Let $(M,g)$ be a (not-necessarily compact) oriented, connected Riemannian manifold. Lets consider the pairing

$$\Omega^{k}(M)\times\Omega^{d-k}_{c}(M)\to\mathbb{R}, (\alpha,\beta)\mapsto\int_{M}\alpha\wedge\beta$$

It is well-known that this pairing induces a well-defined pairing on cohomology

$$H^{k}(M)\times H^{d-k}_{c}(M)\to\mathbb{R}, ([\alpha],[\beta])\mapsto\int_{M}\alpha\wedge\beta\quad\quad\quad (\ast)$$

Poincaré duality states that this pairing is non-degenerate (in both entries I suppose (?)). Now, my question is, what are the precise assumption for this to hold?

  1. In the book Manifolds and Differential Geometry by J. M. Lee, only non-degenaracy in the first entry is proven, i.e. that ($\ast$) viewed as a map $H^{k}(M)\to (H^{d-k}_{c}(M))^{\ast}$ is an isomorphism provided $(M,g)$ admits a finite good cover.
  2. On the other hand, in Connections, Curvature, and Cohomology 1 by W. Grueb, it is mentioned that the finite good cover assumption is actually only needed for the other side, i.e. to show that ($\ast$) viewed as a map $H^{d-k}_{c}(M)\to (H^{k}(M))^{\ast}$ is an isomorphism...

Does anyone know the precise statement or has some idea where to find it?


1 Answer 1


I found an answer myself:

Let us consider the pairing

$$\mathrm{PD}(\cdot,\cdot):H^{k}(M)\times H^{d-k}_{c}(M)\to\mathbb{R}$$

defined by


Now, the statement of Poincaré duality is the following:

If $(M,g)$ admits a finite good cover, then $\mathrm{PD}$ is (strongly) non-degenerate in both entries, i.e. both maps $[\alpha]\mapsto ([\beta]\mapsto\mathrm{PD}([\alpha],[\beta]))$ and $[\beta]\mapsto ([\alpha]\mapsto\mathrm{PD}([\alpha],[\beta]))$ are isomorphisms, i.e. $H^{k}(M)\cong (H_{c}^{d-k}(M))^{\ast}$ and $H_{c}^{d-k}(M)=(H^{k}(M))^{\ast}$

Now, it turns out, that without the finite good cover assumption most of this remains true:

  • Without the finite good cover assumption, $\mathrm{PD}$ is always at least weakly non-degenerate in both entries, i.e. the maps $[\alpha]\mapsto ([\beta]\mapsto\mathrm{PD}([\alpha],[\beta]))$ and $[\beta]\mapsto ([\alpha]\mapsto\mathrm{PD}([\alpha],[\beta]))$ are injective.
  • Furthermore, the first map, is actually still surjective, i.e. we always get an isomorphism $H^{k}(M)\cong (H_{c}^{d-k}(M))^{\ast}$. However, what fails in general without the finite good cover assumption is the surjectivity of the second map, i.e. in general it won't be true that also $H_{c}^{d-k}(M)\cong (H^{k}(M))^{\ast}$.


For the proof that $H^{k}(M)\cong (H_{c}^{d-k}(M))^{\ast}$ without the finite good cover assumption:

  • W. Greub, S. Halperin, and R. Vanstone. Connections, Curvature and Cohomology. Volume 1. Academic Press, New York, 1972.

For a discussion of why surjectivity of the second map fails without this assumption and hence the failure of $H_{c}^{d-k}(M)\cong(H^{k}(M))^{\ast}$, see:

  • R. Bott and L. W. Tu. Differential Forms in Algebraic Topology. Springer, New York, 1982.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .