifications k[Q/H]\otimes f becomes k\otimes_Rf. The ring R is a commutative domain: every finite computation in R takes place in the Laurent polynomial ring k[t_1^{\pm1},\dots,t_s^{\pm1}] of a finitely generated, hence free abelian, subgroup of H.

Claim. If v_1,\dots,v_m\in V have k-linearly independent images \bar v_1,\dots,\bar v_m in k\otimes_RV, then they are R-linearly independent.

We induct on m, the case m=0 being empty. Since \bar v_1\ne0, some coordinate functional \lambda\colon V\to R with respect to an R-basis of V satisfies \varepsilon(a)\ne0, where a:=\lambda(v_1); in particular a\ne0. Put w_j=av_j-\lambda(v_j)v_1 for 2\le j\le m. Their images \varepsilon(a)\bar v_j-\varepsilon(\lambda(v_j))\bar v_1 are k-linearly independent, because the \bar v_j are and \varepsilon(a)\ne0 in the domain k. By induction the w_j are R-linearly independent. If \sum_jc_jv_j=0 with c_j\in R, then, R being commutative,

so c_j=0 for j\ge2. Then c_1v_1=0, and applying \lambda gives c_1a=0, so c_1=0.

Now let (e_\alpha) be an R-basis of U. The \bar e_\alpha form a k-basis of k\otimes_RU, so by injectivity of k\otimes_Rf every finite subfamily of (\overline{f(e_\alpha)}) is k-linearly independent. By the claim, every finite subfamily of (f(e_\alpha)) is R-linearly independent, i.e. f is injective.

Fix r<m and write X=X_r, X'=X_{r+1}, M=M_r, M'=M_{r+1}. By Lemma 2.4, the components of the preimages of K in \widetilde X and \widetilde X' through the base points are copies of K_M and K_{M'}, and the based lift \widetilde X\to\widetilde X' of the inclusion restricts to the covering map K_M\to K_{M'}. On 2-chains, the latter is the reduction k[G/M]^{(J)}\to k[G/M']^{(J)}.

Assume \partial_M(v_M)=0. Then v_M is a 2-cycle of K_M\subset\widetilde X, and its image v_{M'} is a 2-cycle of \widetilde X'. The map H_2(\widetilde X;k)\to H_2(\widetilde X';k) is zero: for k=\mathbb Z it is the map \pi_2(X)\to\pi_2(X'); for k=\mathbb F_p, since H_1(\widetilde X)=H_1(\widetilde X')=0, the universal coefficient theorem identifies it naturally with (\pi_2(X)\to\pi_2(X'))\otimes\mathbb F_p=0. Thus v_{M'} is a null-homologous 2-cycle in a complex without 3-cells, so v_{M'}=0.

If a test fails at r, then v_{M_{r+1}}=0, hence v_{M_s}=0 for all s>r (as M_{r+1}\subseteq M_s), so it passes at every s>r. Applying this to the smallest index where the test fails shows that it fails at most once. Since m tests have at most m failures among the m+1 indices, some index is failed by none.

Identify subsets of G with points of the compact space \{0,1\}^G; the normal subgroups form a closed subset \mathcal N. Fix a test (k,v), and let S\subset G be a finite set containing the supports of all coordinates of v and of \partial_1v. Since v_M and \partial_M(v_M)=(\partial_1v)_M are obtained by summing coefficients over left cosets sM, and sM=s'M if and only if s^{-1}s'\in M, whether M passes (k,v) depends only on M\cap S^{-1}S. Hence the set \mathcal N_{(k,v)} of normal subgroups passing (k,v) is clopen in \mathcal N. By hypothesis (1) and Lemma 3.3, applied to a chain of length m, any m of the sets \mathcal N_{(k,v)} have a common point. By compactness, \mathcal G=\bigcap_{(k,v)}\mathcal N_{(k,v)} is nonempty, and it is closed.

If \mathcal C\subseteq\mathcal G is totally ordered by inclusion, then \bigcap\mathcal C is the limit in \{0,1\}^G of the net \mathcal C, ordered by reverse inclusion: for each g\in G, membership of g is eventually constant and equal to membership in \bigcap\mathcal C. Hence \bigcap\mathcal C\in\mathcal G, and Zorn’s lemma gives a minimal element.

