--- a/text/smallblobs.tex Tue Mar 30 15:12:27 2010 -0700
+++ b/text/smallblobs.tex Tue Mar 30 16:48:16 2010 -0700
@@ -4,15 +4,16 @@
Fix $\cU$, an open cover of $M$. Define the `small blob complex' $\bc^{\cU}_*(M)$ to be the subcomplex of $\bc_*(M)$ of all blob diagrams in which every blob is contained in some open set of $\cU$. Say that an open cover $\cV$ is strictly subordinate to $\cU$ if every open set of $\cV$ is contained in some closed set which is contained in some open set of $\cU$.
\begin{lem}
-For any open cover $\cU$ of $M$ and strictly subordinate open cover $\cV$, we can choose an up-to-homotopy representative $\ev_{X,\cU,\cV}$ of the chain map $\ev_X$ of Property ?? which gives the action of families of homeomorphisms, so that the restriction of $\ev_{X,\cU,\cV} : \CH{X} \tensor \bc_*(X) \to \bc_*(X)$ to the subcomplex $\CH{X} \tensor \bc^{\cV}_*(X)$ has image contained in the small blob complex $\bc^{\cU}_*(X)$.
+\label{lem:CH-small-blobs}
+For any open cover $\cU$ of $M$ and strictly subordinate open cover $\cV$, and for any $k \in \Natural$, we can choose an up-to-homotopy representative $\ev_{M,\cU,\cV,k}$ of the chain map $\ev_M$ of Property \ref{property:evaluation} which gives the action of families of homeomorphisms, which restricts to give a map $$\ev_{M,\cU,\cV,k} : C_{*\leq k}(\Homeo(M)) \tensor \bc^{\cV}_*(M) \to \bc^{\cU}_*(M).$$
\end{lem}
\begin{rem}
-This says that while we can't quite get a map $\CH{X} \tensor \bc^{\cU}_*(X) \to \bc^{\cU}_*(X)$, we can get by if we give ourselves arbitrarily little room to maneuver, by making the blobs we act on slightly smaller.
+This says that while we can't quite get a map $\CH{M} \tensor \bc^{\cU}_*(M) \to \bc^{\cU}_*(M)$, we can get by if we give ourselves arbitrarily little room to maneuver, by making the blobs we act on slightly smaller.
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}
-\todo{We have to choose the open cover differently for each $k$...}
We choose yet another open cover, $\cW$, which so fine that the union (disjoint or not) of any one open set $V \in \cV$ with $k$ open sets $W_i \in \cW$ is contained in a disjoint union of open sets of $\cU$.
-\todo{explain why we can do this, and then why it works.}
+Now, in the proof of Proposition \ref{CHprop}
+\todo{I think I need to understand better that proof before I can write this!}
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}[Small blobs]
@@ -24,12 +25,12 @@
On $0$-blobs, $s$ is just the identity; a blob diagram without any blobs is compatible with any open cover. Nevertheless, we'll begin introducing nomenclature at this point: for configuration $\beta$ of disjoint embedded balls in $M$ we'll associate a one parameter family of homeomorphisms $\phi_\beta : \Delta^1 \to \Homeo(M)$ (here $\Delta^m$ is the standard simplex $\setc{\mathbf{x} \in \Real^{m+1}}{\sum_{i=0}^m x_i = 1}$). For $0$-blobs, where $\beta = \eset$, all these homeomorphisms are just the identity.
-\todo{have to decide which open cover we're going to use in the action of homeomorphisms, and then ensure that we make $\beta$ sufficiently small to apply the lemma above.}
+When $\beta$ is a collection of disjoint embedded balls in $M$, we say that a homeomorphism of $M$ `makes $\beta$ small' if the image of each ball in $\beta$ under the homeomorphism is contained in some open set of $\cU$. Further, we'll say a homeomorphism `makes $\beta$ $\epsilon$-small' if the image of each ball is contained in some open ball of radius $\epsilon$.
