Why This Matters
Spectral sequences are the computational workhorses of algebraic topology—they transform impossibly complex calculations into systematic, page-by-page approximations. When you're faced with computing the homology of a fibration, the stable homotopy groups of spheres, or the cohomology of a sheaf, spectral sequences provide the machinery to break these problems into manageable pieces. You're being tested on your ability to recognize which spectral sequence applies to which situation, understand how filtrations give rise to successive approximations, and trace differentials through the pages until convergence.
Don't just memorize the names and E2-pages—know what structural input each spectral sequence requires and what it computes. The key concepts here are fibrations and their associated long exact sequences, derived functors and their composition, filtrations on chain complexes, and the passage from algebra to topology. When an exam asks you to compute something, your first question should be: what's the underlying structure (fibration? group extension? sheaf?) and which spectral sequence exploits it?
Fibration-Based Spectral Sequences
These spectral sequences arise from fibrations F→E→B and systematically relate the homology or cohomology of the total space to that of the base and fiber. The key insight is that a fibration provides a filtration of the total space by preimages of skeleta of the base.
Serre Spectral Sequence
- Computes H∗(E) from H∗(B) and H∗(F)—the E2-page is E2p,q=Hp(B;Hq(F)), assuming π1(B) acts trivially on H∗(F)
- Differentials encode the twisting of the fibration—dr:Erp,q→Erp−r,q+r−1 captures how the fiber "varies" over the base
- The workhorse for computing homology of Lie groups and classifying spaces—essential for results like H∗(K(Z,n)) and the cohomology of BU(n)
Eilenberg-Moore Spectral Sequence
- Handles pullbacks of fibrations—computes H∗(E×BE′) when you know the cohomology of E, E′, and B
- E2-page involves Tor over H∗(B)—specifically E2=TorH∗(B)(H∗(E),H∗(E′))
- Critical for loop space calculations—since ΩB≃∗×BPB, this spectral sequence computes H∗(ΩB) from H∗(B)
Compare: Serre vs. Eilenberg-Moore—both start with fibrations, but Serre computes the total space from base and fiber, while Eilenberg-Moore computes fiber products. If an FRQ asks about loop spaces, Eilenberg-Moore is typically your tool; for computing H∗(BG), reach for Serre.
Stable Homotopy Spectral Sequences
These operate in the stable homotopy category, where spaces are replaced by spectra and ordinary homology gives way to generalized homology theories. The algebraic input involves Ext or Tor over structured ring spectra or their homotopy groups.
Adams Spectral Sequence
- Computes stable homotopy groups π∗s(X)—the E2-page is E2s,t=ExtAs,t(H∗(X;Fp),Fp) where A is the Steenrod algebra
- Convergence is to p-completed homotopy—you compute one prime at a time, then assemble via arithmetic
- The primary tool for π∗s(S0)—most of what we know about stable stems comes from Adams spectral sequence calculations
May Spectral Sequence
- Computes the E2-page of the Adams spectral sequence—breaks the Ext calculation over A into smaller pieces using the filtration by powers of the augmentation ideal
- E1-page involves Ext over associated graded—exploits the fact that gr(A) is a primitively generated Hopf algebra
- Essential for practical Adams computations—without May, computing ExtA directly would be intractable beyond low degrees
Compare: Adams vs. May—Adams goes from algebra (Ext over Steenrod) to topology (stable homotopy), while May is purely algebraic, computing the input to Adams. Think of May as preprocessing for Adams.
Generalized Cohomology Spectral Sequences
These spectral sequences connect ordinary cohomology to generalized cohomology theories like K-theory or cobordism. The filtration typically comes from the skeletal filtration of a CW complex.
Atiyah-Hirzebruch Spectral Sequence
- Computes E∗(X) from H∗(X) and E∗(pt)—for any generalized cohomology theory E∗, the E2-page is E2p,q=Hp(X;Eq(pt))
- Differentials measure the failure of E∗ to be ordinary cohomology—for K-theory, the first nontrivial differential is related to Steenrod operations
- The bridge between singular cohomology and K-theory/cobordism—lets you leverage known H∗(X) calculations to get at K∗(X) or MU∗(X)
Compare: Atiyah-Hirzebruch vs. Serre—both have E2-pages that are "cohomology with coefficients," but Serre's coefficients are H∗(F) (from a fiber), while Atiyah-Hirzebruch's are E∗(pt) (from a cohomology theory). Serre is geometric; Atiyah-Hirzebruch is about changing your cohomology theory.
Sheaf-Theoretic Spectral Sequences
These arise from the derived functor perspective on sheaf cohomology and are fundamental in algebraic geometry. The key principle is that composing left-exact functors leads to a spectral sequence relating their derived functors.
