3

I'm currently reading "Differential Forms in Algebraic Topology" by Bott & Tu. Unfortunately, I do not have much backgrounds in this field, so my question might be due to missing some very basic concepts.

In chapter 13 Monodromy, the author proves two theorems :

  1. If $\pi_{1}(N(\mathfrak{U}))$, the fundamental group of the nerve of a good cover, is equal to zero, then every locally constant presheaf on $\mathfrak{U}$ is constant.
  2. For a topological space $X$ with good cover $\mathfrak{U}$, we have $\pi_{1}(X)\simeq \pi_{1}(N(\mathfrak{U}))$.

I did have a difficult time understanding the proofs of the two theorems (not quite sure that I actually did understand them), but what really frustrates me are the examples and exercises at the end of the section:

Example 13.5

Let $S^{1}$ be the unit circle in the complex plain with good cover $\mathfrak{U}=\{U_{0}, U_{1},U_{3}\}$ as in the picture below.

enter image description here

The map $\pi : z \rightarrow z^2$ defines a fiber bundle $\pi : S^1 \rightarrow S^1$ each of whose fibers consists of two distinct points. Let $F=\{A,B\}$ be the fiber above the point 1.

The cohomology $H^*(F)$ consists of all functions on $\{A,B\}$, i.e., $H^*(F)=\{(a,b)\in \mathbb{R}^2\}$ . (I don't understand this part. Why is this true? Could someone explain?)

The author proceeds and mentions that the presheaf $\mathcal{H}^*(U)=H^*(\pi^{-1}U)$ is not a constant presheaf.

Exercis 13.6 tells me to compute the Čech cohomology $H^*(\mathfrak{U},\mathcal{H}^0)$ directly, noting that $H^*(S^1)=H^*_D\{C^*(\pi^{-1}\mathfrak{U},\Omega^*)\}=H_{\delta}H_d=H^*(\mathfrak{U},\mathcal{H}^0)$.

By using "indirect" methods, I would get $H^0(\mathfrak{U},\mathcal{H}^0)=H^1(\mathfrak{U},\mathcal{H}^0)=\mathbb{R}$ from above, right?

But I'm having trouble calculating the cohomology directly. In order to compute, I think I'd need to know:

  1. what $C^0(\mathfrak{U},\mathcal{H}^0)$ and $C^1(\mathfrak{U},\mathcal{H}^0)$ looks like.
  2. what the transition map $\rho$ 's looks like.
  3. how the difference operator $\delta_0$ behaves
  4. the image and kernel of $\delta_0$

From $H^*(F)=\{(a,b)\in \mathbb{R}\}$, I guess $C^0(\mathfrak{U},\mathcal{H}^0)$ and $C^1(\mathfrak{U},\mathcal{H}^0)$ would be something like $\mathbb{R}^2 \oplus \mathbb{R}^2\oplus \mathbb{R}^2$, but from then on, I'm completely lost. In addition, I don't see how this is related to monodromy dealt in this chapter.

I'm pretty sure that these questions are quite easy to answer, but could someone give me a in-depth explanation? I would like to solve the next two problems on my own!

shaine
  • 113
  • $F$ is a two points topological space, so its cohomology vanishes in degree $i>0$. In degree $0$, one has for every topological space $X$, $H^0(X,\mathbb{R})={\mathrm{locally\ constant\ maps} f:X\to\mathbb{R}}=\mathbb{R}^{\pi_0(X)}$. Thus $H^0(F)$ is simply the set of (locally constant) maps ${A,B}\to\mathbb{R}$, and this is just $\mathbb{R}^2$. It follows that $\mathcal{H}^$ is not constant, since for $U$ contractible, one has $\mathcal{H}^(U)\simeq\mathbb{R}^2$, whereas $\mathcal{H}^(S^1)=H^(S^1,\mathbb{R})=\mathbb{R}$. – Roland Jul 06 '20 at 13:44

2 Answers2

1

It's funny because I was just about to post about this exact same cohomology, so I'll give you a partial answer that I've worked out (computation of $H^0$). I'm still confused about $H^1$. I would comment but I don't have the rep yet, so apologies for the partial answer.

I saw this problem in a video, and the background was to use the presheaf $F(U) = \mathbb{R}$ for non-empty $U$. I followed the definition of Cech cohomology from Wikipedia. The $0$-simplices are just the sets $\{U_0\}, \{U_1\}, \{U_2\}$. Similarly the $1$-simplices are the ordered sets $\sigma_{ab} = \{U_a, U_b\}$. Now, $H^0$ is just the kernel of $\delta_0$, which is the map $(\delta_0 f)(\sigma_{ab}) = f(\sigma_b) - f(\sigma_a)$. If $f$ is in the kernel, that means it is equal on each $0$-simplex. Hence, the kernel is the set of constant maps, which is of course equivalent to $\mathbb{R}$, since each cochain $f$ is mapping into $F(|\sigma|) = \mathbb{R}$.

