[Math] Group cohomology of the cyclic group

cohomologyfinite-groupsgroup-cohomology

It is well known how to compute cohomology of a finite cyclic group $C_m=\langle \sigma \rangle$, just using the periodic resolution,

$\require{AMScd}$

\begin{CD}
\cdots @>N>> \mathbb Z C_m @> \sigma -1>> \mathbb Z C_m @>N>> \mathbb Z C_m @> \sigma -1>> \mathbb Z C_m @> >> \mathbb Z
\end{CD}

Using this resolution, it easy to see that
\begin{align} H^n(C_m; A)= \begin{cases}\{a\in A: Na=0\}/(\sigma-1)A, \qquad &\text{if } n=1, 3, 5, \ldots \\
A^{C_m}/NA, \quad &\text{ if } n = 2, 4, 6, \ldots,
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where $N= 1+ \sigma + \sigma^2 +\cdots +\sigma ^{m-1}$.
Now, for some applications of group cohomology is important to work with standard cocycles, that is cocycles respect to the standard (also called Bar) resolutions. A construction of quasi-isomorphism from the periodic resolution to the standard resolution can be done as follows: take a section of $\pi$ in the exact sequence
\begin{CD}
0 @>>> \mathbb Z @> m >> \mathbb Z @>\pi>> C_m @>>> 0,
\end{CD}so we get a $\gamma\in Z^2(C_m,\mathbb{Z})$. For $Z^1(C_m,A)$ and $Z^2(C_m,A)$ the map can be defined by hand easily. In general we can construct the map $:Z^1(C_m,A)\to Z^{2n+1}(C_m,A)$ just using the cup product $\alpha\mapsto \gamma^{\cup n}\cup \alpha$ and analogously for $:Z^2(C_m,A)\to Z^{2n}(C_m,A)$. Thus, at the end you find the map from the "periodic" cocycles to the standard cocycles.

My question is: How to define in general the quasi-isomorphisms from the standard cocycles to the "periodic" cocycles?

Best Answer

Just stumbled across that old question while researching the subject on the internet, ended up doing the computation myself, and thought I would give an answer in case someone finds themself in the same situation.

A possible quasi-isomorphism $u_n: C^n(C_m,A)\to A$ from the standard complex to the periodic one is given by the following formulas: if $n=2r$, and $\tau$ is a generator of $C_m$, $$u_{2r}: f\mapsto (-1)^r\sum_{g_1,\dots,g_r\in C_m}\sum_{\varepsilon_1,\dots,\varepsilon_r\in \{0,1\}} (-1)^{\sum \varepsilon_i} f(g_1,\tau^{\varepsilon_1},\dots,g_r,\tau^{\varepsilon_r}),$$ and if $n=2r+1$, $$u_{2r+1}: f\mapsto (-1)^{r+1}\sum_{g_1,\dots,g_r\in C_m}\sum_{\varepsilon_1,\dots,\varepsilon_{r+1}\in \{0,1\}} (-1)^{\sum \varepsilon_i} f(\tau^{\varepsilon_1},g_1,\tau^{\varepsilon_2},\dots,g_r,\tau^{\varepsilon_{r+1}}).$$

In the example I was interested in, the action of $C_m$ on $A$ was trivial, but I read the computation carefully and I don't think it intervened in this formula.

Related Question