Cells and \pi_1. The cells of E_i are those of K and those of L_i\smallsetminus D, so the E_i are strictly nested two-complexes. Put \Pi_i=\pi_1(L_i). By van Kampen’s theorem \pi_1(E_i) is the pushout of G\leftarrow\pi_1(D)\rightarrow\Pi_i. The first map has normal image N and the second is trivial, so

\pi_2 is generated from L_i. Write \Lambda=\Lambda_i and \Pi=\Pi_i. By Lemma 2.4, in \widetilde E_i: the preimage of K is a disjoint union of copies of K_N=D indexed by \Lambda/H (the kernel of G\to\Lambda is N, since H embeds in H*\Pi); the preimage of L_i is a disjoint union of copies of \widetilde L_i indexed by \Lambda/\Pi; and the preimage of D is a disjoint union of copies of D indexed by \Lambda, as \pi_1(D) dies in \Lambda. These are subcomplexes, the first two cover \widetilde E_i and intersect in the third, so we have a short exact sequence of cellular chain complexes

Since H_1(D)=H_2(D)=0, the long exact homology sequence gives an isomorphism \bigoplus_{\Lambda/\Pi}H_2(\widetilde L_i)\to H_2(\widetilde E_i), that is,

induced by L_i\to E_i. In particular \pi_2(E_i)=\mathbb Z[\Lambda]\cdot\operatorname{im}\pi_2(L_i).

Zero maps. The covering p is bijective on \pi_2, and the composite D\xrightarrow{p}K\subset E_1 equals D\subset L_1\to E_1, which is zero on \pi_2; hence K\subset E_1 is zero on \pi_2. For i\ge1, the square formed by L_i\subset L_{i+1} and E_i\subset E_{i+1} commutes, its top arrow is zero on \pi_2, and \pi_2(E_i) is generated by the image of \pi_2(L_i); so E_i\subset E_{i+1} is zero on \pi_2 by Lemma 2.1(c).

Apply Proposition 5.1 to the acyclic cover D and then Proposition 4.1. If K is finite and acyclic, take D=K and p the identity; then E_i=L_i, which are finite by Proposition 5.1.

The group. Eliminate x_i=U_i:=[a_i,b_i]. The cross-commutators make the subgroups \langle a_i,b_i\rangle commute pairwise, so the U_i commute, and r_j becomes r_j(U)=\prod_iU_i^{\Theta_{ij}}. For c=\Theta^{-1}e_i\in\mathbb Z^{(J)} we get

So x_i=1 and all a_i,b_i commute. Conversely, sending a_i,b_i to a basis of the free abelian group on \{a_i,b_i\} and x_i to 0 satisfies every relator.

Cockcroft. Eliminating the x_i by the relators x_iU_i^{-1} is a Tietze transformation, hence a homotopy equivalence [HMS, Ch. I], from Y_D/\mathcal T_D to the presentation complex Y' with generators a_i,b_i and relators r_j(U) and the cross-commutators. All these relators have zero exponent sums, so the cellular boundary \partial_2 of Y' vanishes and H_2(Y') is free on the 2-cells. Let \mathbb T be the union of the finite subtori of \prod_{i\in I}(S^1_{a_i}\times S^1_{b_i}), with its product cell structure. It is a K(\mathbb Z^{(2I)},1), and H_2(\mathbb T) is free on the coordinate squares. Map Y'\to\mathbb T by sending generators to the corresponding circles, each cross-commutator disk onto its square with degree one, and the disk of r_j(U), whose boundary is a concatenation of loops U_i^{\pm1}, onto the concatenation of the corresponding (a_i,b_i)-squares. On H_2:

A class in the kernel has zero cross-commutator coefficients, and its vector \lambda\in\mathbb Z^{(J)} of remaining coefficients satisfies \Theta\lambda=0, so \lambda=0. Thus H_2(Y')\to H_2(\mathbb T) is injective, and Y'\simeq Y_D is Cockcroft by Lemma 2.1(d).

