The homotopy category of chain complexes K(A) is then defined as follows: its objects are the same as the objects of Kom(A), namely chain complexes. Its morphisms are "maps of complexes modulo homotopy": that is, we define an equivalence relation
- if f is homotopic to g
and define
to be the quotient by this relation. It is clearer that this results in an additive category if one notes that this is the same as taking the quotient by the subgroup of null-homotopic maps.
The following variants of the definition are also widely used: if one takes only bounded-below (An=0 for n<<0), bounded-above (An=0 for n>>0), or bounded (An=0 for |n|>>0) complexes instead of unbounded ones, one speaks of the bounded-below homotopy category etc. They are denoted by K+(A), K-(A) and Kb(A), respectively.
A morphism which is an isomorphism in K(A) is called a homotopy equivalence. In detail, this means there is another map, such that the two compositions are homotopic to the identities: and .
The name "homotopy" comes from the fact that homotopic maps of topological spaces induce homotopic (in the above sense) maps of singular chains.
Read more about Homotopy Category Of Chain Complexes: Remarks, The Triangulated Structure, Generalization
Famous quotes containing the words category and/or chain:
“The truth is, no matter how trying they become, babies two and under don’t have the ability to make moral choices, so they can’t be “bad.” That category only exists in the adult mind.”
—Anne Cassidy (20th century)
“The conclusion suggested by these arguments might be called the paradox of theorizing. It asserts that if the terms and the general principles of a scientific theory serve their purpose, i. e., if they establish the definite connections among observable phenomena, then they can be dispensed with since any chain of laws and interpretive statements establishing such a connection should then be replaceable by a law which directly links observational antecedents to observational consequents.”
—C.G. (Carl Gustav)