2
$\begingroup$

Here I am using de Rham cohomology. This question occured to me while reading the proof of the exactness of the short exact sequence in the Meyers Vitoris sequence

$0 \rightarrow H^{n}(X)\,\xrightarrow{i}\,H^{n}(U)\oplus H^{n}(V)\,\xrightarrow{j}\,H^{n}(U\cap V)\rightarrow 0$

Where $j$ is defined by $j(\theta, \tau)=\theta - \tau$. In Bott and Tu specifically (and other proofs I looked at trying to see what was happening) to prove the surjectivity of $j$ take a closed differential form on $U\cap V$, $\omega$ lets say, and then take a partition of unity $\rho_U, \rho_V$ of $X$. Then $(\rho_U \omega , -\rho_V \omega)$ should be the element in $H^{n}(U)\oplus H^{n}(V)$ mapping to $\omega$. However it is not clear to me at all that $\rho_U \omega$ is a well defined smooth form on $U$, because there are, for example, functions smooth on subsets of $\mathbb{R}$ that cannot be extended smoothly to full space e.g. $tan(\theta), x^{-1}$ and so on. So is it different for closed forms?? Can a closed differential form on a subset of manifold always be extended to the whole manifold?

|cite|improve this question
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "Can a closed differential form on a subset of manifold always be extended to the whole manifold?" No: e.g. $tan(\theta)d\theta, x^{-1}dx $ :-) $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg Feb 18 '16 at 18:05
  • $\begingroup$ "The right question" (which will remove @Georges's objection) is to ask whether forms on a closed submanifold can be so extended. (This is not the context of the Mayer-Vietoris setting, but turns the question in a slightly different direction.) $\endgroup$ – Ted Shifrin Feb 20 '16 at 5:41
  • $\begingroup$ @Ted thank you for your comment, I think I'm still quite hazy on the subtleties of everything. I am happy to change the question to the closed submanifold case, I can see that this is a harder question which I haven't thought about at all, but I don't think it answers the original problem I have with the proof of the Meyer Vietoris sequence. I don't think there was something that indicates $U \cap V$ has to be closed, I will check more thoroughly $\endgroup$ – R Mary Feb 20 '16 at 14:31
0
$\begingroup$

Your sequence is not correct I think, these should not be the cohomology, but the spaces of forms.

Note that $\rho_U$ has support in $U$. Hence there is a closed set $C\subset U$ such that $\rho_U(x)=0$ for all $x\in U\setminus C$.

Thus one can define a form

$$ \rho_U \omega=\begin{cases} \rho_U \omega\qquad \text{on } & U\\ 0\qquad\text{not on} & U. \end{cases} $$

This is smooth.

|cite|improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your comment but Im afraid I don't see that the form so defined is smooth. Following above take $U,V$ to be subsets of $\mathbb{R}$ so that $U=\{x \in \mathbb{R} | x > -\frac{\pi}{2}}$ and $U=\{x \in \mathbb{R} | x < \frac{\pi}{2}}$. Then the form $\omega=tan(x)dx$ is smooth on $U \cap V$ but $\rho_U \omega$ does not seem to even exist on $U$. What am I misunderstanding?? $\endgroup$ – R Mary Feb 20 '16 at 14:13
  • $\begingroup$ You're correct. The form $\rho_U\omega$ is globally defined on $V$, but not on $U$. $\endgroup$ – Ted Shifrin Feb 20 '16 at 17:59
  • $\begingroup$ @R Mary: Let's do this for the continuous case, the smooth case is similar but writing down explicit functions becomes a mess. Let $f(x)=1-x^2$ for $|x|\leq 1$ and $x=0$ for $x\geq 1$. This is a continuous function. Set $g(x)=1-f(x)$. Then $f+g=1$ everywhere, and $f$ has support in $U=(-2,2)$. Set $V=\mathbb{R}\setminus [-1,1]$ Let $\omega$ be $\frac{1}{4-x^2} dx$. Clearly $\omega$ does not extend to $U\cup V=\mathbb{R}$. But the form $f\omega$ is can be seen as continuous form on $\mathbb{R}$ (by setting it to be $0$ outside of $U$). I think this is where your confusion lies. $\endgroup$ – Thomas Rot Feb 21 '16 at 11:32

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.