The inclusion. D\subset Y_D is trivial on \pi_1, as \pi_1(D) is generated by the x_i, and D is Cockcroft since H_2(D)=0; apply Lemma 2.1(b).

If f\colon A\to B and g\colon B\to C satisfy the generation property \pi_2(B)=\mathbb Z[\pi_1B]\cdot f_*\pi_2(A) and similarly for g, then so does gf, because g_*(\gamma s)=g_*(\gamma)\,g_*(s). It therefore suffices to check generation for each rule.

Rule 1. Let P_1' be obtained from P by adding, for each extra generator z, a loop b_z, a loop a_z and a 2-cell along a_zb_za_z^{-1}(zb_z)^{-1}. This relator says z=[a_z,b_z], and eliminating each z by it is a Tietze transformation [HMS, Ch. I], giving the presentation of rule 1; under this homotopy equivalence the inclusion P\subset P_1' becomes the map of rule 1. Now P_1' is a graph of spaces [ScottWall]: the vertex space is P\vee\bigvee_zS^1_{b_z}, and each new 2-cell together with a_z is a cylinder S^1\times[0,1] glued along b_z and zb_z. Both loops have infinite order in G(P)*F(\{b_z\}), as is seen by killing G(P). So G(P_1') is an HNN extension along infinite cyclic subgroups, in which the vertex group embeds [LyndonSchupp, Ch. IV, §2]. Consequently \widetilde{P_1'} is a tree of spaces whose vertex spaces V_\alpha are copies of the universal cover of P\vee\bigvee_zS^1 and whose edge spaces are strips \mathbb R\times[0,1]. Since H_*(\mathbb R\times[0,1],\mathbb R\times\{0,1\}) is concentrated in degree 1, excision gives H_2(\widetilde{P_1'},\bigsqcup_\alpha V_\alpha)=0, so \bigoplus_\alpha H_2(V_\alpha)\to H_2(\widetilde{P_1'}) is onto. By the same argument applied to the wedge with circles (a tree of copies of \widetilde P joined by lines), each H_2(V_\alpha) is generated by translates of \pi_2(P).

Rule 2. The attaching maps of r^* and r^0 are homotopic in the complex obtained by removing all extra relator cells, since the correcting word is null-homotopic in D. Hence the map of rule 2 is a homotopy equivalence [Hatcher, Prop. 0.18].

Rule 3. This is exactly ?.

The consequences follow from (5.4) and Lemma 2.1(c): if P is Cockcroft, so is T(P); and if j_*=0 on \pi_2, then T(j)_*\eta_{P*}=\eta_{P'*}j_*=0, so T(j)_*=0.

The x_i remain trivial because \eta_P fixes them.

The inclusion. The composite P\to T(P)\subsetT^{+}(P) is trivial on \pi_1: the x_i are trivial by hypothesis, and each extra generator z maps to [a_z,b_z], a commutator of two capped loops. Since P is Cockcroft, the composite is zero on \pi_2 by Lemma 2.1(b). By (5.4) and Lemma 2.1(c), the inclusion T(P)\subsetT^{+}(P) is zero on \pi_2.

Cockcroft. Since D is acyclic, the quotient map \kappa\colonT^{+}(P)\toT^{+}(P)/D is an isomorphism on H_2 (long exact sequence of the pair). In T^{+}(P)/D, all x_i and core relators have disappeared, and the remaining cells are the loops a_z,b_z with their capping disks, and the blocks. Eliminating the a_z,b_z by their capping disks is a homotopy equivalence [HMS, Ch. I]. As the words u_h,v_h only involve the x_i and the a_z,b_z, every block relator \beta_{q,j}(u,v,Z_r) becomes \beta_{q,j}(1,\dots,1,Z_r), and distinct blocks have disjoint internal generators. Therefore

the wedge being over the extra relators r of P. Each wedge summand is Cockcroft by ?, hence so is the wedge (Lemma 2.1(d)), and T^{+}(P) is Cockcroft by Lemma 2.1(d) applied to \kappa.