Leray Spectral Sequence
- Computes H∗(X;F) via a map f:X→Y—the E2-page is E2p,q=Hp(Y;Rqf∗F) where Rqf∗ is the higher direct image
- Generalizes Serre to the sheaf setting—when f is a fibration and F is constant, you recover Serre
- The tool for computing cohomology of fiber bundles in algebraic geometry—essential when the base has interesting sheaf cohomology
Grothendieck Spectral Sequence
- Relates derived functors of a composition G∘F—if F sends injectives to G-acyclics, then E2p,q=RpG(RqF(−)) converges to Rp+q(G∘F)(−)
- Leray is a special case—take F=f∗ and G=Γ(Y;−)
- The abstract machine behind most spectral sequences in algebra—once you recognize a composition of functors, Grothendieck tells you there's a spectral sequence
Compare: Leray vs. Grothendieck—Leray is the geometric incarnation (maps of spaces, sheaves), while Grothendieck is the abstract categorical version. Know Grothendieck for the general principle; use Leray for concrete geometric computations.
Group Cohomology Spectral Sequences
These compute the cohomology of groups by exploiting exact sequences of groups. A short exact sequence 1→N→G→Q→1 gives a "fibration" of classifying spaces BN→BG→BQ.
Hochschild-Serre Spectral Sequence
- Computes H∗(G;M) from a normal subgroup N◃G—the E2-page is E2p,q=Hp(G/N;Hq(N;M))
- Requires understanding the G/N-action on H∗(N;M)—this action encodes how conjugation in G affects N-cohomology
- The group-theoretic analog of Serre—BN→BG→B(G/N) is a fibration, and this is its Serre spectral sequence
Lyndon-Hochschild-Serre Spectral Sequence
- Same as Hochschild-Serre, different name—some authors distinguish by requiring M to be a trivial module, but the terms are often used interchangeably
- Particularly useful for computing H∗(G;Z)—the case of trivial integer coefficients appears constantly in geometric group theory
- First step in computing cohomology of solvable groups—iterate over a composition series
Compare: Hochschild-Serre vs. Serre—they're the same spectral sequence in different clothing. Hochschild-Serre is stated algebraically for group cohomology; Serre is stated topologically for fibrations. Recognizing this equivalence via BG is a key conceptual test.
Torsion and Coefficient Spectral Sequences
These spectral sequences arise from considering how cohomology changes with different coefficient groups. The Bockstein homomorphism β:Hn(X;Z/p)→Hn+1(X;Z/p) detects p-torsion in integral cohomology.
Bockstein Spectral Sequence
- Computes H∗(X;Z)/torsion⊗Z/p from H∗(X;Z/p)—the E1-page is mod p cohomology, and d1=β is the Bockstein
- E∞ detects the "p-torsion-free part"—elements surviving to E∞ lift to integral classes
- Key for understanding the Universal Coefficient Theorem dynamically—the spectral sequence refines the UCT exact sequence
Compare: Bockstein vs. Adams—both involve mod p cohomology, but Bockstein stays in ordinary cohomology (detecting integral torsion), while Adams uses mod p cohomology as input to compute stable homotopy. Bockstein is about coefficients; Adams is about changing from cohomology to homotopy.
Quick Reference Table
|
| Computing homology of fibrations | Serre, Eilenberg-Moore |
| Stable homotopy groups | Adams, May |
| Generalized cohomology from ordinary | Atiyah-Hirzebruch |
| Sheaf cohomology via maps | Leray, Grothendieck |
| Group cohomology from extensions | Hochschild-Serre, Lyndon-Hochschild-Serre |
| Detecting torsion in coefficients | Bockstein |
| Loop space homology | Eilenberg-Moore |
| Derived functor composition | Grothendieck |
Self-Check Questions
-
Both the Serre spectral sequence and the Hochschild-Serre spectral sequence have E2-pages of the form "cohomology of the base with coefficients in cohomology of the fiber." What is the precise relationship between these two spectral sequences, and how does the classifying space functor mediate it?
-
You need to compute K∗(X) for a CW complex X whose ordinary cohomology H∗(X;Z) you know. Which spectral sequence do you use, and what information beyond H∗(X) do you need?
-
Compare the Grothendieck spectral sequence and the Leray spectral sequence. Which is more general? Under what hypotheses does Grothendieck specialize to Leray?
-
An FRQ asks you to compute ExtAs,t(F2,F2) for small s and t. Which spectral sequence helps organize this computation, and what is its E1-page?
-
You're given a group extension 1→Z/p→G→Z/p→1 and asked to compute H∗(G;Fp). Which spectral sequence applies, what is the E2-page, and what additional information determines the differentials?