4
$\begingroup$

Let $M$ be a complex manifold of dimension $n$. It means that $M$ is a real smooth smooth manifold of dimension $2n$. Suppose that the real tangent bundle of $M$ has a local basis: $$\left\{\frac{\partial }{\partial x_1},\ldots,\frac{\partial}{\partial x_n},\frac{\partial }{\partial y_1},\ldots,\frac{\partial}{\partial y_n}\right\}$$ and the real cotangent bundle has local basis $$\left\{dx_1,\ldots,dx_n,dy_1,\ldots dy_n\right\}$$

Then we put $$\frac{\partial}{\partial z_j}:=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial }{\partial x_j}-i \frac{\partial }{\partial y_j}\right)$$ $$\frac{\partial}{\partial \bar z_j}:=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial }{\partial x_j}+i \frac{\partial }{\partial y_j}\right)$$ $$dz_j:=dx_j+idy_j$$ $$d\bar z_j:=dx_j-idy_j$$

Now consider the complexified cotangent bundle $(T^\ast M)_{\mathbb C}$, it has a decomposition: $$(T^\ast M)_\mathbb C:=T^\ast M^{1,0}\oplus T^\ast M^{0.1}$$

where

$$T^\ast M^{(1,0)}=\left<dz_j:j=1,\ldots n\right>$$

$$T^\ast M^{(1,0)}=\left<d\bar z_j:j=1,\ldots n\right>\,.$$

At this point one defines the algebra of differential $(p,q)$-forms on $M$ as: $$\bigwedge^{p,q}M:=\bigwedge^{p}T^\ast M^{1,0}\otimes \bigwedge^{q}T^\ast M^{0,1}$$

So locally any $(p,q)$-differential form can be written as

$$\omega=\sum_{i_1<\ldots<i_p} \alpha_{i_1,\ldots,i_p}dz_{i_1}\wedge\ldots\wedge dz_{i_p}\otimes \sum_{j_1<\ldots<j_q}\beta_{i_1,\ldots,i_q}d\bar z_{j_1}\wedge\ldots\wedge d\bar z_{j_q}\,.$$

So why in every textbook a $(p,q)$-dffierential form is written simply as: $$\omega=\sum \alpha_{i_1,\ldots,i_p}dz_{i_1}\wedge\ldots\wedge dz_{i_p}\wedge d\bar z_{j_1}\wedge\ldots\wedge d\bar z_{j_q}\;\;?$$ Where is the tensor product?

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

If $V$ and $W$ are complex vector spaces, then you have canonical isomorphisms $$ \bigoplus_{j+k=m} \bigwedge^j V \otimes \bigwedge^k W \to \bigwedge^m V \oplus W $$ given on each direct summand $\wedge^j V \otimes \wedge^k W$ with $j+k=m$ by $$ (v_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge v_j) \otimes (w_1 \wedge \cdots w_k) \mapsto v_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge v_j \wedge w_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge w_k. $$ Applied fibrewise in your case, this gives isomorphisms of complex vector bundles $$ \bigoplus_{p+q=m} \bigwedge^p T^\ast M^{(1,0)} \otimes \bigwedge^q T^\ast M^{(0,1)} \to \bigwedge^m T^\ast M_{\mathbb{C}}; $$ it's completely standard (and generally convenient) to identify $$ \bigwedge^{p,q} T^\ast M := \bigwedge^p T^\ast M^{(1,0)} \otimes \bigwedge^q T^\ast M^{(0,1)} $$ with its image in $\wedge^{p+q}(TM)_{\mathbb{C}}$ under this map, which is what you're seeing whenever textbooks leave out the tensor product signs you're asking about.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you! I was aware of the isomorphism as a "given result". I didn't know the map on each summand... Now it is all clear. $\endgroup$ – manifold Sep 21 '16 at 21:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Note that you have to skew-symmetrize the tensor product to get something that's totally skew-symmetric. The tensor product itself is not. $\endgroup$ – Ted Shifrin Sep 23 '16 at 1:01
  • $\begingroup$ @ted shifrin could you expand a little bit your comment? $\endgroup$ – manifold Sep 24 '16 at 19:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @manifold: For example, consider a form of type $(1,1)$ on $\Bbb C$, for simplicity. You wanted to write it as $\alpha dz\otimes d\bar z$; although this is a $2$-tensor, it is not a $2$-form, because it is not anti-symmetric. You either have to skew-symmetrize, writing instead $\alpha (dz\otimes d\bar z + d\bar z\otimes dz)$ or have to pass to the quotient of the tensor algebra that gives you the exterior algebra, "identifying" $dz\otimes d\bar z$ to $dz\wedge d\bar z$. But, again, as it stands, it is not a $2$-form. As Branimir wrote, this identification is "taken for granted." $\endgroup$ – Ted Shifrin Sep 24 '16 at 19:51
  • $\begingroup$ ok so basically if we have $(v_1\wedge\ldots\wedge v_p)\otimes (w_1\wedge\ldots\wedge w_q)\in \bigwedge^p V\otimes\bigwedge^q W$ I pass to the quotient, and I construct the usual vector space $\bigwedge^p V\wedge\bigwedge^q W$. $\endgroup$ – manifold Sep 24 '16 at 19:55

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.