Now, for $H^1$. It is the quotient of the kernel of $\delta_1$ and the image of $\delta_0$. $\delta_1$ maps into the set of $2$-cochains, but since the three open sets have an empty intersection, there are no $2$-simplices and hence no $2$-cochains. Then any $1$-cochain is in the kernel of $\delta_1$. Now, the image of $\delta_0$ are the $1$-cochains which satisfy $f(\sigma_{ab}) = h(\sigma_b) - h(\sigma_a)$ for some $0$-cochain $h$. Then the simplices $\sigma_{ab}$ and $\sigma_{ba}$ are no longer independent; $f(\sigma_{ab}) = -f(\sigma_{ba})$. In my simple mind, that would imply that $H^1 = \mathbb{R}^6 / \mathbb{R}^3 = \mathbb{R}^3$, but that's not quite right. Or maybe the argument is different. I don't know.

Andrea B.
  • 672
  • Thanks for the reply! However I think that the problem you saw was slightly different, since the author suggests that the presheaf $\mathcal{H}^(U)=H^(\pi^{-1}U)=H^(F)$ by Künneth's formula and thus $\mathcal{H}^(U)={(a,b)\in \mathbb{R}^2 }$ (which frankly I still do not understand). Perhaps a different fiber bundle to start with? – shaine Jul 05 '20 at 22:12
1

As you said, $C^0(\mathfrak{U},\mathcal{H}^0)=\mathbb{R}^2\oplus\mathbb{R}^2\oplus\mathbb{R}^2$ and the same isomorphism holds for $C^1$. Now, we need to compute the differential, and for this, we need to understand the restriction map.

Recall that $\pi:\pi^{-1}(U)\to U$ is the map $z\mapsto z^2$. In other words, $\pi^{-1}(z)$ is the set of square roots of $z$. So if $U$ is an arc, $\pi^{-1}(U)$ is the union of two arcs and you can think of it as follows : if you pick $z\in U$, you have two choices of square roots, now when $z$ moves in $U$, the two choices moves continuously and forms two arcs.

Now let $z_0\in U_0\cap U_1, z_1\in U_1\cap U_2$ and $z_2\in U_2\cap U_0$. Write $z_i^a, z_i^b$ for the two choices of square roots of $z_i$. We won't make arbitrary choices for them. Instead, we will define them as follow :

  • Define $z_0^a$ and $z_0^b$ arbitrarily (as the two square roots of $z_0$).
  • When $z_0$ moves to $z_1$ in $U_1$, $z_0^a$ moves to a square roots of $z_1$. This will be $z_1^a$. And $z_0^b$ will move to $z_1^b$.
  • When $z_1$ moves to $z_2$ in $U_2$, $z_1^a$ moves to $z_2^a$ and $z_1^b$ moves to $z_2^b$.

So now, you need to see the following :

When $z_2$ moves to $z_0$ in $U_0$ then $z_2^a$ moves to $z_0^b$ and $z_2^b$ moves to $z_0^a$.

Thus, using the identifications $\mathcal{H}^0(U_0)=maps(\{z_0^a,z_0^b\},\mathbb{R})$ and so on, we see that

  • $\mathcal{H}^0(U_0)\to \mathcal{H}^0(U_0\cap U_1)$ is the identity
  • $\mathcal{H}^0(U_1)\to \mathcal{H}^0(U_0\cap U_1)$ is the identity
  • $\mathcal{H}^0(U_1)\to \mathcal{H}^0(U_1\cap U_2)$ is the identity
  • $\mathcal{H}^0(U_2)\to \mathcal{H}^0(U_1\cap U_2)$ is the identity
  • $\mathcal{H}^0(U_2)\to \mathcal{H}^0(U_0\cap U_2)$ is the identity
  • $\mathcal{H}^0(U_0)\to \mathcal{H}^0(U_0\cap U_2)$ is the map $\tau:(a,b)\mapsto (b,a)$.

It follows that the operator $\delta_0$ is given by the block matrix (each block is a $2\times 2$ matrix) $$ \begin{pmatrix} Id & Id & 0\\ 0& -Id & Id\\ -\tau& 0& -Id \end{pmatrix}$$

Roland
  • 12,487
  • Thanks for your kind explanation, it really helped! So if my calculations are correct, $ker \delta_0 = \mathbb{R}$, so $H^0(\mathfrak{U},\mathcal{H}^0) = \mathbb{R}$ and since $im \delta_0 = \mathbb{R}^5$, $H^1(\mathfrak{U},\mathcal{H}^0) = \mathbb{R}$? – shaine Jul 06 '20 at 19:42
  • Yes that's right – Roland Jul 06 '20 at 20:06
  • Thanks a lot! I could solve the next exercise! Do you have any insight on how this "calculation" has anything to do with monodromy or the two theorems I've mentioned? The book mentions that the fundamental group of the base acts on $H^0$, and gives another example which acts on $H^2$, which I'm guessing is relevant. – shaine Jul 06 '20 at 21:02
  • Just in case : The example takes a look at $S^1 \vee S^2$ with a bundle defined by deck transformation on a universal cover. (At the end of the exercise, I'm asked to find the homotopy of the total space) – shaine Jul 06 '20 at 21:05
  • In my answer I tried a bit to give this monodromy interpretation when I use the picture of moving a point along an arc. To give exactly the monodromy, one need to do a whole loop. In fact, the presheaf $\mathcal{H}^0$ is a locally constant presheaf with stalks $\mathbb{R}^2$ and with monodromy $(a,b)\mapsto (b,a)$. The two theorem are not needed for the exercise. – Roland Jul 06 '20 at 21:49