This is in the same vein as my previous question on the representability of the cohomology ring. Why are the homology groups not corepresentable in the homotopy category of spaces?
[Math] Why is homology not (co)representable
at.algebraic-topologyhomology
Related Solutions
The Eilenberg-Zilber theorem says that for singular homology there is a natural chain homotopy equivalence:
$$S_*(X)\otimes S_*(Y) \cong S_*(X\times Y)$$
The map in the reverse direction is the Alexander-Whitney map. Therefore we obtain a map
$$S_*(X)\rightarrow S_*(X\times X) \rightarrow S_*(X)\otimes S_*(X)$$
which makes $S_*(X)$ into a coalgebra.
My source (Selick's Introduction to Homotopy Theory) then states that this gives $H_*(X)$ the structure of a coalgebra. However, I think that the Kunneth formula goes the wrong way. The Kunneth formula says that there is a short exact sequence of abelian groups:
$$0\rightarrow H_*(C)\otimes H_*(D) \rightarrow H_*(C \otimes D) \rightarrow \operatorname{Tor}(H_*(C), H_*(D)) \rightarrow 0$$
(the astute will complain about a lack of coefficients. Add them in if that bothers you)
This is split, but not naturally, and when it is split it may not be split as modules over the coefficient ring. To make $H_*(X)$ into a coalgebra we need that splitting map. That requires $H_*(X)$ to be flat (in which case, I believe, it's an isomorphism).
That's quite a strong condition. In particular, it implies that cohomology is dual to homology.
Of course, if one works over a field then everything's fine, but then integral homology is so much more interesting than homology over a field.
In the situation for cohomology, only some of the directions are reversed, which means that the natural map is still from the tensor product of the cohomology groups to the cohomology of the product. Since the diagonal map now gets flipped, this is enough to define the ring structure on $H^*(X)$.
There are deeper reasons, though. Cohomology is a representable functor, and its representing object is a ring object (okay, graded ring object) in the homotopy category. That's the real reason why $H^*(X)$ is a ring (the Kunneth formula has nothing to do with defining this ring structure, by the way). It also means that cohomology operations (aka natural transformations) are, by the Yoneda lemma, much more accessible than the corresponding homology operations (I don't know of any detailed study of such).
Rings and algebras, being varieties of algebras (in the sense of universal or general algebra) are generally much easier to study than coalgebras. Whether this is more because we have a greater history and more experience, or whether they are inherently simpler is something I shall leave for another to answer. Certainly, I feel that I have a better idea of what a ring looks like than a coalgebra. One thing that makes life easier is that often spectral sequences are spectral sequences of rings, which makes them simpler to deal with - the more structure, the less room there is for things to get out of hand.
Added Later: One interesting thing about the coalgebra structure - when it exists - is that it is genuinely a coalgebra. There's no funny completions of the tensor product required. The comultiplication of a homology element is always a finite sum.
Two particularly good papers that are worth reading are the ones by Boardman, and Boardman, Johnson, and Wilson in the Handbook of Algebraic Topology. Although the focus is on operations of cohomology theories, the build-up is quite detailed and there's a lot about general properties of homology and cohomology theories there.
Added Even Later: One place where the coalgebra structure has been extremely successfully exploited is in the theory of cohomology cooperations. For a reasonable cohomology theory, the cooperations (which are homology groups of the representing spaces) are Hopf rings, which are algebra objects in the category of coalgebras.
(This answer has been edited to give more details.)
Finitely generated homotopy groups do not imply finitely generated homology groups. Stallings gave an example of a finitely presented group $G$ such that $H_3(G;Z)$ is not finitely generated. A $K(G,1)$ space then has finitely generated homotopy groups but not finitely generated homology groups. Stallings' paper appeared in Amer. J. Math 83 (1963), 541-543. Footnote in small print: Stallings' example can also be found in my algebraic topology book, pp.423-426, as part of a more general family of examples due to Bestvina and Brady.
As Stallings noted, it follows that any finite complex $K$ with $\pi_1(K)=G$ has $\pi_2(K)$ nonfinitely generated, even as a module over $\pi_1(K)$. This is in contrast to the example of $S^1 \vee S^2$.
Finite homotopy groups do imply finite homology groups, however. In the simply-connected case this is a consequence of Serre's mod C theory, but for the nonsimply-connected case I don't know a reference in the literature. I asked about this on Don Davis' algebraic topology listserv in 2001 and got answers from Bill Browder and Tom Goodwillie. Here's the link to their answers:
http://www.lehigh.edu/~dmd1/tg39.txt
The argument goes as follows. First consider the special case that the given space $X$ is $BG$ for a finite group $G$. The standard model for $BG$ has finite skeleta when $G$ is finite so the homology is finitely generated. A standard transfer argument using the contractible universal cover shows that the homology is annihilated by $|G|$, so it must then be finite.
For a general $X$ with finite homotopy groups one uses the fibration $E \to X \to BG$ where $G=\pi_1(X)$ and $E$ is the universal cover of $X$. The Serre spectral sequence for this fibration has $E^2_{pq}=H_p(BG;H_q(E))$ where the coefficients may be twisted, so a little care is needed. From the simply-connected case we know that $H_q(E)$ is finite for $q>0$. Since $BG$ has finite skeleta this implies $E_{pq}^2$ is finite for $q>0$, even with twisted coefficients. To see this one could for example go back to the $E^1$ page where $E_{pq}^1=C_p(BG;H_q(E))$, the cellular chain group, a finite abelian group when $q>0$, which implies finiteness of $E_{pq}^2$ for $q>0$. When $q=0$ we have $E_{p0}^2=H_p(BG;Z)$ with untwisted coefficients, so this is finite for $p>0$ by the earlier special case. Now we have $E_{pq}^2$ finite for $p+q>0$, so the same must be true for $E^\infty$ and hence $H_n(X)$ is finite for $n>0$.
Sorry for the length of this answer and for the multiple edits, but it seemed worthwhile to get this argument on record.
Related Question
- Spaces with Same Homotopy and Homology Groups but Not Homotopy Equivalent
- Why Equivariant Homotopy Groups Are Not RO(G)-Graded
- Homology Theory – Constructed in a Homotopy-Invariant Way
- [Math] A map inducing isomorphisms on homology but not on homotopy
- [Math] Why localize spaces with respect to homology
- Homology Theory – Satisfying Milnor’s Additivity Axiom but Not Direct Limit Axiom
- Homology – What is Homology in Algebraic Topology?
Best Answer
Corepresentable functors preserve products; homology does not.
One replacement is the following. Let X be a CW-complex with basepoint. Then the spaces {K(Z,n)} represent reduced integral homology in the sense that for sufficiently large n, the reduced homology Hk(X) coincides with the homotopy groups of the smash product:
This is some kind of "stabilization", and it factors through taking the n-fold suspension of X. Taking suspensions makes wedges more and more closely related to products. This doesn't make homology representable, but provides some alternative description that's more workable than simply an abstract functor.