The H+ doner and acceptor analogy in universal coefficient theorem for homology

Using fields to detect integral homology? So in the universal coefficient theorem, by taking $R = \mathbb{Z}$, we know that there is a short exact sequence (which splits): $0 \rightarrow H_n(C_{*}) \otimes_R M \rightarrow H_n(C_{*} \otimes_R M) \rightarrow Tor^R_1(H_{n-1}(C_*), M) \rightarrow 0$ Some interesting cases are when $M = \mathbb{Z}_{p} \text{ or } \mathbb{Q}$ , do the homology over $\mathbb{Q}$ and $\mathbb{Z}_p$ tells us something about the integral homology? In particular, if $\tilde{H}(X; \mathbb{Q}) = 0$ and $\tilde{H}(X; \mathbb{Z}_p) = 0$ for all $p$, does it imply that $\tilde{H}(X) = 0$ ?...

October 24, 2025 · updated October 24, 2025 · 3 min ·  mathematics

A more intuitive explanation of Burnside's lemma

Warning You need to know some basic group theory terminology to appreciate(I hope you do) the following content. Burnside’s lemma Here is the statement of the Burnside’s lemma: Let $G$ be a group that actions on a set $X$. Denote $X^{g}$ the set of fixed points of $g$ i.e. $\{x \in X | g \cdot x = x\}$, then the number of orbits of the action is equal to $\dfrac{1}{|G|}\sum\limits_{g \in G} |X^g|$....

April 10, 2025 · updated April 10, 2025 · 5 min ·  mathematics