(i) This follows from the discussion above, as \dim L_q=2.

(iii) Since L_q is a closed surface, every edge \tau of L_q lies in exactly two triangles; hence every square of C_q lies in exactly two 3-cubes. Orient \Sigma_q, and let o(\sigma)=\pm1 compare the orientation of a triangle \sigma with the one given by increasing order of its vertices. Orient each cube [-1,1]^\sigma\times\{\epsilon\} by increasing order of coordinates, and give it the coefficient o(\sigma)\prod_{h\notin\sigma}\epsilon_h. Let a square [-1,1]^\tau\times\{\eta\} lie in the cubes indexed by \sigma_i=\tau\cup\{k_i\}, i=1,2, and let p_i be the number of elements of \tau smaller than k_i. The square appears in the boundary of the i-th cube with coefficient \eta_{k_1}\eta_{k_2}E\cdot o(\sigma_i)(-1)^{p_i}, where E=\prod_{h\notin\sigma_1\cup\sigma_2}\eta_h; and o(\sigma_1)(-1)^{p_1}+o(\sigma_2)(-1)^{p_2}=0 because \tau cancels in the fundamental cycle of \Sigma_q. So these coefficients define a 3-cycle \zeta of C_q. Now consider the exact sequence

By excision H_3(C_q,M_q)\cong H_3(\operatorname{Cone}\Sigma_q,\Sigma_q)\cong H_2(\Sigma_q)\cong\mathbb Z, and under this identification \delta becomes the map induced by \Sigma_q\subset M_q. The cubes containing v are those with all signs +1, and their coefficients in \zeta are the o(\sigma); so \zeta maps to a generator of H_3(C_q,M_q). Hence \delta=0, and [\Sigma_q]\mapsto0.

(ii) M_q is a polyhedral complex whose 3-cells are the cubes of C_q, those containing v being truncated. Consider the graph whose vertices are these 3-cells, two being adjacent when they share a 2-cell. It is connected: the cubes containing a given vertex w\in\{\pm1\}^d correspond to the triangles of L_q, and are connected because L_q is a connected closed surface; and two vertices w,w' differing in one coordinate k lie in a common cube, namely any cube indexed by a triangle containing k. Choose a spanning tree, rooted at a truncated cube. A triangle of the cut surface lies in only one 3-cell, so we can collapse the root across it. Then collapse each other 3-cell, in order of distance to the root, across the 2-cell it shares with its parent: that 2-cell lies in exactly two 3-cells and the parent has been removed, so it is a free face. All 3-cells disappear.

Collapsing X to a point turns \Sigma_q\times[0,1] into \operatorname{Cone}(\Sigma_q), so W/X=C_q; let \kappa\colon W\to C_q be the quotient map. It is a homeomorphism from W\smallsetminus X onto C_q\smallsetminus\{v\}.

Step 1: \pi_1-injectivity (cf. [DJW, Lemma 2.2]). Let \widehat W\to W be the pullback of the universal cover \widetilde C_q\to C_q along \kappa. It is obtained from \widetilde C_q by replacing each lift v_\lambda of v, together with its open cone neighbourhood, by a copy X_\lambda\cup_a(\Sigma_q\times[0,1]); in particular it is connected. Fix a lift v_0. Since \widetilde C_q is CAT(0), each point y outside the open cone neighbourhood of v_0 is joined to v_0 by a unique geodesic, which crosses the cut surface \Sigma_{(0)} at v_0 exactly once (inside each cube at v_0 geodesics from v_0 are straight segments, and the cut is an affine hyperplane). Mapping y to this crossing point defines a retraction \rho onto \Sigma_{(0)}\cong\Sigma_q, continuous because geodesics in CAT(0) spaces depend continuously on their endpoints. Define R\colon\widehat W\to X_0=X as follows:

• on the lift of M_q, R=a\circ\rho;

• on X_0, R is the identity, and on its cylinder R(\sigma,t)=a(\sigma);

• at \lambda\ne0: \rho is defined on the whole closed cone neighbourhood of v_\lambda, so its restriction to the cut surface \Sigma_{(\lambda)}\cong\Sigma_q extends over a cone and is therefore homotopic to a constant map by a homotopy H\colon\Sigma_q\times[0,1]\to\Sigma_q with H_1=\rho|_{\Sigma_{(\lambda)}} and H_0 constant. Put R(\sigma,t)=a(H(\sigma,t)) on the cylinder and let R be constant on X_\lambda.

