Sign up ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Trying to solve Exercise 2.7 b) of Chapter III of Hartshorne's Algebraic Geometry I got stucked about an apparent contradiction.

The exercise asks to prove that $H^1(S^1, \mathcal{R})=0$, where $S^1$ is the circle with its usual topology and $\mathcal{R}$ is the sheaf of continuous real-valued functions.

I thought to apply the Mayer-Vietoris sequence for the cohomology with support to the closed subsets of $S^1$:

$U:=\{(cos\theta, sen\theta): \theta \in [o,\pi]\},$

$V:=\{(cos\theta, sen\theta): \theta \in [\pi,2\pi]\},$

Their intersection is the pair of points $\{(1,0),(-1,0)\}$.

We observe that $\mathcal{R}$ is a flasque sheaf (i.e. if $U\subseteq V$ are open sets then the restriction map $\mathcal{R}(V) \rightarrow \mathcal{R}(U)$ is a surjection, thanks to Exercise 2.3 c) of the same Chapter, all the cohomology group of grade greater than $0$ computed on a flasque sheaf are trivial. This would solve the exercise by itself but just keep thinking in this direction for a moment...). And we recall that $H^0_Y(X,\mathcal{F})=\Gamma_Y(X,\mathcal{F})$ we get the (short) exact sequence:

$0 \rightarrow \Gamma_{U \cap V}(S^1, \mathcal{R}) \rightarrow \Gamma_U(S^1, \mathcal{R})\oplus\Gamma_V(S^1, \mathcal{R}) \rightarrow \Gamma(S^1, \mathcal{R}) \rightarrow 0.$

Taking a closer look to the groups involved I noticed that $\Gamma_{U \cap V}(S^1, \mathcal{R})\simeq 0$ because the germ of a continuous function on a point which is zero outside of that point must be zero also on the point, by continuity. For the other terms $\Gamma_U(S^1, \mathcal{R}) \simeq \Gamma_V(S^1, \mathcal{R}) \simeq \mathcal{C}([0,1])_{\partial=0}$ the group of continuous functions on $[0,1]$ which are zero on the boundary. And $\Gamma(S^1, \mathcal{R}) \simeq \mathcal{C}([0,1])_{per}$ the group of continuos functions on $[0,1]$ such that $f(0)=f(1)$.

By the sequence above we deduce that $\mathcal{C}([0,1])_{per} \simeq \mathcal{C}([0,1])_{\partial=0}\oplus \mathcal{C}([0,1])_{\partial=0}$. But really I don't see it (I tried to do something with Borsuk-Ulam theorem but the matter is I don't think it is true).

Can someone please explain where my error lies? Or, otherwise, how the groups as above are isomorphic?

share|cite|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

It is not true that $\mathcal R$ is flasque: the function $1/(x-1)$ on the circle minus $(0,0)$ cannot be extended continuously to the circle .
Moreover $H^1(S^1,\mathcal R)=H_{DR}^1(S^1,\mathbb R)=\mathbb R$ because De Rham cohomology coincides with derived functor cohomology on paracompact spaces.
And this is what Hartshorne writes in a later printing: you seem to have an old version with a typo.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you for your help! Actually my edition of Hartshorne's (ISBN 0-387-90244-9) clearly asks to prove $H^1(S^1,\mathcal{R})=0$, it is probably a typo corrected in other editions. –  Giovanni De Gaetano Feb 22 '12 at 11:40
Dear @Student: ah, I see. Sorry for having said you had misread the exercise. I have edited my post to remove that unfair assertion. –  Georges Elencwajg Feb 22 '12 at 13:18

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.