-On a $1$-blob $b$, with ball $\beta$, $s$ is defined as the sum of two terms. Essentially, the first term `makes $\beta$ small', while the other term `gets the boundary right'. First, pick a one-parameter family $\phi_\beta : \Delta^1 \to \Homeo(M)$ of homeomorphisms, so $\phi_\beta(1,0)$ is the identity and $\phi_\beta(0,1)$ makes the ball $\beta$ small. Next, pick a two-parameter family $\phi_{\eset \prec \beta} : \Delta^2 \to \Homeo(M)$ so that $\phi_{\eset \prec \beta}(0,x_1,x_2)$ makes the ball $\beta$ small for all $x_1+x_2=1$, while $\phi_{\eset \prec \beta}(x_0,0,x_2) = \phi_\eset(x_0,x_2)$ and $\phi_{\eset \prec \beta}(x_0,x_1,0) = \phi_\beta(x_0,x_1)$. (It's perhaps not obvious that this is even possible --- see Lemma \ref{lem:extend-small-homeomorphisms} below.) We now define $s$ by
+On a $1$-blob $b$, with ball $\beta$, $s$ is defined as the sum of two terms. Essentially, the first term `makes $\beta$ small', while the other term `gets the boundary right'. First, pick a one-parameter family $\phi_\beta : \Delta^1 \to \Homeo(M)$ of homeomorphisms, so $\phi_\beta(1,0)$ is the identity and $\phi_\beta(0,1)$ makes the ball $\beta$ small --- in fact, not just small with respect to $\cU$, but $\epsilon/2$-small, where $\epsilon > 0$ is such that every $\epsilon$ ball is contained in some open set of $\cU$. Next, pick a two-parameter family $\phi_{\eset \prec \beta} : \Delta^2 \to \Homeo(M)$ so that $\phi_{\eset \prec \beta}(0,x_1,x_2)$ makes the ball $\beta$ $\frac{3\epsilon}{4}$-small for all $x_1+x_2=1$, while $\phi_{\eset \prec \beta}(x_0,0,x_2) = \phi_\eset(x_0,x_2)$ and $\phi_{\eset \prec \beta}(x_0,x_1,0) = \phi_\beta(x_0,x_1)$. (It's perhaps not obvious that this is even possible --- see Lemma \ref{lem:extend-small-homeomorphisms} below.) We now define $s$ by
$$s(b) = \restrict{\phi_\beta}{x_0=0}(b) + \restrict{\phi_{\eset \prec \beta}}{x_0=0}(\bdy b).$$
-Here, $\restrict{\phi_\beta}{x_0=0} = \phi_\beta(0,1)$ is just a homeomorphism, which we apply to $b$, while $\restrict{\phi_{\eset \prec \beta}}{x_0=0}$ is a one parameter family of homeomorphisms which acts on the $0$-blob $\bdy b$ to give a $1$-blob.
-\todo{Does $s$ actually land in small blobs?}
+Here, $\restrict{\phi_\beta}{x_0=0} = \phi_\beta(0,1)$ is just a homeomorphism, which we apply to $b$, while $\restrict{\phi_{\eset \prec \beta}}{x_0=0}$ is a one parameter family of homeomorphisms which acts on the $0$-blob $\bdy b$ to give a $1$-blob. To be precise, this action is via the chain map identified in Lemma \ref{lem:CH-small-blobs} as $\ev_{M, \cU, \cV, 1}$, where $\cV$ is the open cover by $\epsilon/2$ balls. From this, it is immediate that $s(b) \in \bc^{\cU}_1(M)$, as desired.
+
We now check that $s$, as defined so far, is a chain map, calculating
\begin{align*}
\bdy (s(b)) & = \restrict{\phi_\beta}{x_0=0}(\bdy b) + (\bdy \restrict{\phi_{\eset \prec \beta}}{x_0=0})(\bdy b) \\
@@ -37,9 +38,12 @@
& = \restrict{\phi_\eset}{x_0=0}(\bdy b) \\
& = s(\bdy b)
\end{align*}
-Next, we compute the compositions $s \circ i$ and $i \circ s$. If we start with a small $1$-blob diagram $b$, first include it up to the full blob complex then apply $s$, we get exactly back to $b$, at least assuming we adopt the convention that for any ball $\beta$ which is already small, we choose the families of homeomorphisms $\phi_\beta$ and $\phi_{\eset \prec \beta}$ to always be the identity. In the other direction, $i \circ s$, we will need to construct a homotopy $h:\bc_*(M) \to \bc_{*+1}(M)$ for $*=0$ or $1$. This is defined by $h(b) = \phi_\eset(b)$ when $b$ is a $0$-blob (here $\phi_\eset$ is a one parameter family of homeomorphisms, so this is a $1$-blob), and $h(b) = \phi_\beta(b) + \phi_{\eset \prec \beta}(\bdy b)$ when $b$ is a $1$-blob (here $\beta$ is the ball in $b$, and the first term is the action of a one parameter family of homeomorphisms on a $1$-blob, and the second term is the action of a two parameter family of homeomorphisms on a $0$-blob, so both are $2$-blobs).
