A Question about de Rham's Theorem

  • Thread starter lavinia
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Theorem
In summary, the conversation discusses the relationship between a closed differential form whose periods lie inside an additive subgroup of the real numbers, and its corresponding cohomology class with coefficients in this subgroup. It is stated that this relationship follows from the Universal Coefficient Theorem and de Rham's Theorem. It is also mentioned that the converse holds true, and that both cases can be proven using the aforementioned theorems. There is also a discussion on the definition of periods and their connection to hom
  • #1
lavinia
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,309
694
Suppose there is a closed differential form whose periods lie inside an additive subgroup of the real numbers e.g the integers or the rational numbers.

Does this form determine a cohomology class with coefficients in this subgroup? I think this follows from the universal coefficient theorem.

Conversely given a non-torsion cohomology class (on a smooth manifold)with coefficients in one of the subgroups does there correspond a closed differential form with the same periods?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
What do you mean by periods?
 
  • #3
Bacle2 said:
What do you mean by periods?

The periods are the values taken on homology cycles.

The more I think about this, it seems that both cases follow from the Universal Coefficient Theorem and de Rham's theorem. Right?
 
  • #4
I'm a bit rusty on de Rham cohomology so excuse my overly long answer which was mostly just to convince myself, but now I feel I might as well leave the details in there. It seems like (for smooth manifolds at least) it follows from the universal coefficient theorem and deRham's theorem as you say.

By deRham's theorem we have an isomorphism [itex]\theta : H_{deRham}^k(M) \to H^k(M,\mathbb{R})[/itex] (maybe reduced singular cohomology in dimension 0; I don't really recall the details and doubt we really care about dimension 0 anyway). By the universal coefficient theorem we have a surjection
[tex]H^k(X,A) \xrightarrow{\tau_A} Hom(H_k(X),A) \to 0[/tex]
which is natural in A and with kernel [itex]Ext(H_{k-1}(X),A)[/itex].

If I understand your definition of periods right, then to say that the periods of a closed differential form [itex]\omega[/itex] lies in a subgroup [itex]A \subset \mathbb{R}[/itex] is simply to say that the image of [itex][\omega] \in H_{deRham}^k(X)[/itex] along
[tex]H_{deRham}^k(X) \xrightarrow{\theta} H^k(X,\mathbb{R}) \xrightarrow{\tau_\mathbb{R}} Hom(H_k(X),\mathbb{R})[/tex]
can be expressed as the image of an element [itex]\alpha_{[\omega]} \in Hom(H_k(X),A)[/itex] along the map [itex]Hom(H_k(X),A) \to Hom(H_k(X),\mathbb{R})[/itex] induced by the inclusion [itex]i : A \to \mathbb{R}[/itex].

By naturality we have a commutative diagram
[tex]H^k(X,A) \xrightarrow{\tau_A} Hom(H_k(X),A) \to 0[/tex]
[tex]H^k(X,\mathbb{R}) \xrightarrow{\tau_\mathbb{R}} Hom(H_k(X),\mathbb{R}) \to 0[/tex]
where the two rows are supposed to be connected by the morphisms induced by the inclusion [itex]i : A \to \mathbb{R}[/itex].

By the exactness of the top row we get some [itex]c \in H^k(X,A)[/itex] with [itex]\tau_A(c) =\alpha_{[\omega]}[/itex], but then by the commutativity of the diagram we get
[tex]\tau_\mathbb{R}(i_*c) = i_*(\alpha_{[\omega]}) = \tau_\mathbb{R}(\theta([\omega]))[/tex]
but [itex]\tau_\mathbb{R}[/itex] is an isomorphism by the universal coefficient theorem ([itex]Ext(H_{k-1}(X),\mathbb{R})=0[/itex] because [itex]\mathbb{R}[/itex] is a field) so
[tex]\theta([\omega]) = i_*c[/tex]
This in particular shows that [itex]\omega[/itex] determines a cohomology class with coefficients in the subgroup A.

The second statement follows similarily by the commutativity of the diagram above because if we start with [itex]c \in H^k(X,A)[/itex], we then get [itex]i_*c \in H^k(X,\mathbb{R})[/itex] which is represented by some closed differential form [itex]\omega[/itex]. However
[tex]\tau_\mathbb{R}(i_*c) = i_*(\tau_A(c))[/tex]
so the periods of [itex]i_*c = \theta([\omega])[/itex] lie in A.
 
  • #5
you seem to be saying that a form which determines a Q valued linear function on homology should be equivalent to a cohomology class with Q coefficients. Don't all such linear functions occur that way by duality between homology and cohomology? I am not so sure about Z valued functions, since integral cohomology can have torsion, hence a cohomology class is not "determined by" its values as a functional on homology. In that case I would guess there could be more than one cohomology class with those "periods".
 
  • #6
mathwonk said:
you seem to be saying that a form which determines a Q valued linear function on homology should be equivalent to a cohomology class with Q coefficients. Don't all such linear functions occur that way by duality between homology and cohomology? I am not so sure about Z valued functions, since integral cohomology can have torsion, hence a cohomology class is not "determined by" its values as a functional on homology. In that case I would guess there could be more than one cohomology class with those "periods".

Happy New Year Mathwonk.

My thought was that a closed differential form with say integer periods many not take on integer values on all simplices in a smooth triangulation. So technically it does not represent an integer cochain even though it takes on integer values on cycles. So why would there be an integer cocycle that is cohomologous to it?

The universal coefficient theorem says that the non-torsion part of the integer cohomology is just the homomorphisms of the integer homology into the integers. The differential form with integer periods certainly does this so it must be identifiable with an integer cochain.
 
  • #7
happy new year to you lavinia. i was being picky and quibbling with the use of the word "determines" which implies the integer cochain would be unique. i argued not against existence but against uniqueness.
 

1. What is de Rham's Theorem?

De Rham's Theorem is a fundamental result in differential topology and geometry which establishes a connection between the topology of a smooth manifold and the algebraic structure of its differential forms.

2. What does de Rham's Theorem state?

De Rham's Theorem states that on a smooth manifold, the cohomology of the de Rham complex (the space of closed and exact differential forms) is isomorphic to the singular cohomology of the manifold (the space of continuous maps from simplices to the manifold).

3. What is the significance of de Rham's Theorem?

De Rham's Theorem allows us to use tools and concepts from algebraic topology to study smooth manifolds. It also provides a powerful tool for computing topological invariants of manifolds, such as their Betti numbers.

4. Can de Rham's Theorem be extended to non-smooth manifolds?

No, de Rham's Theorem only applies to smooth manifolds. However, there are similar theorems for non-smooth manifolds, such as Hodge theory for compact Riemannian manifolds.

5. How is de Rham's Theorem related to other theorems in mathematics?

De Rham's Theorem is closely related to other important theorems in mathematics, such as the Poincaré lemma and the Stokes' theorem. It also has applications in other areas of mathematics, such as algebraic geometry and mathematical physics.

Similar threads

  • Differential Geometry
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
8K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
10
Replies
333
Views
11K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Poll
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
10
Views
7K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
1
Views
4K
Back
Top