Understanding Kunneth Formula and Tensor Product in r-Forms

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Kunneth formula states that for three manifolds where ##M = M_1 \times M_2##, the cohomology is expressed as ##H^r(M) = \oplus_{p+q=r}[H^p(M_1) \otimes H^q(M_2)]##. This raises questions about the role of the tensor product in relation to r-forms, which are inherently antisymmetric. The discussion highlights the expectation of using the wedge product, represented as ##H^r(M) = \sum_{p+q=r}[H^p(M_1) \wedge H^q(M_2)]##, instead of the tensor product. The Kunneth theorem is applicable to any Cartesian product of manifolds, not just three-manifolds, and involves pullback maps that facilitate bilinear mappings of cohomology groups.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Kunneth Theorem in algebraic topology
  • Familiarity with differential forms and their properties
  • Knowledge of cohomology theories, specifically De Rham and singular cohomology
  • Basic concepts of tensor products and wedge products in algebra
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of the Kunneth Theorem in various manifold contexts
  • Explore the relationship between De Rham cohomology and singular cohomology
  • Learn about the algebra of exterior multiplication and its applications
  • Investigate the properties and applications of pullback maps in cohomology
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, algebraic topologists, and students studying differential geometry who seek to deepen their understanding of cohomology theories and the Kunneth formula.

Silviu
Messages
612
Reaction score
11
Hello! Kunneth fromula states that for 3 manifolds such that ##M=M_1 \times M_2## we have ##H^r(M)=\oplus_{p+q=r}[H^p(M_1)\otimes H^q(M_2)]##. Can someone explain to me how does the tensor product acts here? I am a bit confused of the fact that we work with r-forms, which are by construction antisymmetric, but that tensor product seems to break this anti-symmetry. I would have expected something like this ##H^r(M)=\sum_{p+q=r}[H^p(M_1)\wedge H^q(M_2)]## (actually when he does some examples he uses the wedge product for individual terms in the computations). Can someone clarify this for me please? Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This surprising fact arises already just in the algebra of exterior multiplication. Here is the basic fact:
upload_2017-11-6_8-50-57.png


It is the last thing discussed in these algebra notes, 845-3, p.56:

http://alpha.math.uga.edu/%7Eroy/845-3.pdf
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-11-6_8-50-57.png
    upload_2017-11-6_8-50-57.png
    18.1 KB · Views: 707
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: fresh_42
Silviu said:
Hello! Kunneth fromula states that for 3 manifolds such that ##M=M_1 \times M_2## we have ##H^r(M)=\oplus_{p+q=r}[H^p(M_1)\otimes H^q(M_2)]##. Can someone explain to me how does the tensor product acts here? I am a bit confused of the fact that we work with r-forms, which are by construction antisymmetric, but that tensor product seems to break this anti-symmetry. I would have expected something like this ##H^r(M)=\sum_{p+q=r}[H^p(M_1)\wedge H^q(M_2)]## (actually when he does some examples he uses the wedge product for individual terms in the computations). Can someone clarify this for me please? Thank you!

If ##π_{M}## is the projection map of ##M×N## onto ##M## then ##π_{M}^{*}## maps ##H^{*}(M)## into ##H^{*}(M×N)##. Similary ##π_{N}^{*}## maps ##H^{*}(N)## into ##H^{*}(M×N)##.

These pullback maps determine a bilinear mapping of ##H^{*}(M)×H^{*}(N)→H^{*}(M×N)## by ##([α],[β])→[(π_{M}^{*}α)∧π_{N}^{*}β]##. Writing this in terms of the grading of cohomology dimensions, one has maps ##Σ_{i+j=k}H^{i}(M)⊗H^{j}(N)→H^{k}(M×N)## for each dimension ##k##.

BTW: The Kunneth Theorem applies to any Cartesian product of manifolds not just to 3 manifolds that are Cartesian products..

- The cohomology determined by differential forms is called De Rham cohomology. It is a theory that is defined only for differentiable manifolds. Singular cohomology is another cohomology theory. It is defined for all topological spaces. De Rham cohomology is isomorphic to singular cohomology with real numbers as coefficients. The idea of the proof is to view differential forms as homomorphisms of the groups of smooth n- simplexes into the real numbers - or into the complex numbers.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mathwonk

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K