+Next, we compute the compositions $s \circ i$ and $i \circ s$. If we start with a small $1$-blob diagram $b$, first include it up to the full blob complex then apply $s$, we get exactly back to $b$, at least assuming we adopt the convention that for any ball $\beta$ which is already small, we choose the families of homeomorphisms $\phi_\beta$ and $\phi_{\eset \prec \beta}$ to always be the identity. In the other direction, $i \circ s$, we will need to construct a homotopy $h:\bc_*(M) \to \bc_{*+1}(M)$ for $*=0$ or $1$.
+In what follows, it will be necessary to use different actions of families of homeomorphisms at different stages. We'll write $\ev_k$ for the chain map $\ev_{M,\cU, \cV_k, k}$ from Lemma \ref{lem:CH-small-blobs}, where $\cV_k$ is the open cover by $\epsilon(1-2^{-k})$ balls.
+
+The homotopy $h$ is defined by $$h(b) = \ev_1(\phi_\eset, b)$$ when $b$ is a $0$-blob (here $\phi_\eset$ is a one parameter family of homeomorphisms, so this is a $1$-blob), and $$h(b) = \ev_1(\phi_\beta,b) + \ev_2(\phi_{\eset \prec \beta},\bdy b)$$ when $b$ is a $1$-blob (here $\beta$ is the ball in $b$, and the first term is the action of a one parameter family of homeomorphisms on a $1$-blob, and the second term is the action of a two parameter family of homeomorphisms on a $0$-blob, so both are $2$-blobs).
\begin{align*}
-(\bdy h+h \bdy)(b) & = \bdy (\phi_{\beta}(b) + \phi_{\eset \prec \beta}{\bdy b}) + \phi_\eset(\bdy b) \\
+(\bdy h+h \bdy)(b) & = \bdy (\phi_{\beta}(b) + \phi_{\eset \prec \beta}(\bdy b)) + \phi_\eset(\bdy b) \\
& = \restrict{\phi_\beta}{x_0=0}(b) - \restrict{\phi_\beta}{x_1=0}(b) - \phi_\beta(\bdy b) + (\bdy \phi_{\eset \prec \beta})(\bdy b) + \phi_\eset(\bdy b) \\
& = \restrict{\phi_\beta}{x_0=0}(b) - b - \phi_\beta(\bdy b) + \restrict{\phi_{\eset \prec \beta}}{x_0=0}(\bdy b) - \phi_\eset(\bdy b) + \phi_\beta(\bdy b) + \phi_\eset(\bdy b) \\
& = \restrict{\phi_\beta}{x_0=0}(b) - b + \restrict{\phi_{\eset \prec \beta}}{x_0=0}(\bdy b) \\
@@ -49,6 +53,8 @@
We now describe the general case. For a $k$-blob diagram $b \in \bc_k(M)$, denote by $b_\cS$ for $\cS \subset \{0, \ldots, k-1\}$ the blob diagram obtained by erasing the corresponding blobs. In particular, $b_\eset = b$, $b_{\{0,\ldots,k-1\}} \in \bc_0(M)$, and $d b_\cS = \sum_{i \notin \cS} \pm b_{\cS \cup \{i\}}$.
Similarly, for a disjoint embedding of $k$ balls $\beta$ (that is, a blob diagram but without the labels on regions), $\beta_\cS$ denotes the result of erasing a subset of blobs. We'll write $\beta' \prec \beta$ if $\beta' = \beta_\cS$ for some $\cS$. Finally, for finite sequences, we'll write $i \prec i'$ if $i$ is subsequence of $i'$, and $i \prec_1 i$ if the lengths differ by exactly 1.
+Now we fix a sequence of strictly subordinate covers for $\cU$. First choose an $\epsilon > 0$ so every $\epsilon$ ball is contained in some open set of $\cU$. Let $\cV_{k \geq 1}$ be the open cover of $M$ by $\epsilon (1-2^{-k})$ balls, and $\cV_0 = \cU$. Certainly $\cV_k$ is strictly subordinate to $\cU$. We will write $\ev_{k \geq 0}$ for the chain map written in Lemma \ref{lem:CH-small-blobs} as $\ev_{M,\cU,\cV,k}$.
+
For a $2$-blob $b$, with balls $\beta$, $s$ is the sum of $5$ terms. Again, there is a term that makes $\beta$ small, while the others `get the boundary right'. It may be useful to look at Figure \ref{fig:erectly-a-tent-badly} to help understand the arrangement.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\todo{}
@@ -67,17 +73,16 @@
\end{itemize}
It's not immediately obvious that it's possible to make such choices, but it follows readily from the following Lemma.
