Quotient set of equivalence class in de Rham cohomology

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the representation of equivalence classes in the context of de Rham cohomology, specifically focusing on how to express the quotient set of equivalence classes in terms of standard quotient operations. Participants explore the implications of different definitions and notations related to cohomology groups.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how to express the equivalence class X/∼ in terms of the quotient operation G/N, suggesting a potential relation to H^k = {closed k forms}/∼.
  • Another participant points out that the notation H^k = Z^k/B^k does not seem to incorporate the equivalence relation ∼ adequately, as it does not reflect the condition that u and v are equivalent if there exists some w such that u - v = dw.
  • A participant proposes that equivalence classes can be defined by their specific dw, leading to the expression H^k = Z^k/B^k = {z - B^k | z ∈ Z^k}.
  • Concerns are raised about the completeness of this representation, particularly regarding cases where no w exists such that z - b = dw, questioning how this affects the identification of equivalence classes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the adequacy of the proposed representations of equivalence classes and the implications of the equivalence relation. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives on how to properly define and express these concepts.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their definitions and the implications of the equivalence relation, particularly regarding the uniqueness of the map d and the conditions under which equivalence classes can be identified.

ianhoolihan
Messages
144
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

So the equivalence class X/\sim is the set of all equivalences classes [x]. I was wondering if there was a way of writing it in terms of the usual quotient operation:
G/N=\{gN\ |\ g\in G\}?

From what I've read, it would be something like X/\sim = X/[e]. But, since I'm looking at the de Rham cohomology group H^k = \{ closed\ k\ forms\}/\sim so
H^k = \{ closed\ k\ forms\}/[0] = \{ \omega [0]\ |\ \omega\ is\ a\ closed\ form\}
doesn't work, as the the operation \omega [0] doesn't seem to make sense.

It's also defined H^k = Z^k/B^k if you're familiar with that notation.

Any thoughts?

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Ideas anyone?
 
Quotients of vector spaces can be written E/F = {x+F | x∈E} as the group law involved in such quotients is the law of vector addition.
Any problem ?
 
spoirier said:
Quotients of vector spaces can be written E/F = {x+F | x∈E} as the group law involved in such quotients is the law of vector addition.
Any problem ?

Yes, still a problem. First, B^k = [0], which I should have mentioned before. Second, by your definition
H^k = Z^k/B^k = \{z + B^k\ |\ z\in Z^k\}

But this appears to me to include no information about the equivalence relation \sim, which states that u and v are equivalent if there exists some w such that u - v = dw.

Ok, but since each equivalence class can be defined by its specific dw (and d is a unique (one-to-one?) map) then it is defined by its w. Hence it makes more sense that
H^k = Z^k/B^k = \{z - B^k\ |\ z\in Z^k\}.

If z - b = dw, then z= d(w+a) since b=da \in B^k, which also implies that z\in B^k. But what if there is no w such that z-b = dw? How does this give the rest of the equivalence classes?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K