1
$\begingroup$

I am reading a paper that makes the following comment:

Let $(V,\nabla^V,h^v)$ be a vector bundle with a flat connection $\nabla^V$ and metric $h^V$. Then we can form the twisted de Rham complex $\Omega(M,V)$. We consider the sheaf $\mathcal{V}$ of parallel sections of $(V,\nabla^V)$. The de Rham isomorphism relates the sheaf cohomology of $\mathcal{V}$ to the cohomology of the twisted de Rham complex: $H^*(M,\mathcal{V}) = H^*(\Omega(M,V))$.

The notation previously established in the paper is $\Omega(M,V) := \bigoplus_k \Omega^k(M,V)$, with $\Omega^k(M,V) := \Gamma(\Lambda^k T^*M\otimes V)$.

I see that this is a generalization of the regular de Rham isomorphism (taking $V$ to be the trivial real line bundle). However, I am unsure why the relevant sheaf here is the sheaf of parallel sections. Is there an intuitive reason why parallel sections of a flat vector bundle are the right objects to be thinking about?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

After discussing with someone, I came to a satisfactory answer. The key fact is that the sheaf of parallel sections is a locally constant sheaf. This can be seen by trivializing $V$ in a neighborhood $U \subset M$. Then the connection determines a horizontal distribution of $V$ over $U$ (i.e. a subspace $H_x \subset V_x$ for each $x \in U$) and a parallel section is a vector valued function on $U$ whose values lie in $H_x$ for each $x$. The stalks at each $x\in U$ are then clearly all the same.

At a higher level, $\mathcal V$ and $(V,\nabla^V)$ each determine each other (see local system). Therefore it is natural to ask if their respective cohomology theories coincide.

$\endgroup$

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.