-When $\beta$ is a collection of disjoint embedded balls in $M$, we say that a homeomorphism of $M$ `makes $\beta$ small' if the image of each ball in $\beta$ under the homeomorphism is contained in some open set of $\cU$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:extend-small-homeomorphisms}
-Fix a collection of disjoint embedded balls $\beta$ in $M$. Suppose we have a map $f : X \to \Homeo(M)$ on some compact $X$ such that for each $x \in \bdy X$, $f(x)$ makes $\beta$ small. Then we can extend $f$ to a map $\tilde{f} : X \times [0,1] \to \Homeo(M)$ so that $\tilde{f}(x,0) = f(x)$ and for every $x \in \bdy X \times [0,1] \cup X \times \{1\}$, $\tilde{f}(x)$ makes $\beta$ small.
+Fix a collection of disjoint embedded balls $\beta$ in $M$ and some open cover $\cV$. Suppose we have a map $f : X \to \Homeo(M)$ on some compact $X$ such that for each $x \in \bdy X$, $f(x)$ makes $\beta$ $\cV$-small. Then we can extend $f$ to a map $\tilde{f} : X \times [0,1] \to \Homeo(M)$ so that $\tilde{f}(x,0) = f(x)$ and for every $x \in \bdy X \times [0,1] \cup X \times \{1\}$, $\tilde{f}(x)$ makes $\beta$ $\cV$-small.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
-Fix a metric on $M$, and pick $\epsilon > 0$ so every $\epsilon$ ball in $M$ is contained in some open set of $\cU$. First construct a family of homeomorphisms $g_s : M \to M$, $s \in [1,\infty)$ so $g_1$ is the identity, and $g_s(\beta_i) \subset \beta_i$ and $\rad g_s(\beta_i) \leq \frac{1}{s} \rad \beta_i$ for each ball $\beta_i$.
+Fix a metric on $M$, and pick $\epsilon > 0$ so every $\epsilon$ ball in $M$ is contained in some open set of $\cV$. First construct a family of homeomorphisms $g_s : M \to M$, $s \in [1,\infty)$ so $g_1$ is the identity, and $g_s(\beta_i) \subset \beta_i$ and $\rad g_s(\beta_i) \leq \frac{1}{s} \rad \beta_i$ for each ball $\beta_i$.
There is some $K$ which uniformly bounds the expansion factors of all the homeomorphisms $f(x)$, that is $d(f(x)(a), f(x)(b)) < K d(a,b)$ for all $x \in X, a,b \in M$. Write $S=\epsilon^{-1} K \max_i \{\rad \beta_i\}$ (note that is $S<1$, we can just take $S=1$, as already $f(x)$ makes $\beta$ small for all $x$). Now define $\tilde{f}(t, x) = f(x) \compose g_{(S-1)t+1}$.
-If $x \in \bdy X$, then $g_{(S-1)t+1}(\beta_i) \subset \beta_i$, and by hypothesis $f(x)$ makes $\beta_i$ small, so $\tilde{f}(t, x)$ makes $\beta$ small for all $t \in [0,1]$. Alternatively, $\rad g_S(\beta_i) \leq \frac{1}{S} \rad \beta_i \leq \frac{\epsilon}{K}$, so $\rad \tilde{f}(1,x)(\beta_i) \leq \epsilon$, and so $\tilde{f}(1,x)$ makes $\beta$ small for all $x \in X$.
+If $x \in \bdy X$, then $g_{(S-1)t+1}(\beta_i) \subset \beta_i$, and by hypothesis $f(x)$ makes $\beta_i$ small, so $\tilde{f}(t, x)$ makes $\beta$ $\cV$-small for all $t \in [0,1]$. Alternatively, $\rad g_S(\beta_i) \leq \frac{1}{S} \rad \beta_i \leq \frac{\epsilon}{K}$, so $\rad \tilde{f}(1,x)(\beta_i) \leq \epsilon$, and so $\tilde{f}(1,x)$ makes $\beta$ $\cV$-small for all $x \in X$.
\end{proof}
We'll need a stronger version of Property \ref{property:evaluation}; while the evaluation map $ev: \CD{M} \tensor \bc_*(M) \to \bc_*(M)$ is not unique, it has an up-to-homotopy representative (satisfying the usual conditions) which restricts to become a chain map $ev: \CD{M} \tensor \bc^{\cU}_*(M) \to \bc^{\cU}_*(M)$. The proof is straightforward: when deforming the family of diffeomorphisms to shrink its supports to a union of open sets, do so such that those open sets are subordinate to the cover.