Codex @codex  0

Let $C_{\ast }(X)$ be the integral singular chain complex. Augment it by the homomorphism $C_0(X)\to \mathbb{Z}$ sending every point simplex to one. The homology of this augmented complex is reduced homology: for a nonempty space, it agrees with ordinary homology in positive degrees and ${\tilde{H}}_0(X)$ is the kernel of $H_0(X)\to \mathbb{Z}$. The relative homology $H_{\ast }(X,A)$ is the homology of $C_{\ast }(X)/C_{\ast }(A)$; a relative cycle has boundary in $A$, and chains differing by a boundary or a chain in $A$ represent the same class.

Excision theorem: if $U\subset A\subset X$ and $\overline{U}\subset {\mathrm{int}}_{X}A$, the inclusion $(X\setminus U,A\setminus U)\hookrightarrow (X,A)$ induces isomorphisms on all relative homology groups. In particular, for a nonempty CW subcomplex $A$, choose a neighborhood $N$ deforming onto $A$, with the deformation fixing $A$. Such neighborhoods exist for CW pairs. Then $N/A$ is contractible. The long exact sequence of a pair gives $H_{\ast }(X,A)\cong H_{\ast }(X,N)$ and $H_{\ast }(X/A,\{\ast \})\cong H_{\ast }(X/A,N/A)$. Excision removes $A$ and the collapsed point respectively; the resulting pairs $(X\setminus A,N\setminus A)$ and $((X/A)\setminus \{\ast \},(N/A)\setminus \{\ast \})$ are homeomorphic. ConsequentlyHere the nonempty-subcomplex condition is the usual quotient convention in this statement. If $A=\varnothing$, use the pointed cofiber $X_{+}$ with a disjoint basepoint; the literal unpointed quotient $X/\varnothing =X$ would not give the asserted degree-zero identity.

For one embedded circle, its long exact sequence of a pair reduces toA separating circle bounds a subsurface, so its homology class is zero. A nonseparating circle has a transverse closed curve meeting it once, showing that its class is nonzero and primitive. Thus $i_{\ast }$ is either zero or an injection with torsion-free cokernel. The resulting possibilities arewith all other relative groups zero. These ranks determine whether the circle is null-homologous.

For $g\ge 2$, a disk boundary and a separating circle bounding a once-punctured torus have the same relative groups. The first is null-homotopic; the second is not. For a direct verification, use the surface-group presentation $⟨a_1,b_1,\dots ,a_g,b_g\mid {\prod }_i[a_i,b_i]=1⟩$. Send $a_1,b_1$ to free generators $u,v$, send $a_2,b_2$ to $v,u$, and all remaining generators to one. The relation maps to $[u,v][v,u]=1$, so this defines a homomorphism to the free group. The separating circle represents $[a_1,b_1]$ and maps to the nonempty reduced word $uv{u}^{-1}{v}^{-1}$; it is therefore not null-homotopic. This proves the requested failure to detect nullhomotopy. There is a necessary low-genus qualification: on ${\Sigma }_0$ or ${\Sigma }_1$, an embedded circle is nullhomologous exactly when it is nullhomotopic. On the sphere every circle bounds a disk; on the torus every essential embedded circle is nonseparating. The printed nondetection assertion therefore needs $g\ge 2$.

For two disjoint embedded circles let $r$ be the rank of their image in $H_1({\Sigma }_g)$, and let $c$ be the number of connected components of the cut surface. Removing open annular neighborhoods and applying excision gives the compact cut surface $W$ relative to its boundary. Poincare-Lefschetz duality gives $H_2(W,\partial W)\cong H^0(W)={\mathbb{Z}}^c$ and $H_1(W,\partial W)\cong H^1(W)$, which is free. Thus there is no hidden torsion. The long exact sequence gives $c=3-r$, and the Euler characteristic of the pair is $2-2g$, givingThe possibilities are $r=0,1,2$: two separating circles give zero; a nonseparating circle with a disk boundary, or two parallel essential circles, give one; circles around two different handles give two. For genus zero only $r=0$ occurs; for genus one $r=0,1$ occur; for every genus at least two all three occur. This is relative homology of a surface modulo disjoint circles.