12
$\begingroup$

On a complex manifold we have the differential operators

$$\partial:A^{p,q}\to A^{p+1,q}$$ $$\bar\partial:A^{p,q}\to A^{p,q+1}$$ which both square to zero. Hence one can define cohomology groups $$H^{p,q}_\partial=\frac{\ker\partial:A^{p,q}\to A^{p+1,q}}{\partial A^{p-1,q}}$$ $$H^{p,q}_{\bar\partial}=\frac{\ker\bar\partial:A^{p,q}\to A^{p,q+1}}{\bar\partial A^{p,q-1}}$$ But for some reason I only ever see people discussing the $H_{\bar\partial}^{p,q}$, i.e. Dolbeaut cohomology. What makes this more interesting the the $H_\partial^{p,q}$ groups?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You should really write $A^{p,q}(X)$, $H^{p,q}_{\bar{\partial}}(X)$, etc. $\endgroup$ – Michael Albanese Apr 22 '16 at 23:58
11
$\begingroup$

Note that $H^{0,0}_{\bar{\partial}}(X) = \ker\bar{\partial} : A^{0, 0}(X) \to A^{0, 1}(X)$ is precisely the collection of holomorphic functions on $X$ which, historically, were of more interest than anti-holomorphic functions on $X$ which is given by $H^{0,0}_{\partial}(X) = \ker\partial : A^{0,0}(X) \to A^{1,0}(X)$.

Moreover, Dolbeault cohomology $H^{p,q}_{\bar{\partial}}(X)$ determines $H^{p,q}_{\partial}(X)$ and vice versa. More precisely, the maps

\begin{align*} \psi : H^{p,q}_{\bar{\partial}}(X) &\to H^{q,p}_{\partial}(X)\\ [\alpha] &\mapsto [\bar{\alpha}] \end{align*}

and

\begin{align*} \varphi : H^{q,p}_{\partial}(X) &\to H^{p,q}_{\bar{\partial}}(X)\\ [\beta] &\mapsto [\bar{\beta}] \end{align*}

are well-defined and are inverses of one another. Therefore $H^{p,q}_{\bar{\partial}}(X) \cong H^{q,p}_{\partial}(X)$.

If $X$ is compact, then Hodge Theory tells us that $H^{p,q}_{\bar{\partial}}(X) \cong \ker\Delta_{\bar{\partial}} : A^{p,q}(X) \to A^{p,q}(X)$ and $H^{p,q}_{\partial}(X) \cong \ker\Delta_{\partial} : A^{p,q}(X) \to A^{p,q}(X)$ where $\Delta_{\bar{\partial}}$ and $\Delta_{\partial}$ are the holomorphic and anti-holomorphic Laplacians respectively. If $X$ is also Kähler, then $\Delta_{\bar{\partial}} = \Delta_{\partial}$ so we see that

\begin{align*} H^{p,q}_{\bar{\partial}}(X) &\cong \ker\Delta_{\bar{\partial}} : A^{p,q}(X) \to A^{p,q}(X)\\ &= \ker\Delta_{\partial} : A^{p,q}(X) \to A^{p,q}(X)\\ &\cong H^{p,q}_{\partial}(X). \end{align*}

Combining these isomorphisms with the ones above, we see that $H^{p,q}_{\bar{\partial}}(X) \cong H^{q,p}_{\bar{\partial}}(X)$ so the Hodge numbers satisfy $h^{p,q} = h^{q,p}$. Therefore the odd Betti numbers of a compact Kähler manifold are even.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
12
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand{\dd}{\partial}$To supplement the existing (excellent) answers: If $E \to M$ is a holomorphic vector bundle, the transition functions of $E$ are "constant with respect to $\bar{\dd}$", so there's a natural notion of $E$-valued Dolbeault cohomology $H_{\bar{\dd}}^{p,q}(M, E)$. Unless the transition functions of $E$ are constant, however, there is no corresponding notion of $H_{\dd}^{p,q}(M, E)$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Very good point I'd never noticed before! $\endgroup$ – user98602 Apr 22 '16 at 21:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ But we could just as easily consider anti-holomorphic vector bundles could we not? $\endgroup$ – Michael Albanese Apr 22 '16 at 23:27
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @MichaelAlbanese: There is no such thing. :) A composition of anti-holomorphic maps isn't anti-holomorphic, so there's no "anti-holomorphic pseudo-group". $\endgroup$ – Andrew D. Hwang Apr 23 '16 at 1:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So the 'anti-holomorphic tangent space' $T^{0,1}M$ is not an anti-holomorphic vector bundle. That's annoying. $\endgroup$ – Michael Albanese Apr 23 '16 at 15:16
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelAlbanese: Or, if you prefer, being holomorphic is an incredibly rich, chiral property, whose "mirror image" is (surprisingly!) undistinguished from the "merely smooth". ;) $\endgroup$ – Andrew D. Hwang Apr 23 '16 at 16:37
11
$\begingroup$

$H^{p,q}_{\partial}$ is canonically isomorphic to $H^{q,p}_{\bar \partial}$ via complex conjugation.

As for why one would prefer the latter group over the former, $H_{\bar \partial}^{p,0}$ is the set of holomorphic $p$-forms, and that's a more natural object than the antiholomorphic $q$-forms ($H_{\partial}^{0,q}$).

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.