These definitions agree on overlaps, so R is a retraction of \widehat W onto X_0. Hence \pi_1(X)\to\pi_1(\widehat W) is injective, and so is \pi_1(\widehat W)\to\pi_1(W); their composite is induced by X\subset W.

Step 2: a CAT(0) quotient (cf. [DJW, Lemma 2.6]). Let U\subset\widetilde W be the preimage of X. By Step 1 and Lemma 2.4, its components U_\alpha are copies of \widetilde X. Collapse each U_\alpha to a point v_\alpha to obtain a space V, and let V_0=\{v_\alpha\}. As \widetilde W is simply connected and the U_\alpha are disjoint connected subcomplexes, V\simeq\widetilde W\cup\bigcup_\alpha\operatorname{Cone}(U_\alpha) [Hatcher, Ch. 0] is simply connected by van Kampen’s theorem. The cylinders attached to U_\alpha become cones with apex v_\alpha, and each truncated cube together with the cone on its cut triangle becomes a full cube; so V is a cube complex. The vertex links at old vertices are copies of L_q. The link at v_\alpha is the preimage in \widetilde W of the cut surface adjacent to U_\alpha, that is, the pullback of \widetilde X\to X along a: a disjoint union of covers of L_q. Covers of L_q are flag: the vertices of a clique in a cover project to pairwise adjacent, hence distinct, vertices of L_q, which span a simplex; this simplex lifts to a simplex through any vertex of the clique, and since a covering map is an isomorphism on the star of a vertex, the lift contains the whole clique. Hence V is CAT(0) (by [Leary], as V need not be locally finite), so contractible.

Step 3: homology. Since (\widetilde W,U)\to(V,V_0) is a relative homeomorphism of CW pairs and V_0 is discrete, H_2(\widetilde W,U)\cong H_2(V,V_0)\cong H_2(V)=0. Hence H_2(U)\to H_2(\widetilde W) is surjective. By Lemma 2.4, \pi_1(W) permutes the components of U transitively, and the component through the base point is a copy of \widetilde X with H_2=\pi_2(X). Since \pi_2(W)=H_2(\widetilde W), it is generated over \mathbb Z[\pi_1W] by the image of \pi_2(X).

By homotopy invariance, C_q=M_q\cup_{\Sigma_q}\operatorname{Cone}(\Sigma_q)\simeq K(B_q)\cup_{b_q}\operatorname{Cone}(\Sigma_q). With the one-vertex structure on \Sigma_q, the cone consists of the cone point, an edge (the cone on the vertex), 2-cells (the cones on s_h,t_h) and one 3-cell e^3 (the cone on the polygon). Contracting the edge [Hatcher, Prop. 0.17] gives C_q\simeq V_q\cup e^3.

The cellular boundary of e^3 consists of the 2-chain b_{q\#}[\Sigma_q] on K(B_q), and of the capping 2-cells with coefficients the exponent sums of s_h and t_h in \omega_q, which vanish. The chain b_{q\#}[\Sigma_q] is a 2-cycle of K(B_q) representing the image of [\Sigma_q], which is zero by Lemma 6.1(iii) since b_q corresponds to the inclusion \Sigma_q\subset M_q. A null-homologous 2-cycle in a two-complex is the zero chain, so \partial e^3=0, and H_2(V_q)\to H_2(V_q\cup e^3) is an isomorphism. As V_q\cup e^3\simeq C_q is aspherical, V_q is Cockcroft by Lemma 2.1(d). Finally, eliminating each s_h,t_h by its capping 2-cell is a homotopy equivalence from V_q to the presentation complex of the capped presentation \langle Z_q\mid\beta_{q,j}(1,\dots,1,Z_q)\rangle.