In Petersen's Riemannian geometry text, he defines the Hodge operator $*: \Omega^k(M) \to \Omega^{n-k} (M)$ in the standard way.

He then proves (Lemma 26, Chap 7) that $*^2: \Omega^k(M) \to \Omega^k(M)$ is multiplication by $(-1)^{k(n-k)}.$

So far no problems.

However, he seems to argue that this lemma implies that the Hodge star gives an isomorphism $H^k(M) \to H^{n-k}(M),$ where we are considering the de Rham cohomology groups.

It is clear by the lemma that we have an isomorphism from $\Omega^k \to \Omega^{n-k}$ given by the Hodge star. But why must this descend to an isomorphism on cohomology?

I guess one would need to show that the Hodge star maps closed forms to closed forms, and exact forms to exact forms? Is this clear from the lemma, or am I to conclude that Pedersen is foreshadowing a theorem to come?

  • $\begingroup$ Isn't this just because of functoriality? $\endgroup$
    – Ulrik
    Nov 13 '14 at 21:36
  • $\begingroup$ Could you expand a little on your comment? What functoriality are you referring to? $\endgroup$
    – user142700
    Nov 13 '14 at 21:41
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I think I was too quick. Only if one can show that the hodge stars form a chain map from $\Omega^*(M) \to \Omega^{n-*}(M)$, it would follow from functoriality, I guess. $\endgroup$
    – Ulrik
    Nov 13 '14 at 21:46
  • $\begingroup$ Actually, you first need to check that $\star$ maps closed/exact forms to closed/exact forms so that $\star$ induices a linear map between $H^n(M)$ and $H^{n-k}(M)$. Then , thanks to lemma 26, $\star$ has to be invertible on the cohomology level and thus an isomorphism between $H^k(M)$ and $H^{n-k}(M)$. $\endgroup$
    – Bebop
    Nov 13 '14 at 21:49
  • $\begingroup$ @Bebop I agree! But is this supposed to be obvious? It's not to me, from the definition I'm given of the * $\endgroup$
    – user142700
    Nov 13 '14 at 21:52

The Hodge star definitely does not map (for example) closed forms to closed forms. Here is a simple example to show this: on a Riemannian $n$-manifold, consider the $n$-form $\omega = f \, \text{vol}$, where $f$ is a smooth function and $\text{vol}$ is the Riemannian volume form. Note that since $\omega$ is an $n$-form, it is always closed. But $\star \omega = f$, which is closed if and only if $f$ is (locally) constant.

I don't see a good reason to expect $\star$ to give an isomorphism on cohomology, other than the appeal to the Hodge Theorem in Ted's answer. (Of course, that crucially relies on the orientability and compactness of $M$.)

Edit: It occurs to me that the point is that $\star$ interchanges $d$-closed and $d^\ast$-closed forms, i.e., $d \omega = 0$ iff $\star d \star \star \omega = \pm d^\ast (\star \omega) = 0$. Harmonic forms are precisely the forms that are both $d$-closed and $d^\ast$-closed; thus $\star$ is an automorphism of the space of harmonic forms.


No, what is obvious is that $\star$ gives an isomorphism from the space of harmonic $k$-forms ($\mathscr H^k(M)$) to the space of harmonic $(n-k)$-forms. The Hodge Theorem gives an isomorphism $H^k(M) \overset{\cong}{\to} \mathscr H^k(M)$. (I don't have Petersen's book here with me, so I can't check to see his context.)


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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